{"id":6751,"date":"2022-07-24T17:52:04","date_gmt":"2022-07-24T17:52:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fieldstonnews.com\/home\/?p=6751"},"modified":"2022-07-24T17:52:05","modified_gmt":"2022-07-24T17:52:05","slug":"the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade-and-planned-parenthood-v-casey-in-ruling-decision-on-dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization%ef%bf%bc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fieldstonnews.com\/home\/2022\/07\/the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade-and-planned-parenthood-v-casey-in-ruling-decision-on-dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization%ef%bf%bc\/","title":{"rendered":"The Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in Ruling Decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization\ufffc"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

We are living in the maelstrom created by Dobbs<\/em>; we are living in the gutting of Roe<\/em>. On June 24, at approximately 10am, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade<\/em>\u2014a fifty-year precedent that granted the constitutional right to an abortion. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a 6-3 decision, the court upheld Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban that Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization hoped would be deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh voted in favor of Roe<\/em>\u2019s overturn, while Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer and Chief Justice John Roberts voted against the decision; however, Roberts voted alongside his conservative colleagues in favor of upholding Mississippi\u2019s abortion law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After Alito\u2019s February draft opinion was leaked by POLITICO in May, the court\u2019s decision was anticipated. In the draft opinion, Alito wrote that \u201cRoe was egregiously wrong from the start.\u201d He repeatedly stated that because abortion rights were not explicitly stated in the original constitution, that abortion could not be protected under the 14th amendment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the majority opinion released on June 24\u2014written by Justice Alito\u2014the court states that \u201cWe hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely\u2014the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The opinion of the court states that the petitioners’ (Mississippi and their Gestational Age Act) defense was that Roe <\/em>and Casey<\/em> were ruled incorrectly and that \u201cthe Act is constitutional because it satisfies rational-basis review.\u201d The respondents, (Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization) argued that upholding the Act would be the same as overruling Roe<\/em> and Casey<\/em>. Alito claims that the respondents told the Court that half measures are not an option and that the Court \u201cmust either reaffirm or overrule Roe<\/em> and Casey.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the beginning of his opinion, Alito writes that the Court had to consider whether the Constitution grants the right to an abortion. The opinion lays out three steps to address the question. First, the Court must explain the standard used to determine which rights the Fourteenth Amendment protects. Then, the Court is to examine whether the right is rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions. Lastly, the Court considers if the right to an abortion is part of a broader right upheld by other precedents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Alito strongly disagrees with the Court\u2019s previous understanding that although the Constitution does not mention abortion, the Court decided that the Constitution granted a broad right to it. He calls the Court\u2019s 1973 \u201csurvey of history\u2026 constitutionally irrelevant\u201d and \u201cplainly incorrect.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The opinion stresses that abortion used to be a crime in every state. Going back to the common law, Alito highlights that abortion was criminal in certain stages of pregnancy and that it was deemed unlawful through all trimesters. He reiterates that American law followed the common law until the 1800s. Therefore, in the majority\u2019s opinion, \u201cRoe<\/em> either ignored or misstated this history, and Casey<\/em> declined to reconsider Roe<\/em>\u2019s faulty historical analysis. It is therefore important to set the record straight.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Alito quotes Washington v. Glucksberg<\/em> that rights that are not mentioned in the constitution must be \u201cdeeply rooted in the Nation\u2019s history and tradition,\u201d to which the court has decided \u201cabortion does not fall within this category.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Alito references that in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa v. Casey<\/em>, the opinion did not \u201cendorse Roe<\/em>\u2019s reasoning,\u201d but that the Court decided that stare decisis<\/em>\u2014to stand by precedents\u2014had to be followed. He found the decision hypocritical, as he claims that the decision in Casey<\/em> overruled multiple abortion decisions. Alito states that the decision \u201cthrew out Roe<\/em>\u2019s trimester scheme\u201d and replaced it with forbidding states to adopt regulations that put \u201can undue burden\u201d on the right to an abortion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The opinion goes so far as to state that stare decisis<\/em> \u201cdoes not compel unending adherence to Roe<\/em>\u2019s abuse of judicial authority.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Alito calls the Casey<\/em> decision the Court\u2019s settlement of whether the constitution grants the right to an abortion. He claims that Casey<\/em> failed in this regard, because \u201cAmericans continue to hold passionate and widely divergent views on abortion, and state legislators have acted accordingly.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion. \u201cFor half a century,\u201d they write, \u201cRoe v. Wade\u2026 <\/em>and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. V. Casey<\/em>\u2026 have protected the liberty and equality of women.\u201d They proclaim that \u201cCasey<\/em> is a precedent about precedent. It reviewed the same arguments made here in support of overruling Roe, and it found that doing so was not warranted. The Court reverses course today for one reason and one reason only: because the composition of this Court has changed.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They highlight that the court previously recognized that states had legitimate interests in protecting fetal life, thus the Court \u201cstruck a balance,\u201d and decided that States could ban abortions after fetal viability but must provide exceptions to safeguard a woman\u2019s life or health. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cToday, the Court discards that balance,\u201d they state. \u201cFrom the very moment of fertilization, a woman has no rights to speak of.\u201d The dissenters worry for low-income Americans who cannot afford to cross state lines for an abortion. They recognize that people \u201cof means\u201d will be able to receive abortions, but that others \u201cwill not be so fortunate.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The dissent seethes anger and exasperation with the majority\u2019s decision. \u201cTo the majority, \u2018balance\u2019 is a dirty word.\u201d The justices challenge the majority\u2019s decision that states can now ban abortion from as early as conception, because the majority disagrees that \u201cforced childbirth at all implicates a woman\u2019s rights to equality and freedom.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cMost threatening of all,\u201d they express, \u201cno language in today\u2019s decision stops the Federal Government from prohibiting abortions nationwide, once again from the moment of conception and without exceptions for rape or incest.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a harrowing statement, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer warn that \u201cThe Constitution will, today\u2019s majority holds, provide no shield, despite its guarantees of liberty and equality for all. And no one should be confident that this majority is done with its work.\u201d The dissenters do not believe the majority when they say that the Court\u2019s decision does not cast doubt on past precedents. \u201cEither the mass of the majority\u2019s opinion is hypocrisy, or additional constitutional rights are under threat. It is one or the other.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n


At the end of the dissent, Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer affirm that \u201cIn overruling Roe<\/em> and Case<\/em>, this court betrays its guiding principles.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWith sorrow,\u201d they conclude, for this Court, but more for the many millions of American women\u2026 we dissent.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Justice Thomas\u2019 concurring opinion, he asserts that he joined the majority opinion because it \u201ccorrectly holds that there is no constitutional right to abortion.\u201d Despite Alito\u2019s repeated assurance that other Court precedents are unaffected by this decision, in his concurrence, Thomas urges the Court to revoke contraception, same-sex intimacy, and same-sex-marriage rights. \u201cIn future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court\u2019s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold<\/em>, Lawrence<\/em>, and Obergefell<\/em>. Because any substantive due process decision is \u2018demonstrably erroneous,\u2019\u201d he writes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The political backlash from Democrats was swift and harsh. President Biden released a statement two hours after the overturn. He declared that \u201cit\u2019s not hyperbole to suggest a very solemn moment.\u201d Biden reaffirmed his support for reproductive rights with his belief that Roe v. Wade<\/em> \u201cwas the correct decision as a matter of constitutional law,\u201d and his dissatisfaction with the Court. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Biden blames former President Donald Trump\u2019s impact on the Court\u2019s makeup, \u201cIt was three justices named by one President \u2014 Donald Trump \u2014 who were the core of today\u2019s decision to upend the scales of justice and eliminate a fundamental right for women in this country.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The President called for voters to run to the polls in the fall. He emphasized that the people must elect senators and representatives that will codify abortion rights into federal law. He reiterates that \u201cThis fall, Roe is on the ballot. Personal freedoms are on the ballot. The right to privacy, liberty, equality, they\u2019re all on the ballot.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi held a press conference the morning of the overturn. \u201cToday the Republican-controlled courts achieve their dark, extreme goal of repealing a woman’s right to make their own health decisions,\u201d she said. \u201cWhat this means to women is such an insult,\u201d she continued, \u201cIt\u2019s a slap in the face to women about using their own judgment to make their own decisions about their reproductive freedom.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Fieldston community was devastated but not surprised when the decision was released. Students spread their rage and feelings through multiple social media platforms, while posting news headlines, their personal writing, resources, and offering support for their peers.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hannah Reign (VI) writes, \u201cI\u2019ve become desensitized to such impactful legislative change because I cannot fathom the endless repercussions.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

They want to remind the community that everyone is affected by the overturn, \u201cwhether you have a working uterus or not, it will affect your sisters, your daughters, your friends. People are dying.\u201d Reign underlines that the overturn does not only affect cis women, \u201cI\u2019m also so angry that only women are being represented yet they aren\u2019t the only ones with working uteruses.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reign explains that they are discontent with the lack of support from men. \u201cWhile posting The New York Times headline is unhelpful, if we\u2019re going to keep doing this, I should see some men participating as well,\u201d they argued.  \u201cWhy are guns more protected than people?\u201d They ask. \u201cIt\u2019s complete hypocrisy.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dylan Gorman (VI) expresses that she is \u201chonestly terrified for the future and what is in store. Not only for abortion rights as a whole, but for gay marriage, and equal access to contraceptives.\u201d She cannot understand how someone has more \u201crights to obtain a semi-automatic rifle to kill 21 people in Uvalde, Texas, and not have the right to obtain an abortion.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Eliza Stulman (VI) posted on social media with an anecdote about her mom. She remembered a hat her mother owns, and when she asked about it, her mother \u201cexplained what 1973 means to her and hundreds of millions of people across the country.\u201d Stulman solemnly reflects that \u201cAfter today\u2019s events, my mom will no longer be able to wear this hat with pride, but in sorrow.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stulman tries to balance her lack of hope and pessimism, but it is a fight that she is losing. \u201cI try not to be pessimistic, but I am scared, I am angry, and I am deeply concerned about the number of women who will no longer have access to a safe abortion.\u201d She wants to believe that voting in new senators and representatives will restore reproductive rights, but she cannot. \u201cI want to tell everyone to take the streets and protest, but politicians already know we\u2019re angry, and in all honesty, it will not change much.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When Talia Gold (V) saw the notifications on her phone, she said she was shaking. \u201cI\u2019m so disgusted.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Francesca Grossberg (VI) is struggling to grapple with and understand the severity of the news. \u201cI never thought this right would be taken away in my lifetime,\u201d she says. Grossberg recognizes the immense privilege she has living in New York\u2014a state that protects abortion. \u201cMy access to reproductive healthcare is not at risk. This is not the case for those who live in states that have banned abortion and\/or don\u2019t have the resources to leave that state.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cOnce again, the government has made a decision that exacerbates inequality and politicizes science,\u201d Grossberg maintains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Planned Parenthood, an abortion is completely illegal and inaccessible in the following states: Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, South Dakota, and Missouri. Abortions in the following states remain legal but severely restricted: Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, West Virginia and Louisiana. Abortions are legal but restricted in the following states: Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Idaho and Arizona.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Abortion remains legal and mostly accessible in Virginia, Minnesota, and Colorado. Lastly, abortions are legal and accessible in the following states: Maine, New York, New Jersey, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Delaware, Maryland, Connecticut, Illinois, New Mexico, Nevada, California, Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Hawaii and Montana. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland released a statement that called the Court\u2019s decision \u201ca devastating blow,\u201d and assured Americans that the Justice Department disagrees with the overturn. He vowed that the Justice Department will protect healthcare providers and individuals seeking reproductive healthcare in states where the procedure remains legal. \u201cFederal agencies may continue to provide reproductive health services to the extent authorized by federal law,\u201d Garland states.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Garland recognized the Food and Drug Administration\u2019s recent approval of Mifepristone\u2014a pill used to cause abortions in the early stages of pregnancy\u2014and announced that states are not permitted to ban the medication. He supports and urges Congress to codify abortion rights into federal law. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The House of Representatives is attempting to codify the constitutional rights that Justice Thomas targeted in his concurring opinion. On July 21, 2022, the House passed a bill that ensures the right to contraception, to protect the right targeted by the Supreme Court. The bill passed 228 to 195, with eight Republicans aligning themselves with Democrats. However, the bill is almost guaranteed to fail in the Senate. Days earlier on July 19, the House voted to codify same-sex marriage into federal law. The bill garnered much more Republican support, passing with a 267 to 157 vote. Its fate in the Senate is unclear. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Fieldston community is waiting anxiously to see what the Court will do next, and whether Congress will follow through in protecting the fundamental rights of Americans.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

(This is a part of a series of articles)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court\u2019s Potential Overturn of Roe v. Wade<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Roe v. Wade: A Conversation with Lynn Livingston<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

We are living in the maelstrom created by Dobbs; we are living in the gutting of Roe. On June 24, at approximately 10am, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade\u2014a fifty-year precedent that granted the constitutional right to an abortion.  In a 6-3 decision, the court upheld Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban that Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization hoped would be deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.  Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Amy<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":295,"featured_media":6752,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[318,320],"tags":[],"coauthors":[418],"class_list":["post-6751","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","category-politics"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/fieldstonnews.com\/home\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/download-22.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fieldstonnews.com\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6751","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fieldstonnews.com\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fieldstonnews.com\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fieldstonnews.com\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/295"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fieldstonnews.com\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6751"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fieldstonnews.com\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6751\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6753,"href":"https:\/\/fieldstonnews.com\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6751\/revisions\/6753"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fieldstonnews.com\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6752"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fieldstonnews.com\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6751"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fieldstonnews.com\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6751"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fieldstonnews.com\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6751"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fieldstonnews.com\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=6751"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}