Monday Morning Dobbs in America
After a full weekend of sound and fury over the Friday release of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v Wade, maybe this is a good time to take stock of where we are actually at on the law side of things outside the news media and online cacophony.
The Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade on Friday sets off a cascade of antiabortion legislation that will affect roughly half the country.
Without the landmark precedent in place, access to abortion began to change quickly. First, 13 states with “trigger bans,” designed to take effect if Roe were struck down, will prohibit abortion within 30 days. At least eight states banned the procedure the day the ruling was released. Several others with antiabortion laws blocked by the courts are expected to act, with lawmakers moving to activate their dormant legislation. A handful of states also have pre-Roe abortion bans that could be reactivated, and others moved immediately to introduce new legislation.
In 20 states and the District of Columbia, abortion has been legal and is likely to be protected.
On Friday, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) said he will seek an abortion ban after 15 weeks of pregnancy. While most state legislatures have adjourned for the year, some governors have expressed an interest in convening special sessions to pass additional antiabortion legislation — or to remove antiabortion laws already on the books. Abortion access in other states will depend on the midterm elections.
There are fancy charts and such but the long story short is this: Even subdividing the states up the way WaPo has, there is still variations state to state. The first group of “trigger law” states are grouped together as already having abortion restrictions in affect, but each work a little differently. Utah, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Kentucky, Missouri, and South Dakota All of them have some exceptions for life of the mother, but there are variances in that criteria, and in cases of rape, incest, and other situations. Other states like Idaho, Wyoming, North Dakota, Tennessee, and Mississippi have 30 day “go in effect” dates for their trigger laws.
From there it gets complicated. Five states (AL, GA, IA, and OH) have current court injunctions or strike downs for recent legislation, which will now be re-litigated. West Virginia never re-legislated it’s ban that was in place before Roe v Wade but has recently passed a constitutional amendment all but banning abortion. Then there is a slew of states that don’t have specific legislation but after Dobbs and in a mid-term year it’s a safe bet most of those legislative bodies will be dealing with the issue. On the other half of ledger, 18 states have passed legislation protecting abortion and with states like California, the Pacific Northwest, and New England solidly blue a mixture of legislation, state court decisions, and state constitutional moves will probably be furthering those protections.
The Washington Post has a good, color-coded ledger of which states are where, doing what, and probably will do that you can read here.
The short version: After nearly 50 years of debate since Roe V Wade, Dobbs overturning it isn’t the end of the debate. More likely, we are all at the middle of the beginning, and will be doing this for another 50 years.
Gird your loins.
California and Vermont are putting forward ballot initiatives in the fall which are meant to enshrine abortion as a constitutional right in their respective state constitutions. California’s proposed amendment explicitly mentions abortion. Vermont’s proposed amendment does not but discusses reproductive freedom/autonomy.Report
Ben Franklin’s math textbook abortion recipe: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/05/ben-franklin-american-instructor-textbook-abortion-recipe.htmlReport
The real question is how effective is that recipe?Report
I am not advocating for anyone to try but I think the point of the article is that abortion is not some freak, recent addition to American life.Report
Its one poll, but still:
https://twitter.com/billscher/status/1541385731972669443
Congressional generic ballot, Marist
April
Republican 47%
Democratic 44%
June
Democratic 48%
Republican 41%
A 10-point swing to the Democrats post-DobbsReport
What has to happen now is democrats have to take Thomas’s hunting list and make it real as a campaign issue. Not by obscure court case names but actual real world situations. I doubt they will have the stomach for it.Report
American University School of Law launched an investigation into 8 students for a private chat criticizing the Dobbs decision because it apparently threatened the “sincere religious beliefs” of a Greek Orthodox, “moderate” conservative Republican: https://www.thefire.org/american-university-launches-bogus-harassment-investigation-into-students-who-criticized-leaked-supreme-court-abortion-ruling-in-private-group-chat/Report
The Dobbs world could be interesting. I wouldn’t be surprised to see more geographic sorting take place. The “blue and red” state thing was always mostly myth, or a misunderstanding of the partisan split between urban and rural areas. Rural areas tend to have much lower mobility, but if we started to see more moderate/conservative cities and liberal cities, that could make these state colors more permanent. Of course, all but the worst candidates can get 40% of the vote if they’re in the two main parties, and the worst candidates can lose even in a strongly one-party state. I mean, not DC, which is the purest example of all-urban no-rural, but anywhere else.
I actually think a stronger blue and red geographic divide could alleviate some of our national tensions, if there are more rulings like Dobbs that return control to the states.Report
How do we stay one nation under God with liberty and justice for all if a group of states gets to take liberty from people on the basis of gender or sexual activity or race? Because that’s what you (and Justice Thomas) are talking about – one group of states where abortion is safe and legal, one where it’s not. One group where you can get contraception and one where you can’t. One group where gay marriage and gay sex are legal and one where it’s not.
Is that what you really want?Report
I want one where abortion is illegal and states have the right to determine their laws. Given the moral climate, I’ll settle for one where states have the right to determine their laws including on abortion. I don’t want everything Thomas wants (probably), and I don’t think Thomas wants to forbid contraception, but neither does he accept the reasoning in the Griswold decision. In those last two things I agree.
I think it may be easier for us to stay one nation if the states have greater independence. I say this for a bunch of reasons, including that that was the original intent. The Founders surveyed history and didn’t see any large democracies. They wanted a coalition of small democracies who worked together to protect the coalition.Report
Much of what Red America is doing is not working to protect the coalition. It’s about keeping power to a certain group and screwing everything else. Many of those states aren’t democracies any more either, what with trigger laws creating total bans in states that still poll as wanting some safe legal abortion access.Report
And you are free to believe that and vote according to your beliefs. You can move to a state where people think more like you, and you can look down on the thinking of people in other states. I think it would be even better if the people you voted for in more local elections had a stronger say in the laws you’re required to follow.Report
Very interesting to have people basically talk like it’s 1850 or 1953.Report
That you say you “would settle”” for allowing blue states to allow abortion gives the game away.
What if you didn’t have to settle, if Republicans had the power to impose a ban by force?
We never see Republicans respect other people’s rights voluntarily. The moment they get the power to impose their views, they take it.Report
I’m not giving anything away. I’m clear about my beliefs. I’m sure you have beliefs that you can accept some variation from for the sake of democracy. I mean, I hope so. A person would go crazy if they weren’t able to accept some differences from their positions.Report
But, the moment Republicans have the trifecta and pass a nationwide ban you’d support it.
The “settling” is entirely tactical not principled.Report
There are a lot of issues I don’t require to be resolved at the federal level. If states want to follow their voters’ desires, that’s fine by me except where life or liberty are threatened. I consider abortion to be a matter of life, so it’s in a special category for me.
As a matter of political reality, I don’t believe that the country would support a broad restriction on abortion. I don’t believe that McConnell would support legislation for a broad ban, although I think he may submit it for the spectacle. But I see the pro-life movement right now as happy that they’re finally allowed to make gains. They’ve been making the hearts-and-minds gains for decades, but not able to influence meaningful legislation.
People compare abortion to gun rights, and I think the comparison is apt in one way: both sides may want everything, but they’re willing to jostle in the middle because they know they don’t have a majority.Report
” A person would go crazy if they weren’t able to accept some differences from their positions.”
The thing is, Chip can’t accept differences from his position, and he honestly believes that nobody else can either.Report
Yeah if there’s one thing that distinguishes Republicans, its their embrace of diversity and tolerance and accepting of other peoples’ choices.Report
I read an interesting essay on trust and micro-defections and macro-cooperation. It got me thinkin’.
Report
I’ve found that Chip’s comments increasingly sound like conspiracy theory, where every item is intrinsically linked to all the others, because the bad guys are behind them all. That would make everything into one position. I don’t know if that’s how he really thinks though.Report
The rest of us are visiting.Report
Rural areas tend to have much lower mobility…
A few years ago I was playing with the county-to-county migration data that the IRS made available. The two dominant patterns that I saw were movement between metro areas and (smaller and much more intrastate) movement from rural to metro.Report
I could believe that. There probably isn’t a lot of interstate movement from rural to rural. If there were, we would see geographic sorting much sooner.Report
Rural population is <20% of the total. It's getting to be a numerical blip.Report
Which is why they support such radical policies and politicians. It’s essentially a big temper tantrum with generational consequences.Report
I do not find it unsurprising that radical, and in particular radical reactionary politics are common in rural areas, because rural areas do tend to get royally fished — in health care, education, infrastructure, etc. — by mainstream politicians from both major parties.
I will say that, within the American left, there’s a small but vocal strain of socialism advocating for increased support for rural communities (largely influenced by Freire and other Latin American socialists), but they don’t have much influence in the larger left groups, which are dominated mostly by urban, education, middle class people who don’t pay much attention to rural issues, so a radical rural left to counter the influence of the radical right is unlikely to emerge anytime soon.
Aside from internet access, Democratic and Republican rural politics are mostly outdated or focused largely on cultural issues, so in other words., not actually helping anyone.Report
A lot of people I know who never discuss politics are very angry at this decision. I don’t think the school prayer decision from today is going to help.Report
Again, unless democrats can make the link to voting for republicans clear -‘and make it stick for the months until the general this won’t be the salve we might think it is.Report
I think they can. I generally trust politicians to state what they think they need to state on an issue for their jurisdiction.Report
If there is a pony in all this manure, it’s that the right-wing can’t resist ripping off the mask and screaming the quiet parts.
While the reasonable Republicans are blandly assuring us of their good intentions, we always can rely on the actual Republicans to go on Twitter to issue spittle flecked pronouncements about what they really want.Report
Many political normies seem genuinely shocked at the Dobbs decision. They should be dismayed at the decision, it is a very bad decision but it seems to come to surprise to most people even though the early draft of the decision was leaked. The non-reactionary majority just seems flat-footed. This is one way the extremists can win power. They catch people off guard even when announcing their moves in advance because most people really don’t believe that somebody can want such crazy things.Report
Some of that non- reactionary majority didn’t react to trump getting elected either.Report
It will be interesting to see how this plays out:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/dozens-elected-prosecutors-say-will-refuse-prosecute-abortion-care-rcna35305?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR00uLbFRJrw4uOiPabx9JNoVy40OjW8DdNDwcpAV4QxSAvUQRE9IGwrEvEReport
I believe Louisiana (or another state) was trying to add an amendment to their law that would push the prosecution up to the state/AG if local prosecutors refused to prosecute. I assume other states will try to do that as well. I am not a lawyer, so I have no idea how kosher that is from a legal standpoint, though the Dobbs ruling is the latest in an increasingly long line of decisions showing that legal standards are, er, flexible.Report
Overlooked, is that the Congressional Republicans are supporting a ban on all abortions from the moment of conception.
https://twitter.com/ashtonpittman/status/1541472663905910787
What’s noteworthy about this is that such a law is literally impossible to enforce. The moment of conception can’t be observed or recorded, but only estimated after the fact. And as Cheryl Rofer over at LGM notes, there is no way to determine the difference fertilized egg that fails to develop into a healthy fetus and an abortion.
But what the law invites, and makes legitimate, is a draconian police state with sweeping surveillance power. Under the power granted to them by this law, any prosecutor or police department can investigate any woman on the most flimsy of pretexts that she might have conceived and induced an abortion.
The end result is that all women of childbearing age are at all times subject to arbitrary and capricious state punishment. Which, based on the sum total of their party’s stance, seems like the logical desired goal.Report
What was is Steve Bannon used to say about flooding the playing field with sh!t so your opponent becomes disoriented and can’t respond to the actual threats? Seems like the media are overwhelmed.Report
As part of the online cacophony, there was an APRN out there who tweeted that “I prescribe meds.. I can also choose not to prescribe them. So… from now on.. if you are a white male who votes conservative, your penis needs to ask God for the power to rise. No more Viagra.”
Big laugh, everyone smile. Stick it to the man! Well, that libs of tik tok account found the tweet and found her hospital and promoted the heck out of it.
Well, for a few hours, the person was defiant arguing that this was a perfectly fine position to take while, for some reason, her employer said something to the effect of “Hey, this ain’t our practice.”
Well, just this afternoon, the organization posted this:
If you are a medical professional, do not tweet anything. If you *MUST* have a personal life social media account, do not tweet about how you are a medical professional. If you *MUST* sometimes mention that you are a medical professional, DO NOT TWEET ABOUT ABUSING THE POWER VESTED IN YOU AS A MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL.
Jeez louise.Report
Election day and here is a nurse doing get out the vote for Mary Miller.Report
It’s a stupid thing to say and an awful thing to do, though I’d reckon this was more a pithy expression of anger than an actual admission of guilt. All the same, putting it out there was dumb and ultimately the person reaped what they sewed.Report
And yet it is perfectly legal in the US to deny wedding cakes and marriage licenses based on one’s religious beliefs.Report
Hey, how about this: I’ll allow hospitals to make race and political affiliation something their providers explicitly consider in their decisions of who receives care, and in return, you’ll accept that bakeries don’t have to bake cakes for same-sex weddings if they’d rather not. Deal?Report
I’d rather a world where doctors and nurses aren’t second guessed in care decisions by politicians. And one where people holding licenses to do business with the public do business with the public.
Deal?Report
Man, that “private companies can do whatever they want” thing didn’t last long, did it?Report
You do know I generally don’t agree with the notion that private companies should be able to do what they want. Yet we have a ton of law and judicial decisions that says they can. So when the conservatives and libertarians here rail against the decision and actions of private companies I enjoy tossing it back at them.Report
Be careful what you normalize.
You just might normalize it.Report
“Man, that “private companies can do whatever they want” thing didn’t last long, did it?”
Not in Florida, they can’t.Report
(It was a throwback to January.)Report
We can deny marriage licenses? I thought we had a court case about that.
Wait, you’re talking about plural marriage? Yeah, that’s still a problem.Report
“And yet” implies a contradiction. But where? (not baiting you, just don’t understand)Report
Viagra is not a medication that’s necessary for routine health. It’s as luxurious as a wedding cake. And it’s legal in the US for a cake baker not to bake cakes based on religious belief. Seems to me it should be equally legal for a doctor not to prescribe Viagra for similar reasons.Report
OK, I didn’t get that you were replying to Jaybird.Report
I honestly believe that what she said was not illegal and if she withheld Viagra from cis-het white men who voted conservative that she would not be breaking the law.
I *DO* believe that the Health Center that employed her was well within their rights to say “No, that is not how we practice here” and free her to find employment at a Health Center that centers women and minorities.Report
What she said was not illegal, and her apology should be accepted. But if she actually withheld Viagra for those reasons, she and her employer would almost certainly be violating civil rights laws. Hospitals are public accommodations required for centuries to take all comers. Part of the trade-off requiring special licensure to provide medical care is that this restraint on trade cannot be used for discriminatory purposes.
I think Phil misunderstands the cake cases, they aren’t about religious liberty, but compelled speech. The state cannot compel a baker to make a cake with the words “God Hates Gays.” Sometimes a cake is just a cake though.Report
While we agree that what she said was not illegal and that her apology should be accepted, I understand why Sarah Bush Lincoln reached the conclusion they reached.
If, God forbid, the APRN was involved in a situation where something went wrong, would these tweets surface? If, God forbid, she was adjacent to a Never Event, would these tweets surface?
In our litigious society, I absolutely understand why SBL made the decision it made, even as I wish we had a society with a lot more wiggle room (that included the whole “bring your whole self to work” thing).
But you don’t get to joke about giving people you don’t like sub-standard medical care.
Not in this economy.Report
The Texas AG and Governor have declared that when it comes to transgender kids, and medical care being given within the standard of care is abuse and should be investigated and punished as such. 13 states are about to declare that they would prefer substandard medical care regarding women’s reproduction by criminalizing standard care.
The irony is dripping . . . . . corrosive tooReport
Sadly, Sarah Bush Lincoln isn’t in Texas but, instead, in Illinois.
Maybe you could push for Pritzker to nudge SBL back in the right direction and re-hire the APRN?
Here is the contact information for JB Pritzker.Report
so you don’t like my analogy? Or analogies in general?
I was pointing out that there are many places where the standard of care is actively, on purpose, being degraded by government activity. To the pending detriment of a major segment of the population. Its a national trend and this is an additional dat a point that needs to be analyzed within that broader trend.
Because if its ok for entire states to attempt to permanently suppress care, then why is it different for a single staff member somewhere else to do so?Report
Oh, I’ll run with your analogy, then.
I believe that it is well within Sarah Bush Lincoln’s rights to fire the Texas AG and Governor from their board.
Because if its ok for entire states to attempt to permanently suppress care, then why is it different for a single staff member somewhere else to do so?
This is a question for SBL rather than for me.
But if SBL wishes to terminate their relationship with the Texas AG and Governor, I think that they’d be able to.
Well, I think that if one of them needed medical care of something and SBL was the nearby place that SBL has a policy of non-discrimination so maybe not, like, *100%* termination of any possible relationship.
But I think it’d be more than appropriate to say “you don’t get to have a professional relationship with us anymore”.
Legal too, for that matter.Report
What she said was unethical based on every pro ethics standards i’ve seen. She can not see someone for whatever she wants ethically but singling out people via politics is not cool even if legal.Report