When distilled to their essence, the Democrats sell the abortion issue as fear of a Conservative Supreme Court "taking away your right of abortion," and Republicans sell it as a future Conservative Supreme Court "stopping the evil carnage of abortion."
Both are self-serving, pandering bullshit. Let's look at the possibilities.
We all like to speak of the "Nuclear Option," so let's address that first. The Nuclear Option for a Conservative Court would be to say, more or less, there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution, and any related "rights" are therefore void. As for abortion, Roe v. Wade was a horrible, incorrect decision that is entirely overruled. As for the right itself, (a) the only thing mentioned in the Constitution is the Right to Life, which we affirm; (b) the question of when life begins is a theological one which we have neither the knowledge nor the right to rule on; and (c) since we don't know when life begin we must assume it begins with conception. Therefore, abortion is the taking of a life, and must be dealt with as such, by both the Federal and State governments.
This will not ever happen. It won't happen because a Conservative Court disdains "legislating from the bench," and that's what it would be. That sort of decision MUST (according to Conservative thought) be made by the Peoples' representatives in the legislatures. The Nuclear Option will not happen and it is not to be feared.
It is possible that some future Conservative Court would rule that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided (every legal scholar agrees), and must be voided. This is a near-Nuclear decision and is theoretically possible, but such a decision would not uniformly make abortion illegal in the United States. It would merely throw the question back to State law, or, ultimately to Congress (if any consensus could be had). So an "overturning" of Roe v. Wade would merely make getting an abortion in a few states very inconvenient. And wouldn't "Planned Parenthood" and its supporters step in an "help" the unfortunates in those states to go out-of-state to get fixed?
And consider that Leftists alway say that there is a national consensus on the abortion "right," so isn't it fair to ask them to prove it? But I digress.
A third possibility - the most likely one - is the possibility that a Conservative Court would REINFORCE the basic finding in RvW. They would do this because most Justices give due respect to precedent (even when a case was wrongly decided, as with RvW), ESPECIALLY when that precedent has been relied on by the General Public for a number of years. RvW has presumably been the law of the land for almost 40 years - 2 generations, culturally speaking.
Reinforcing RvW would mean, in effect, that a first trimester abortion is a "right" that cannot be limited by the States; a second trimester abortion can be regulated by the states (to be defined); and once the baby is arguably viable - third trimester - then it becomes a "person" for Constitutional purposes, and it cannot be aborted. So the worst that anyone has to fear from a Conservative Court is the loss of the "right" to abort a viable baby. And is that an outrage?
But note well: in no case will Abortion be outlawed by the Supreme Court. It simply cannot and will not happen. A Conservative majority on the USSC would NEVER write a new Amendment into the Constitution, which is what it would take to outlaw abortion. And even if they tried to do that, it would start a bipartisan uprising sufficient to push a Constitutional Amendment in response.
Both are self-serving, pandering bullshit. Let's look at the possibilities.
We all like to speak of the "Nuclear Option," so let's address that first. The Nuclear Option for a Conservative Court would be to say, more or less, there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution, and any related "rights" are therefore void. As for abortion, Roe v. Wade was a horrible, incorrect decision that is entirely overruled. As for the right itself, (a) the only thing mentioned in the Constitution is the Right to Life, which we affirm; (b) the question of when life begins is a theological one which we have neither the knowledge nor the right to rule on; and (c) since we don't know when life begin we must assume it begins with conception. Therefore, abortion is the taking of a life, and must be dealt with as such, by both the Federal and State governments.
This will not ever happen. It won't happen because a Conservative Court disdains "legislating from the bench," and that's what it would be. That sort of decision MUST (according to Conservative thought) be made by the Peoples' representatives in the legislatures. The Nuclear Option will not happen and it is not to be feared.
It is possible that some future Conservative Court would rule that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided (every legal scholar agrees), and must be voided. This is a near-Nuclear decision and is theoretically possible, but such a decision would not uniformly make abortion illegal in the United States. It would merely throw the question back to State law, or, ultimately to Congress (if any consensus could be had). So an "overturning" of Roe v. Wade would merely make getting an abortion in a few states very inconvenient. And wouldn't "Planned Parenthood" and its supporters step in an "help" the unfortunates in those states to go out-of-state to get fixed?
And consider that Leftists alway say that there is a national consensus on the abortion "right," so isn't it fair to ask them to prove it? But I digress.
A third possibility - the most likely one - is the possibility that a Conservative Court would REINFORCE the basic finding in RvW. They would do this because most Justices give due respect to precedent (even when a case was wrongly decided, as with RvW), ESPECIALLY when that precedent has been relied on by the General Public for a number of years. RvW has presumably been the law of the land for almost 40 years - 2 generations, culturally speaking.
Reinforcing RvW would mean, in effect, that a first trimester abortion is a "right" that cannot be limited by the States; a second trimester abortion can be regulated by the states (to be defined); and once the baby is arguably viable - third trimester - then it becomes a "person" for Constitutional purposes, and it cannot be aborted. So the worst that anyone has to fear from a Conservative Court is the loss of the "right" to abort a viable baby. And is that an outrage?
But note well: in no case will Abortion be outlawed by the Supreme Court. It simply cannot and will not happen. A Conservative majority on the USSC would NEVER write a new Amendment into the Constitution, which is what it would take to outlaw abortion. And even if they tried to do that, it would start a bipartisan uprising sufficient to push a Constitutional Amendment in response.