Live updates: Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade
Category: News & Politics
Via: jbb • 3 years ago • 128 commentsBy: Adrienne Vogt, Aditi Sangal, Meg Wagner and Veronica Rocha (CNN)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
By Adrienne Vogt, Aditi Sangal, Meg Wagner and Veronica Rocha, CNN
Updated 10:43 a.m. ET, June 24, 2022
Governors react to Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade
From CNN staff
Here's how some governors are responding after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade:
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul
Hochul tweeted in response to the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade: "Today the Supreme Court rolled back the rights of millions of Americans, disregarding their interests and — more importantly — their lives. Access to abortion is a fundamental human right, and it remains safe, accessible, and legal in New York."
Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds
"As Governor, I won't rest until every unborn Iowan is protected and respected," she said.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott
"Texas will always fight for the innocent unborn, and I will continue working with the Texas legislature and all Texans to save every child from the ravages of abortion and help our expectant mothers in need," he said.
share with Facebookshare with Twittershare with emailshare link 7 min ago
Key lines from the majority opinion: "The Constitution makes no reference to abortion"
From CNN's Tierney Sneed and Ariane de Vogue
The Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade Friday, holding that there is no longer a federal constitutional right to an abortion.
Here are key lines from the majority opinion:
- "We 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 — the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
- "Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division."
- "It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives."
- "The dissent argues that we have "abandon[ed]" stare de- cisis, post, at 30, but we have done no such thing, and it is the dissent's understanding of stare decisis that breaks with tradition."
- "We end this opinion where we began. Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not pro- hibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives."
share with Facebookshare with Twittershare with emailshare link 8 min ago
New York "will always be a safe haven for anyone seeking an abortion," state's attorney general pledges
Attorney General Letitia James speaks about protecting abortion access in New York on May 9. (Lev Radin/Pacific Press/LightRocket/Getty Images)
New York Attorney General Letitia James has responded to the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, a decision that holds that there is no longer a federal constitutional right to an abortion.
"The Supreme Court's vicious decision to overturn Roe v. Wade is one of the darkest moments in the history of this nation. Make no mistake: While other states strip away the fundamental right to choose, New York will always be a safe haven for anyone seeking an abortion," James tweeted.
"I will work tirelessly to ensure our most vulnerable and people from hostile states have access to this lifesaving care. Everyone in this nation deserves the right to make their own decisions about their bodies," she added.
share with Facebookshare with Twittershare with emailshare link 3 min ago
Large protests seen outside Supreme Court
Anti-abortion protesters gather outside the Supreme Court in Washington, on Friday, June 24. (Jose Luis Magana/AP)
Groups of protesters are demonstrating outside the Supreme Court after the court overturned Roe v. Wade.
Video footage showed them holding signs and chanting through megaphones.
"It's a heartbreaking betrayal of half of the country," former federal prosecutor Jennifer Rodgers said on CNN, choking up a bit while seeing the protesters. "I'm getting — watching the women there — it's emotional."
The opinion is the most consequential Supreme Court decision in decades and will transform the landscape of women's reproductive health in America.
Going forward, abortion rights will be determined by states, unless Congress acts.
share with Facebookshare with Twittershare with emailshare link 14 min ago
Biden and senior officials have been preparing for months for Roe v. Wade to be overturned
From CNN's Kevin Liptak
(Alex Wong/Getty Images)
A team of senior White House officials has been preparing for months to respond to a Supreme Court decision stripping nationwide abortion rights.
President Biden has been weighing a number of steps to respond to the ruling, but has been constrained by the law and limits on his executive authority.
The options have been under examination by lawyers, policy aides and political advisers since a draft opinion leaked in May.
But aides have been clear that nothing the President can do would restore the nationwide right to abortion.
Among the options the President is considering:
- Using executive actions and FDA regulatory steps to expand access to medication abortion (pills), a widely used method that could provide access to women in states where abortions become illegal. The FDA has already approved a regulation making it easier to distribute pills by mail.
- Declaring a public health emergency through the Department of Health and Human Services. This could shield doctors from legal liability if they treat patients in states where they are not licensed (so, for example, a doctor in Texas could travel to New Mexico to work at a clinic there).
- Ordering the Justice Department to challenge state laws that would criminalize crossing state lines to obtain an abortion.
- Working through the FCC to warn users of period tracking apps about their privacy and the potential their data could be used to identify early-stage pregnancy.
share with Facebookshare with Twittershare with emailshare link 19 min ago
Roe v. Wade has been struck down. Here's what you need to know about the now-overturned case.
The US Supreme Court just overturned Roe v. Wade, holding that there is no longer a federal constitutional right to an abortion.
Here's a look at the details of the now-overturned case:
Case
1971 - The case is filed by Norma McCorvey, known in court documents as Jane Roe, against Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County, who enforced a Texas law that prohibited abortion, except to save a woman's life.
Decision
Jan. 22, 1973 - The US Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, affirms the legality of a woman's right to have an abortion under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman the right to an abortion during the entirety of the pregnancy and defined different levels of state interest for regulating abortion in the second and third trimesters.
The ruling affected laws in 46 states. Full-text opinions by the justices can be viewed here.
Legal Timeline
- 1971 - The Supreme Court agrees to hear the case filed by Roe against Wade, who was enforcing the Texas abortion law that had been declared unconstitutional in an earlier federal district court case. Wade was ignoring the legal ruling and both sides appealed.
- December 13, 1971 - The case is argued before the US Supreme Court.
- October 11, 1972 - The case is reargued before the US Supreme Court.
- January 22, 1973 - The US Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, affirms the legality of a woman's right to have an abortion under the Fourteenth amendment to the Constitution.
- June 17, 2003 - McCorvey (Roe) files a motion with the federal district court in Dallas to have the case overturned and asks the court to consider new evidence that abortion hurts women. Included are 1,000 affidavits from women who say they regret their abortions.
- September 14, 2004 - A three-judge panel of the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans dismisses McCorvey's motion to have the case overturned, according to the Court's clerk.
- May 2, 2022 - In a stunning breach of Supreme Court confidentiality and secrecy, Politico has obtained what it calls a draft of a majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito that would overturn Roe v. Wade's holding of a federal constitutional right to an abortion. The opinion in the case is not expected to be published until late June. The court confirms the authenticity of the document on May 3, but stresses it is not the final decision.
The Players
McCorvey - Texas resident who sought to obtain an abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant mother's life. McCorvey was pregnant when she became the lead plaintiff in the case. She gave up the baby for adoption.
McCorvey has since come forward and spoken against abortion. In 1997, McCorvey started Roe No More, an anti-abortion outreach organization that was dissolved in 2008. McCorvey died on February 18, 2017. In the 2020 documentary "AKA Jane Roe," prior to her death in 2017, McCorvey told the film's director that she hadn't changed her mind about abortion but became an anti-abortion activist because she was being paid.
Henry Wade - District attorney of Dallas County from 1951 to 1987. McCorvey sued him because he enforced a law that prohibited abortion, except to save a woman's life. He died on March 1, 2001.
Sarah Weddington - Lawyer for McCorvey
Linda Coffee - Lawyer for McCorvey
Jay Floyd - Argued the case for Texas the first time
Robert C. Flowers - Reargued the case for Texas
Supreme Court Justice Opinions
- Majority: Harry A. Blackmun (for The Court), William J. Brennan, Lewis F. Powell Jr., Thurgood Marshall
- Concurring: Warren Burger, William Orville Douglas, Potter Stewart
- Dissenting: William H. Rehnquist, Byron White
share with Facebookshare with Twittershare with emailshare link 19 min ago
Supreme Court ruling overturns 50 years of precedent, CNN correspondent reports
The 5-4 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, with the opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, is "very similar to that draft opinion that we saw leak"in May, according to CNN's Jessica Schneider.
"This will have immediate effects here. By all estimates, about half of the states are expected to eliminate the right to abortion. We've got about a half-dozen states that have so-called 'trigger laws' that their abortion bans will go into effect immediately or within the next 30 days or next few months," she said.
"And then we have about a dozen states with so-called 'zombie laws' — those are actually abortion laws that were on the books before Roe v. Wade in 1973 that will go back into effect. On the flip side, there are about 16 states and Washington, DC that have sort of amped-up their abortion protections. They are expecting potentially to see an influx of patients coming into their states to actually get abortions for people who are living in states that will soon not be able to get abortions. So this is in fact a landmark ruling here. This is overturning nearly 50 years of precedent," she continued.
Schneider said she and other reporters will be digging into the opinion further.
share with Facebookshare with Twittershare with emailshare link 12 min ago
Read the Supreme Court's opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization
(Steve Helber/AP)
The Supreme Court on Friday ruled on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, a case centered on a Mississippi law that bars most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, a standard that violates Roe v. Wade.
Read the court's opinion here.
share with Facebookshare with Twittershare with emailshare link 22 min ago
Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade
From Tierney Sneed and Ariane de Vogue
People protest outside the Supreme Court in Washington, DC on June 24. (Steve Helber/AP)
The Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade Friday, holding that there is no longer a federal constitutional right to an abortion.
The opinion is the most consequential Supreme Court decision in decades and will transform the landscape of women's reproductive health in America.
Going forward, abortion rights will be determined by states, unless Congress acts. Already, nearly half of the states have or will pass laws that ban abortion while others have enacted strict measures regulating the procedure.
share with Facebookshare with Twittershare with emailshare link
Tags
Who is online
77 visitors
Two out of three Americans disagree with you...
Sad couple of daze.
If it energizes those two out of three to get engaged and get out the vote, then perhaps these regressive opinions may one day be overturned.
[Deleted]
Welcome to NeanderthAmerica, The Home of the Handmaids and Land of the Bravado, not to mention the laughingstock of the rest of the world.
I thought we didn't allow two seeds on the same topic?
Not if from different sources by different authors!
No every take on this is a celebration for wingers...
They are different. Yours is an opinion piece and this is just reporting. Otherwise, Vic is right.
Mine is NEWS
I expect there will be many opinion articles from various sources and with different takes on this momentous SC decision. Is only Vic's allowed?
"We end this opinion where we began. Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not pro- hibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives."
Expect the violence to begin! Correct decision
But Vic's piece is a news story from Fox News, it is not shown as an opinion piece so I don't understand how you are calling it an opinion piece.
Perrie obviously needs to jump in here for clarification, but she's offline.
From what I read and understood, the rules are you cannot have two seeds based on news sources if the seeds are similar. If one (or more?) of the duplicated seeds are based on an opinion piece then the rules allow for the duplication.
As both your seed and Vic's seed are based on news stories and not opinion pieces, I believe that is where the issue lies.
The articles are very different. Obviously Fox News and CNN will have different takes on it.
These are only the first stories to hit the wires about this. Undoubtedly there are going to be many more news stories and opinion pieces headed our way in the near future...
Please comment on the topic of this article and take your META bullshit to META Group!
looks like the thumpers need some help finding their way back onto church property...
We discourage having two identical seeds from the same source.
We ask the second seeder to remove the second seed or we remove it.
There have been instances where the first seed came and went with very few
comments while the second seed was identical and there were hundreds of comments
and the second seed was allowed to stand.
I would think it obvious that the Front Page has multiple seeds from different sources
every day; abortion, Disney, Uvalde, Biden's polls, Trump's troubles.
This should be obvious and not an issue.
Even if both be news stories, there is a difference in that the sources and seeders could have different points of view, and the different seeder's authority can allow control of the discussion differently. I think it could be a mistake where it is obviously a controversial topic to limit the articles to only one point of view. For example an article copied from FOX NEWS is bound to have a different slant than one copied from Crooks & Ladders and the members who choose the source will most likely have the same point of view as the source.
Thank God for the Supreme court.
The war on unborn children took a hit today and will let the states decide.
Now we get to hear the people that promote men competing with women in sports talk about the war on women.
[deleted]
I disagree with this decision, and it will hurt Republicans
It might a little but not as much as Dems seem to hope/pray.
I disagree as well.
I agree. The GOP has shot themselves in the foot. They will surely rue that decision. Mixing politics and religion will haunt the GOP as a whole. You can bet your bottom dollar that if the Dem's had ruled that kind of decision the GOP would be all over it like a starving dog on a bone.
The GOP has now set a precedent of how the GOP SC Justices have mixed their own political and religious views run supersede the Constitution of America. I don't think the Forefathers wrote the Constitution against abortion, as abortion was fully legal and openly practiced at the time the Constitution was written. And I don't believe there has been any Amendment to the Constitution that forbids it.
Whatever reason they came up with to try and justify their inept decision will work, and the payback will be to their detriment for years to come.
There goes the gop's pipedream of taking the House!
Yea, the hell with 8 % inflation and unsafe streets, vote because the states now have the decision to make about abortion that will not effect the vast majority of Americans. Oh, I think you forgot the dems probably pissed off more Americans and women by calling parents domestic terrorists for wanting to be more involved with their children and said Men should be able to compete against women in sports women.
Enjoy the red tsunami coming your way.
The gop is nominating unelectable candidates...
The main stream media and the democratic party seem to differ.
Only time will tell for sure
Wouldn't be surprised if some candidates had already made their smear commercials on this topic and are now setting up to get them run for the upcoming election. I don't believe it will help the democrats in any area except the deep blue areas but it won't stop them from trying. Everybody seems to forget that old phrase,
"It's the Economy, stupid!"
It is rather sad watching the dems try to make bigger issues out of everything in order to try and deflect from the kitchen table issues that count to the vast majority of Americans.
January 6th almost toppled democracy.
New gun ban decision from the other day will make NYC like the wild west and less safe.
And today's lie that this Supreme court decision will automatically make all abortions illegal.
I guess that is what you do when you have nothing else.
Welcome to Shariamerica.
we're both fortunate to live in states where christo-fascists have little influence. besides, constitutional worst case scenario, [Deleted]
You’ve finally mastered the obvious.
No, I don't know any christo-fascists.
"UNDER HIS EYE"...
The crackpot fanatic Clarence Thomas is going to now try to ban gay marriage contraception and other privacy race he's already said they're not going to stop with this
Good thing the Supreme Court can't do any of those things.
The reputation of the supreme Court is now utterly in shambles. All of these decisions are political decisions and the public understands that a poll that came out yesterday said that only 25% of Americans any longer have faith in the supreme Court. It's over . the supreme Court will never be the same until they get rid of politics on the court completely.
People don't understand this is now considered to be the law of the land - no abortion , but if there were a couple different people sitting on the supreme Court than there are right now abortion would still be the law of the land , because the Court is so political they don't decide cases based on an objective interpretation of the Constitution , they base them on political motivations . for example Alito decides he wants to outlaw abortion . When he goes to write the opinion he constructs a rationale for it just as a liberal Justice could construct a rationale against banning abortion . it's not hard for them to do these things. we have to get politics out of the courts
Not so, depends on current and future legislation.
You would never know that if you were listening to some of the talking heads on "news" stations.
Are you smacking yourself?
Maybe if the MSM and so many democrat politicians stopped promoting that lie so many people would not be misinformed.
For all the moderates out there that were willing to give Donald Trump a chance in 2016, we now have the fruit of your poor decision . a crazy, criminal ex-president who tried to overthrow the government , and a religiously motivated Supreme Court that will run run wild over people's rights
Exactly, as moderates they aren’t deplorables but are contemptibles.
Fuck off
Does that mean that you don’t find them contemptible?
Troll somebody else please
I'm sorry that you regard my comment as trolling.
no, no you're not, cause i'd be content with being held in contempt, as i contemplate, what i should let others hold me to, cause i enjoy pondering, over that which contemptable of contents, are only Cliff Noted midget glossaries found out in front of the crime i throw books at, and contemplate if i should ever be committed to the omitted, F 1 has not the time, rerfrain from that Duphrane crime to N Door the window of opportunity , that i tend to consistently smash, for the windows that eye sea, tend to be found on ceilings, which are actually floors, to the next story i'll knit out of one of my yarns, cause i do love fabricating something or other out of my self uneducated mind, where exist know boundaries around my offensives, asz , i dwell in a gated community, i sometimes refer to, asz my own private HELL of a GOOD time though, to be had by ME, and sorry folks, thatz ALL
The crackpot radical Justice Samuel Alito used as part of his reasoning the fact that the word abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. Neither is the words woman or Air Force. The notion that abortion cannot be protected because it's not mentioned by name in the Constitution is absurd . there are many many things in this country that are not mentioned in the Constitution
Sheer stupidity never stopped a right winger.
In spades.
Republicans, fucking up the country since Reagan.
... nixon. 50+ years on the march towards fascism.
But we marched away from fascism for 22 years starting with Carter, so more like 8+ years.
So no autonomous healthcare, guns for everyone, religion in schools and government, telling schools what they can teach, telling higher education what they can teach, trying to wipe LBGT people from mainstream, having laws that if the government makes a law a company can sue to overturn it giving a company a right of profit over general welfare, undermining and trying to disenfranchise if not overturn voting....
Welcome to the Christo-fascist divided states of America.
All thanks to the republicans and their partisan SC brought to you by the heritage foundation.
welcome back to 1939 germany!
This country is going to spiral downward at an even faster pace if they get control of all three branches of government.
Guarantee you they will go after social services next.
Exactly, deficits, rising debt and inflation only add to the accuracy of the analogy.
Why, do you think that I’m always poking you?
I'm excited about the prospect of finishing the job our greatest generation started on 12/7/41.
And fuck those that do not belong to the groups I like.
They mean until they are born, then they don't give a fuck about them.
If they don't fit into their narrow perception of who is important they say 'fuck em", but if they are pure, white, male, wealthy and Christian then they care & watch out for the "persecution" of these anointed few.
Thomas wants to reconsider decisions, wonder if that includes Loving vs Virginia?
that's not too much farther down the list...
Thomas would never vote to overturn Loving because that would interfere with his own personal privacy rights. We can't have that!
One would at least think he would have to recuse himself from that one.
There is no enforceable requirement that Supreme Court Justices have to recuse themselves from any case. A case where Thomas has a direct interest would be the last case from which he would ever recuse himself.
I wasn't aware of that when I posted my comment below, but it's a matter of proper ethics that would determine if a justice should recuse themselves or not, and obviously such ethics are far beyond the SCOTUS justices. Good luck with that.
I think ginni is going to involuntarily make clarence consider retirement.
And so Amy Barrett did not recuse hereself notwithstanding her history of publicly promoting pro-life. And interestingly, the SCOTUS leaving Abortion to the States alone is the direct opposite of refusing to allow NY State the right to require effective gun control, I now think that Biden would be entirely justified in "packing the court" by increasing the number to at least 11 by adding 2 liberal judges, relying on the fact that Roberts at least is not dedicated to destroying America.