What do you think happens if Planned Parenthood vs. Casey gets struck down?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Rather than having people parrot the line "Roe vs. Wade will never be struck down", I remind people that Roe vs. Wade was struck down in 1992, and replaced with the ruling Planned Parenthood vs. Casey. Now, what happens if that gets struck down?

The question is, will Congress attempt to restrict state abortion laws? They already did when they banned partial birth abortion.  The question is will they additionally restrict/ban abortion in states like CA and NY that would want to keep abortion?

[J. J.]

Naunced argument.  Striking something down does nt mean that the law will change.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Naunced argument.  Striking something down does nt mean that the law will change.

What? I said assuming that it's struck down.  What do you mean the law wouldn't change?

[Peter]

The replacement of just O'Connor doesn't strike Casey since Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer and Kennedy will still support it.

The principal abortion ruling under threat is Stenberg v. Carhart, which was effectively decided by O'Connor's swing vote.

There's a round of litigation bumping through the appeals courts somewhere over this I think, so it wouldn't be too long before it could acutally appear on the High Court.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The replacement of just O'Connor doesn't strike Casey since Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer and Kennedy will still support it.

The principal abortion ruling under threat is Stenberg v. Carhart, which was effectively decided by O'Connor's swing vote.

There's a round of litigation bumping through the appeals courts somewhere over this I think, so it wouldn't be too long before it could acutally appear on the High Court.

Well obviously someone like 85 years old Stevens would have to be replaced by a conservative.

[AuH2O]

Nothing happens. Partial birth abortion is gone, maybe some kind of notification law, then the rest up to the states.

Actually liberal Republicans and Democrats in Congress might well try to pass a law making it illegal to prevent an abortion in cases of rape, incest, or grave health risk.

Abortion will never be banned nationally. It's not in the GOP's interests to do so, in fact, and it also could not be done. Case closed.

[opebo]

Yet another reason to escape the US.  In practice though most of the subject people (females) will stay put and take a sort of 'underground railroad' to free states or Canada to have control of their own bodies long enough to have an abortion.

Net result - more poor!

[WalterMitty]

Yet another reason to escape the US.  In practice though most of the subject people (females) will stay put and take a sort of 'underground railroad' to free states or Canada to have control of their own bodies long enough to have an abortion.

Net result - more poor!

you take hyperbole to a new level.

[J. J.]

Naunced argument.  Striking something down does nt mean that the law will change.

What? I said assuming that it's struck down.  What do you mean the law wouldn't change?

I'm suggesting that they might say the grounds were incorrect, but find other grounds that would give the same result.

[Sam Spade]

AU2H0 and Peter Bell have posted functionally the most correct arguments here, imo.

[A18]

O, not 0

How can people not know water?

[MODU]

O, not 0

How can people not know water?

It's ok . . . they probably don't know gold either. 

[A18]

I think the Supreme Court would allow states to ban abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the mother.

[MODU]

I think the Supreme Court would allow states to ban abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the mother.

Agreed, except I would possibly extend it to minors as well, as long as they have parental consent.