Talk Elections

Let's suppose a state legislature with the support of its governor -let's pick Georgia as an example- decides to ban all abortions except to save the would-be mother's life.  The Georgia branch of Planned Parenthood and NARAL takes the state to court, and reaches the Supreme Court after the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal overturns a lower-court judge's ruling invalidating the legislation.

Given that the ruling contradicts other circuit courts of appeal in other regions of the union, the Supreme Court agrees to take up the case.  How do you hope they would rule on it?

Leave as is, or preferably strengthen the protections of a woman's right to abortion.

And also (I see someone has already replied), how do you think the Supreme Court would rule if such a case ever reached it?

Well, we have 4 justices who support Roe v Wade, 2 who would return the issue to the states, 2 who would outlaw it at the federal level (the latter two groups are likely to vote with each other, though).  Finally that leaves Kennedy, who would probably vote for Roe v Wade but continue to weaken it by supporting further restrictions.

Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito would all vote to overturn it

Breyer, Souter, Ginsburg, and Stevens would all vote for Roe being upheld

Kennedy could go either way I think, honestly. Lean uphold.

I would hope that the Court leave the decision to the states. From a Constitutional point of view, abortion isn't mentioned in the Constitution, and the 10th Amendment would leave the issue up to the states.
   A rebuttal could be made that the combination of the 9th Amendment, which bans government from denying the people certain rights, and the 14th Amendment, which applies the Bill of Rights to the state level, that the woman's right to choose would be protected under the Bill of Rights. However, if the state law states that life begins at conception, it could be argued that the fetus's right to life would also be protected under the Constitution, thus invalidating the argument. If that was the case, that the state law states that life begins at conception, than they would either have to allow the states to be in charge of the issue or "legislate from the bench".

Gee, you just opened a can o' worms, SPC. Perhaps because SCOTUS took a stance on abortion, they will ALWAYS have to take a stance on abortion. If live begins at ciotus or a time before it could be reasonably and reliably interupted from starting, then SCOTUS would have to amend constitutional jurisprudence to either force states to start enforcing their murder laws on abortionists or order federal agents to enforce Article I Sec IV, which guarantees a republican form of government for all American citizens. If life does not begin until quite some time after sex, then abortion bans would be unconstitutional because they either I, are cruel and unusual in their punishment or II, are crimes that can never be proven beyond a reasonable doubt or III, cannot be reasonably enforced without unreasonable searches and seizures or IV they deprive women of their physical persons without adequate compensation.

But just so we are on the same page-

Scalia and Thomas- would amend the constitution to ban abortion

Alito and Roberts- Wants federal neutrality on abortion.

Kenedy- Tends both uphold Roe and uphold regulations that do not pertain to circumstance- Roberts would probably convince him to  concur in part and dissent in part- probably would rewrite jurisdiction to allow for allow bans throughout pregnancy so long as rape, incest,(or unconsented or invalidly consented to sex) self defense (ecotopic pregnancy, credible suicide attempt, diabetes, heart disease) and unforeseen difficulties (Trisomy, Job Loss, Sickness making pregnancy expensive, Permanent Emotional or Physical Maternal  Damage). This would be hard as hell to do, but would pretty much end the abortion debate in this country for a while as our abortion jurisprudence will look like most other anglospheric countries.

Others- will uphold

What I would hope for would be option 2. But I wouldn't mind option 3.

Roe v. Wade should be overturned.  The central issue in the whole abortion debate is when does a human life begin.  Before that point the state has no business being involved, afterwards the state has every obligation to be involved.  Setting that line is inherently a legislative task, with the judicial task limited to interpreting what the legislature has set.  The Constitution is fairly silent on this issue.  One can infer from the XIVth Amendment that the dividing line between non-human life and human life is no later than birth, since some humans become citizens then.  It would also be not unreasonable for the Court to rule that under its XIVth Amendment powers that Congress could set that line on a national basis.  In the absence of Congressional action, the Xth Amendment would clearly allow the States to set the line in such a case.

Either banning it outright or allowing the legislature the right to legislate on the issue.

Over-turning Roe vs Wade wouldn't ban abortion, it would return the issue to the State level.

I'd prefer Option 2, the courts overturn Roe and Congress bans abortion the way it should have been done (left to the legislature to decide it, not the damn courts).

I dont think they ever would take an abortion case, as that is just a horribly unpopular idea, possibly to the point of consitutional amendment. If they were dumb enough to take the case, it wouldnt get changed, thus simply clogging the docket with uselessness.

Option 2 and giggle manically and watch as the right culture wars alliance falls apart and the left uses the backlash to move america to something resembling sanity.

That wouldn't be a bad idea. But the cost may be too high.

Overturn it definitely. Whether to leave it to the states or ban is interesting question. To put a federal ban on all abortions if the issue is a simple challenge to Roe v. Wade would be judicial activism in the same way Roe itself was. If the case was to challenge that unborn children have rights, then that is a different matter.

This also leads to the following situation: if the Supreme Court outlawed abortion, and someone aborted a baby, is this a federal crime or a state crime? If it is a state crime and someone in a strong liberal state aborts a baby, would a judge, jury, and DA uphold the charges and proceed with a trial, or would they drop charges or acquit the defendant under the belief that while an abortion was committed, a crime was not committed? I'm sure this situation was not uncommon in the pre-civil rights error where a white jury would be very unlikely to convict a white person for murdering a black person.

Of course what everyone needs to remember is that Congress, not the courts, make laws. Congress has the power to overturn Roe v. Wade but won't do it. Many Republicans don't want to do so because they would lose one of their strongest campaign tactics.

....or better yet if a swing state like Michigan or Colorado banned abortion one year when the republicans had more power, would a democratic governor grant amnesty to offenders the next? I mean if the courts declared nuetrality on the abortion issue NO ONE would EVER know what the law would be ANYWHERE*

*Except for the Beehive Kingdon, The South and New England

Not really. I'm not female and not attracted to the unstable type who'd not be smart enoguh to use birth control/would need to resort to an abortion so zero chance of it affecting me.

Ummm....what about other people?

Read my earlier post. I don't care.

Option 3. Moral issues, such as marriage laws, should not be under the purview of the federal government at all. The Federal government only has power to regulate abortion on government property, military bases, unorganized US territories, and the District of Columbia; and frankly it should let DC set these laws for itself (although DC government seems to be at least as inept as the feds, at least in a reality where the phrase honest government is an oxymoron).

That said, I would like all states and territories to standardize on having legal abortions solely as a medical procedure when the mother's life is in danger.

It's too early to tell, but my gut feeling is to disagree.  The four conservatives plus Kennedy already voted in favor of a partial-birth abortion ban which has no health exemption.  (In many ways, the ban signifies a gradual weakening of abortion rights-- very symbollic to conservatives, and that's why they pushed so hard for it.)  Kennedy, however, would still likely vote to uphold Roe, although he may continue to support certain restrictions.  Thomas is certain to vote to overturn, and return the issue to the states.  Scalia is likely to return the issue to the states as well.  Roberts and Alito, however, are cookie cutter conservatives, not federalists, and would probably rule to overturn Roe while declaring a federal right for the unborn.

Bush was pandering to the base with those appointments.  He knew who he was picking and probably picked them carefully.  (Although, Bush is fairly secretly supportive of gay rights, and used to be pro-choice until it was politically inconvenient.  There is speculation that his father was secretly pro-choice as well.  But Roberts and Alito don't seem like they would suddenly shift to the left.  Then again, no one expected Souter to do so.)

Yeah, but then again, Roberts and Alito were mules for the Reagan dynasty(Reagan, Bush, (Gringrich, but that's not an issue here) Bush) before coming to SCOTUS. Souter was always just either a private lawyer or judge and Stevens came about in the time before reactionaries were that powerful.

Gee...this website is pretty inline with the general american public. 54ish-46ish (though there are a lot of pro-abortion ban democrats and not that many pro-abortion rights republicans here)...although it would be about 57ish-43ish if you calculated the votes of SPC and other social liberal federalists....but is still about in line with Libertarian Red States (like Colorado or Montana) and Weak Blue States (like Deleware or Michigan).

If Roe was overturned, I think the country map would look like this:

26+D.C. - legal (with 5 in the grey area)
24- illegal  (With 3 in the grey area)

Light Red (mostly states with conservative reputations that have libertarian tendancies)- Abortion legal when need is established- Abortion is legal, but most be approved by two or three physicians who must show that it was needed; would typically come with the same restrictions as the "Red" group. 

Red (Libertarian and Democratic states)-  Abortion is a matter of personal choice, but discouraged- Legal without question, but subject to typical abortion control measures suchs as mandatory counciling, waiting periods and madatory family involvement, if possible with possible restrictions on certain types of second-term abortions.

Dark Red (the most progressive of states)- Abortion would possibly be state funded and would definately be subject to few, if any legal spped bumps.

Light Blue(some conservative swing states and some conservative states that are libertarian)- Illegal but law can be waived in court if evidence is presented to show that an abortion is needed because of an unforeseen complication that arose after birth.

Blue(republican states and democratic states that have a large fundamentalist community)- Illegal with exception of rape, incest or threat to mother's life or possibly if the fetus will not be able to survive much after birth. Would probably be treated as a drug offense or a involuntary manslaughter offense and would be  punished with hard time of the minimal hard time that can be offered to a couple of years. Because there would not be enough exceptions to allow for clinics or ever hospitals to sustain a legal abortion practice, abortions would be done at police stations and clinics inside of the court houses under the supervision and approval of the Sheriff and the DA.

Dark Blue(the most reactionary of states)- Thorughly Illegal. Abortion could be considered a crime no matter what, or have only a "double effect" clause or even just a clause that permits abortion if it is the only way to save maternal life and the fetus is dying anyway, or there might be a rape clause, but not for incest. Abortion would be treated as manslaughter, or even capital murder, if that state kills certain convicts.

()

Let's keep this poll going.

I'd be willing to accept abortion being made a capital crime in exchange for marijuana legalized fully.

...and maybe cloning being allowed.

No. One goal at a time. but sincr abortion is THAT perhaps marijuana being legalized and an end to FCC decency censorship.

There is no judicial basis to either allow or ban abortion without explicit legislation.

Who cares? If I can milk it to get some laws i'd like to see passed then I'd do it.

What do you mean?

I meant Abortion is THAT big of an issue so I'd force a BIG concession from the cons in return.

That's what I thought. Needed to make sure.

I would have -

- repeal of the "PATRIOT" act
- repeal of the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act and other federal laws that ban pot
- Equal funding for embryonic stem sell research to funding of its "kosher" alternatives.

Besides #2 on your list you're thinking too small. Also the patriot act is a good thing(compared to the pre-9/11 status quo. Yes the act needs revising but its still needed).

Can you come up with a map of what the nation's abortion laws would look like if the federal government declared nuetrality on abortion and refused to take up any cases, legislation, or constitutional amendments on the issue?


Okay, how about just an end to warrantless wiretapping, Iraq War and attempts to constitutionally recognize homophobic jurisprudence?

1 No.
2 No.
3 Yes

As long as we have 1.4 billion muslims alive on earth we can't loosen up any on security.

I'm guessing that you are a lot like Joe Lieberman? Not neccesiarily a bad thing.

...and I doubt that Islam is our biggest long term concerned. We have had bigger enemies, lived for 1500 years with these people and we can't just murder 25% of the population.  Dangerous short-term solutions are not preferrable to ones that emphasize long-term assimilation based out weeding out radicals, educating moderates to be more moderate and economic growth.
...and what about the map?

Leave Roe vs. Wade in place as is.

if Roe was overturned, what do you think the abortion policy map would look like?

I would guess that the South as a whole (basically the former Confederacy, plus Oklahoma and Kentucky) would have some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country, as well as Utah, Indiana, and the plains states (i.e. Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota).

The only states that would ban abortion outright (with no exceptions at all) would likely be those in the Deep South or in Utah. 

and a life exception isn't an exception. You can kill born live people with the life exception.

We should really be talking about Planned Parenthood v. Casey...

Of course...but you know what we mean. What do you think will happen if banning abortion becomes a legitimate state interest warranting only a rational-relationship level of review?

Map?

Well...it gets a higher standard because of the privacy rights involved...perhaps if you separate abortion from privacy, you could still tie it to some intermediate standard based on a sex classification...shrug

or just throw out the right to privacy or say that Roe flies against tradition and should get the Bowers standard. My question was how the states would react. Can you answer that?

I don't know why one would want the bowers standard (heightened rational basis) as opposed to intermediate scrutiny...

Bowers only scrutinizes those that are deeply held in American tradition. They can say that abortion is not part of american tradition and therefore is a behavior that can be prosecuted.


But...what would the map look like?

"Leave Roe vs. Wade in place, but support imposing additional restrictions on women's access to abortion"

This is basically the situation today.  I doubt if it will change.

Overturn it and outlaw it.

But Bowers has been overruled by Lawerence...Kennedy used the Heightened rational basis test there...(gays don't get the same type of scrutiny as race or gender, but can something because they're targeted for some sort of exclusion).

Not neccesiarily... it was just overruled in respect to sodomy. It could still be used as a means of due process. Just look at the Washington assisted suicide case.

Well i'd think we'd be looking at it from an equal protection standard...I think it was a mistake to ground abortion in substantive due process...and privacy

Well, I guess if Roe was overturned, this would be the new argument to get the right to have an abortion back into the constitution.

Well yeah...you'd go the Ginsberg route and anchor it in the equal protection clause and give it intermediate scrutiny...higher if ginsberg could ever get sex discrimination on par with race

As a disclaimer, I am pro-life, but apathetic...there are far many more issues I feel like we have to deal with and until we address them, I am somewhat okay to keep them safe, legal, and rare...

But my main concern with getting rid of abortion, and what keeps me apathetic, is that because it has been grounded in privacy, and substantive due process...a reversal of the Roe/Casey line, may erode privacy rights...and that does bother me.

Roe/Casey (the latter being more relevant) isn't going to overturned anytime soon, if ever.  The only changes will be allowing more significant state restrictions on abortion, at least while Kennedy controls the court.  After that is anyone's guess, but I suspect Roberts/Alito won't overturn it either, just limit it more than Kennedy.

It is too bad, because it is still horrible jurisprudence.

R-TX?

A lot of people are like that. Pro-Life means you want an abortion ban and you don't seem to want that. Maybe you are neither Pro-Life or Pro-Choice.

What does having an opinion about the quality and validity of jurisprudence have to do with political beliefs?

Technically, it doesn't.....but we all know what it means on a subjective level.

OK.  Do you have any more illogical statements you would like to present on this thread?  (snarf, snarf)

The court should hold, in an appropriate case, that abortion laws do not trigger any form of heightened scrutiny under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that earlier cases holding otherwise are to that extent overruled. Rational-basis review would apply, and every abortion law should easily pass it.

Of course, far more must be done to restore the proper scope of due-process, but one case at a time. (And some people think I'm not moderate.)

Some things can't be proven objectively. *shrugs* That doesn't mean they don't exist.

I hadn't even thought of that when I voted, but hopefully improvements in the quality of life and standard of living will make abortion less necessary.

...and the general acceptance of illegitimate children into society has helped to reduce the need for abortion. We must walk a fine line between personal responsibility and forgiveness.

I'm sick of both sides of the Roe v. Wade matter.  It doesn't affect my vote for President, period.

Leave it to the states to decide.

For those who think it's murder, no problem with letting the states decide, murder is a state crime. 

I have been asking how that would work. What would the policy map look like...could someone effectively go out of state to get an abortion...how would states enforce their abortion bans... could you just tell someone if they get an abortion in another state, they can't come back?

If I come to your state and punch you in the mouth, am I subject to your laws or PA's law regarding the punishment for it?

Yes, but there may be extradition laws. Oh. I forgot to mention that there was talk in Ohio about a ban that would make it illegal to go into another state to have an abortion.

By the way, what do you think the abortion map will look like?

I could only forsee such a plan turning against the pro-life faction in the long run...in the age we live in...the idea that pregnant women crossing statelines would be subject to some sort of examination/questioning...even if its to go from PA to the Jersey shore in the summer time...could be well...frightening.

That's why Roe is still a good idea. We have been solving the abortion problem non-violently as childbirth and childrearing has become more acceptable for those who are not heterosexual married couples that are thirtysomethings. If Roe were overturned, I think the uniform Abortion Code, which mirrors what has been adopted in the UK and Colorado, should be adopted, effectively making abortion decisions on a case-to-case procedural basis of whether 2 or 3 doctors can establish a need for an abortion.

With Sonia Sotomayor pretty much on course to be confirmed to the Supreme Court, I think it's time to bump this...

Option 2, of course.

I'm actually going to agree with the Romney Hater...

Agreed, but would be fine with some partial birth restrictions.  I'd toss stuff like husband/parental notification, waiting periods, forcing women into biased CPC's, etc.

As if we disagree everywhere else.

Yes, I do hate Romney, but what does that have to do with the topic being discussed here?

Now of course I am pleased to see that we are in agreement on this issue. But I see no reason why my opinion of Romney has anything to do with this.

Eh. Just keep it. Otherwise women will just be using clothes hangers instead.

Why?  I don't see her appointment changing the balance of the court on this issue very much.

Jeesh, I'm just mentioning the fact that I'm agreeing with someone who is 100% opposite of me on political candidates.
;) Sorry, my lame attempt at a joke.

Some pro-choice groups beg to differ. (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=96608.0) 

The thing is, none of us know for sure.  Who knew, for instance, that David Souter would vote to uphold the decision in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, when everyone expected the opposite?  And there are probably some other examples out there that don't readily come to my mind.

Option 2 would be the wrong way to do the right thing.

Option 3 is more in line with the Constitution, even if it allows some states to be wrong.

States' Rights (not the poster) = Conservative Cop-Out

     Option 4

I would hope that they overturn Roe v. Wade, and decide that abortion should be left to the various states.  What is so wrong, with letting the people of state A, who believe abortion is murder, ban abortion, while letting the people of state B, who believe in a woman's right to choose, legalize abortion?  What is being done in the name of civil rights and equality, is in reality being done in the name of tyranny.

Overturn Roe vs. Wade, and leave the issue to each individual state

Then get to work on getting the murder of the unborn banned at the state level.

Roe v. Wade isn't the law of the land. Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Gonzales v. Carhart substantially weakened Roe v. Wade.

Too bad the SC didn't overturn Roe vs. Wade.

The court would never overturn it.

Overturn Roe vs. Wade, and leave the issue to each individual state.

Option 2, if I could.

I would hope for 2, and be satisfied with 3

To be honest, I'm pro-choice but it should be a regional issue anyway.

     Well I suppose the point that supporting the federalist position on an issue for any reason other than a purely strategic one is the wrong way to go applies to anyone, but I was specifically addressing that to other libertarians, continuing from my previous post.

To answer the question you kicked, Mechaman has the freedom to move to any state he chooses to live under a code of laws that best suits his beliefs. How is that not libertarian?

     It subordinates people to a collective, by suggesting they have to deal with its rules or leave. Granted the anarchical implications of that are unfeasible, but a more viable course of action would be to steadfastly & tirelessly campaign for a government that imposes paternalistic controls on neither social life nor economic life.

I believe the federalist approach is the best way to preserve abortion rights (or, alternatively, the rights of fetuses).  Otherwise, the rights of women (and fetuses) across the country is subject to a simple majority in one legislative body, the United States Congress.  Or, the Supreme Court.

Overturn Roe v. Wade and ban abortion outright at the national level and put in place strong penalties for the abortion seeker and the abortionist.

If anybody could direct me to the part of the Constitution that says Congress has the power to ban or legalize abortion, that would be lovely.  Oh, nevermind, it's probably covered by the Commerce Clause for some reason.

Probably the same clause they use to criminalize other murders, in all likelihood. Then again, you're looking at an issue that activist judges ruled on instead of going through the proper legislative process.

tee hee

Where is the federal government given the express power of making laws against murder of any kind?

Probably the commerce clause.

I hope you were being sarcastic...

Of course.

Something in between 1 and 4.

There should be more restrictions on some things (like partial birth), and less on others (such as doing things like forced ultrasounds).

Since abortion seems to have become a hot topic as of late...

Overturn Roe v. Wade, leave it to the states.

Overturn Roe v. Wade and (instead of blah blah blah trimesters) simply recognize that the Constitution contains a right to privacy and that within that right there is a right to an abortion.

Option four.

Four. Voted one though as I thought we were voting on how you think they'd rule, not how you want them to rule.

LOL, I read option 2 as overturn Roe VS Wade and legalize abortion nationally (which would be the best solution, but of course won't happen in the next 50 years).

Is there some way to "un-vote" ? I feel dirty. :P

Jeebus, I can't believe I voted the way I did.

Constitutionally speaking, Roe v. Wade is totally bogus and the issue should be left up to the states. Practically speaking, legalized abortion is good public policy and they came up with a good enough excuse back in the 1970s so it doesn't really seem like we're going against the Constitution. I would say uphold, since it's already there.

Option 3

What would happen if Roe v. Wade were overturned?

Some states, I believe, would have it banned automatically (as certain restrictions were put on their books prior to the Roe v. Wade ruling) whereas others would not, and we'd see a wave of states passing either restrictions or permissions for women to have abortions until someone in Congress eventually musters enough votes to ban it nationally.

I believe that Vermont, surprisingly, actually has some of the toughest anti-abortion laws in the country on its books -- all of which would likely come into effect until they would be quickly repealed by the legislator, in the event that Roe were overturned.

Do you think there would be enough votes to ban abortion for it to be repealed the following year?

Would most states pass "Sixth Day Laws" or would a lot of states emulate European countries where the decision is largely deffered to medical review boards.


In fact, this is what I think-

Dark Blue- illegal without exception with perhaps life-threatening exceptions.
Blue- Presumed illegal, but still a path to abortion in extreme cases (ranging from avoiding a hysterectomy or other organ loss when the fetus's fate is not certain to forcible rape to perhaps various levels of misdemeanor (incest, prostitution) and felony sodomy (sexual activity with a 16 or 17 year old when over 23)
Grey- Deffered to Medical Review Boards, decided on "case by case" basis, "legal when a ' reasonable need' can be established"*
Red- Presumed legal, but still opportunities by family/community to protect fetus (mandatory bible study(probably would be constitutional to a SCOTUS that would not recognize Roe), waiting periods, pre-natal adoptions, funding restrictions)
Dark Red- No discrimination against abortion

()


* There will be hospital boards in some counties that will be basically a formality and others that will always say that there is no need for abortion.

Another issue would be is if a pro-life victory (where the legal availability is considerably less than in the average mature nation-state) would cause a slippery slope to the point that Adultery and even benign birth control would become subject to becoming at least a misdemeanor.

*Planned Parenthood v. Casey

For all the talk about Roe v. Wade among pro-choice groups, Planned Parenthood v. Casey really is the more important case when it comes to the issue now. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, though, did see the "essential holding" of Roe v. Wade, so I guess that is where it comes from. Both rulings, though, are pretty much Constitutional nonsense. Even many liberal legal scholars will agree now that Roe is really lacking when it comes to a basis in law (though Planned Parenthood v. Casey is a sightly different story). It takes two large leaps to get to the decision the Court made in Roe v. Wade. First, you have to hold that the 14th Amendment contains a right to privacy. Then, finding that, you have to hold that such a right to privacy (which extends beyond the rights granted by the 4th Amendment) protect a woman's right to an abortion. Both of these findings are pretty shaky Constitutionally. The second one finding can reasonable be inferred from the first if the right to privacy is expansive enough, but I don't see how you can derive such an expansive conception of privacy from the text of the 14th Amendment. Really, I fail to see how the 14th Amendment creates any right to privacy beyond reinforcing the provisions of the 4th Amendment. To say the 14th Amendment creates a right to privacy that in turn extends to a right to abortion is no more legally defensible than saying that the 14th Amendment creates an uninhibited right to contract. In this sense, Roe v. Wade was, like Lochner, wrongly decided by Judges using substantive due process to insert personal policy preferences into law.

So, to the hypothetical, I would say strike down Row v. Wade and by extension Planned Parenthood v. Casey and allow legislatures at various levels to the question of abortion.

Overturn Roe and leave abortion up to the individual states.

It does my heart good to know that there are more and more people who recognize the flimsiness in the doctrine of "substantive due process" and who see the similarity between Roe and Lochner. Don't forget that the first Supreme Court precedent which infused substantive meaning into one of the Due Process Clauses was Dred Scot v. Sanford. The Court invoked the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment as one of the many reasons for saying that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional.

Also be aware of the fact that the last clause of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, has been a source for the Justices to also legislate from the bench, and the Court could have just as easily invoked that Clause as the source of the "right to privacy." That was what had happened in Skinner v. Oklahoma, 1942, when the Court spontaneously proclaimed that being able to reproduce is "one of the basic civil rights of man."Somehow, that principle was being inferred from the Equal Protection Clause. And ever since then the Court has often claimed that the Equal Protection Clause requires "strict scrutiny" of laws that abridge "fundamental rights," even when those those rights are not enumerated in the Constitution. Shortly before Roe v. Wade the Court handed down Eisenstadt v. Baird, 1972, which invoked the Equal Protection Clause as the protector of the "right to privacy." The right to marry has been inferred from the Equal Protection Clause in cases such as Zablocki v. Redhail, Turner v. Safley, and more recently and more famously, Obergefell v. Hodges. The right to VOTE has been frequently inferred from the Equal Protection Clause, thus making the 15th, 19th, and 24th Amendments unnecessary and a waste of time and effort to add to the Constitution.

Even if the doctrine of "substantive due process" becomes erased from the legal books, that does not mean that Roe and Casey have to go. The Court could still infer that the right to abortion is protected by the Equal Protection Clause. After all, laws banning abortion "discriminate" against women. That's probably the way Justice Ruth B. Ginsburg thinks about it.

Overturning Roe would absolutely be the worst case scenario. Not only is overturning massively unpopular, but it's an inherent civil rights issue, that should be decided on the national level either way, not by states.

Smh Overturn PP of SE PA v. Casey and go back to Roe v. Wade

I think it's a state matter. If a state wants to ban abortions, It should well be allowed to.

leave roe vs. wade in place as is

Personal: overturn and outlaw

Constitutional (decision I’d go for) Overturn and let the states decide