Breaking... US Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade

Precisely why America needs to have a new constitution fit for purpose in the 21st century. It's unfair how the majority can be overruled by a tiny minority which hold views that are complete anathema to current norms and this groundhog day needs to stop or a load of people will get damaged that will create massive societal repercussions for decades to come even after Abortion becomes legal again, with or without Supreme Court ruling.

This ruling hands the power to change back to the States.

If people in a state want abortion they can vote accordingly, their choice. The power now in their hands once again.

Is the will or interest there to do so?

We'll see.

These rulings will have zero effect on Ireland, thankfully. Abortion rights are here to stay.

Is this thread about the policy of abortion or about whether the US Supreme Court correctly interpreted their constitution?

I voted for removing the 8th from the Irish Constitution, but it isn't clear to me that the US Constitution has anything to say about abortion. I have read the opinion (Roe and the new Dobbs one) and I have listened to Oral Arguments in Dobbs. As frustrating as it may be, I'm not sure allowing 9 people on the Supreme Court to just decide what the law is without a basis in the text is a good idea.

This "founding fathers" BS is one of the most ridiculous things about America. As if it's not crazy to attempt to decide 21st century issues by somehow divining the supposed views of a bunch of 18th century slave owners.

Oh I agree that the Supreme Court shouldn’t be attacked too vociferously, but their reasoning of course can be. In my view, the abdication of responsibility by the legislature (which you very correctly point to) means that the court should step in, not to settle the debate but to provide a balance of the right. That’s what Roe (and Casey) provided — a balance where abortion was allowed under the Constitution until viability, after which the constitutional right expired and the legislature could step in. In a country where getting legislation like this through suffers from bothpractical difficulty and lack of willpower on all sides, Roe / Casey provided a balance. But the effect of this new decision is not balance at all — it is effectively a bald statement that from the moment of fertilisation a woman has no constitutional rights whatsoever as regards any decision not to continue with the pregnancy. The argument that it is balance, or judicial neutrality, seems shakey to me because the Court has actively stripped away a decades-old constitutional right which women have been able to rely on for many, many years.

The dissenting opinion of Justices Breyer et al is a good read. They compellingly argue that the majority’s literalist interpretation of the Constitution means that interpreting constitutional provisions as at the time they were ratified (exclusively by men of course) means interpreting the Constitution as at a time where women had no influence, no say, and no power.

'Unable to prevent' Lol. You're some naif. Fitzgerald was constantly saying things he didn't believe and trying to please multiple powerful interest groups simultaneously including the Roman Church. He kicked the ball into the back of his own net. I know the origin of the amendment. Charles Haughey, Frank McCluskey and Fitzgerald were all broadly supportive of holding the referendum in the first place and then in the end Fitzgerald got cold feet over the wording and voted against it. Is that your idea of principled? Then you accuse me of re-writing history? Get a clue.

I think your memory is a little hazy. The rhetoric pre omicron was becoming increasingly militant, thankfully the bloody virus weakened. Had that not happened when it did we would likely be in a much different situation now.

I think you just don't want to admit there's a connection regarding bodily autonomy. At this stage you're just being belligerent. If you want to continue knock yourself out, the narcissism of lefties never ceases to impress.

You might point out exactly where I called him principled? That's right, nowhere.

Just in case I hadn't made it clear enough for you, I think the whole incident was a disgrace, and like I said a black mark on his political career.