Trump & McConnell wrote the tune for a Republican march backwards on abortion rights

Yuri Gripas/Reuters

Conservatives have been waiting decades for this moment: a transformed Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear an abortion case that directly challenges women’s reproductive rights tracing to the 1973 Roe v. Wade milestone.

And unlike past times when Roe teetered in the balance, this is not a 5-4 court with the potential to suddenly dash the hopes of Republicans and religious conservatives. This is a 6-3 conservative-liberal bench. If one of the GOP appointees suddenly edges left, as happened before, a five-justice right-wing majority would still exist…

And now that the court has decided to reexamine abortion rights, the only question is how far the majority will go to roll back the nearly half-century-old declaration that the constitutional right to privacy covers the decision to end a pregnancy.

In a nation without a state religion, a land where privacy rights are paired with civil rights, we once again face unity between fundamentalist religions and a Republican Party committed to sweeping hypocrisy over legal protections for women’s rights. Neither of which would stand a chance in a historically-neutral Supreme Court.

2 thoughts on “Trump & McConnell wrote the tune for a Republican march backwards on abortion rights

  1. p/s says:

    “The Supreme Court took two actions on Monday that hint that many Democrats’ worst fears about the Court’s 6-3 Republican majority might come true.
    The first was the Court’s announcement that it will hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a challenge to a Mississippi law banning nearly all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Dobbs is potentially an existential threat to the constitutional right to an abortion, and it tees up the question of whether this Court is willing to overrule venerable decisions like Roe v. Wade, which are beloved by liberals and loathed by conservatives.
    The second action involved a more obscure case. Last year, in Ramos v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court held that no one could be convicted of a “serious crime” unless a jury voted unanimously to convict them. On Monday, the Supreme Court held in Edwards v. Vannoy that Ramos is not retroactive — meaning that nearly all people convicted by non-unanimous jury verdicts before Ramos was decided will not benefit from the Ramos decision.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.