Should Pregnant Women Boycott Travel To Republican States After The Supreme Court Abortion Ruling?

The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization – overturning Roe v. Wade – hits home for many women in a way that few other cases could.

One common point I’ve seen made since the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling is that pregnant women should now avoid travel to Red States.

I am not going to dive into the question of whether a woman who knows she is pregnant but finds she needs an abortion for medical reasons while traveling is likely to face restrictions – that’s a political question guessing what each state will do at a fairly granular level.

It’s not just about bans on abortion (whether in total or after a certain number of months) but about whether there are medically-necessary carveouts as well. Suffice to say I would guess several states imposing restrictions will have carveouts of various kinds if only for political expediency.

However I’d make the point that abortion won’t simply be outlawed in ‘Red States’. There are several conservative-leaning states whose state constitutions have been explicitly interpreted to protect abortion rights. Examples include Alaska, Kansas, and Montana.

What’s going to be confusing for awhile is what exactly each state attempts to do – in terms of restricting and proactively protecting – reproductive choice. That’s going to take some time to work out. And to the extent these decisions influence travel choices you want to make it’s going to mean following the details of each state, and determining where you draw your own lines.

I’m genuinely curious, since in the U.S. the Supreme Court has made this issue focal. Has abortion been an issue that women considered when traveling to Europe while pregnant? It’s far more restrictive there in most countries than it has been in the U.S.

  • Abortion is illegal without exception in Malta
  • It was illegal in Ireland until 2018 expect for life of the mother, and current law is more restrictive than the one upheld in Dobbs
  • Many doctors refuse to perform abortions across much of Europe, making it challenging to get one on parts of the continent
  • Second trimester abortions are frequently limited

However I think it’s also worth highlighting the constitutional right to travel. The right to travel meant that thousands of women in Ireland traveled to the U.K. for abortion. Here, post Dobbs several companies, including Alaska Airlines and American Airlines, have emphasized the extent to which employees can travel and take advantage of their health care.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Saenz v. Roe 526 U.S. 489 (1999) clearly and explicitly articulates a constitutional right to travel. See also generally Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (1868) and United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966). Some states may seek to impose penalties on its citizens for obtaining abortions out of state. I would not expect those attempts to ultimately be upheld.

I support reproductive freedom – though at some point during the second trimester these questions become really hard. Fortunately about 95% of abortions are during the first trimester, and only 1% in the third. I would not ban medically necessary third trimester procedures. And I worry that restrictions earlier in a pregnancy don’t merely lead to fewer abortions but also some abortions taking place later – the opposite of what you’d want.

But I understand those who come to different conclusions than I do, since I’m not certain in my position. It’s precisely because I do not believe I know the ‘right’ answer here that I’m reluctant to impose a decision on others.

About Gary Leff

Gary Leff is one of the foremost experts in the field of miles, points, and frequent business travel - a topic he has covered since 2002. Co-founder of frequent flyer community, emcee of the Freddie Awards, and named one of the "World's Top Travel Experts" by Conde' Nast Traveler (2010-Present) Gary has been a guest on most major news media, profiled in several top print publications, and published broadly on the topic of consumer loyalty. More About Gary »

More articles by Gary Leff »


  1. By following this idiotic suggestion, the Red states, like Texas, will reap a real bonanza….no more of these unwanted liberals fleeing California etc. and trying to ruin things for us!!!

  2. If a pregnant woman is worried about needing an abortion when traveling, she should get one prophylactically as she most likely is a leftist who all should get abortions and be sterilized for the benefit of humanity and freedom.

    While situations in Malta do happen, they are 1 in 10 million. 99.999999% of women won’t need an emergency D&C for a life threatening complication. The pro abortion advocates are disingenuous when they talk about the mother needing an abortion for medical reasons. They really just think that women should kill their kids inside them for convenience and fun.

    I support abortion because government should not be telling us what we can’t do to our own organs (uterus) and our own kids. Mostly I support abortion because it is evil so only evil people get them. Evil wipes away evil. If we care about freedom and goodness, how does it make sense to prevent evil people from reducing the evil genes being spread like a disease.

    Any woman with a legitimate issue can transfer by ambulance to another state or be flown. I do think Red States who do foolishly ban abortions (don’t we want less leftists being born or no leftists preferably) should make clear exceptions for medical emergency and rape.

    The only reason banning abortion in red states is a good thing if more leftists don’t move to red states, although, some red states down south have large leftist populations that would remain and it doesn’t make sense to stop them from aborting.

    D&Cs are really what makes abortion unpalatable. The better thing to do for abortion rights by leftists is to differentiate between abortion pills for very early pregnancies and the violent D&C. I feel happy that the ruling causes pain to so many leftists but do realize the actual issue of banning abortions doesn’t help us as only evil people get abortions. We should support abortions like candy for leftists.

  3. European countries’ don’t restrict abortion access as much as the majority of US states restrict it.

    It’s easier to get an abortion in Denmark tomorrow than it is to do so in Oklahoma and Wisconsin. And in this century, Denmark doesn’t prosecute women for having had a miscarriage. The same can’t be said about some parts of the US.

  4. @GUWonder – Until Friday, abortion law in most of Europe was more restricted than that in the US. There were few European countries that allowed for abortion at 20 weeks for any reason. The US was the exception, not the rule. (Most European abortion bans kick in at 12-16 weeks.) Also, no one has talked about prosecuting women for getting abortions, though personally, I feel like this is hypocrisy on the part of the pro-life crowd. If a fertilized egg has the same rights as you and me, and a person who hires a hitman should be prosecuted for capital murder, then so should a woman seeking an abortion. But the pro-life crowd doesn’t really believe their own rhetoric, so they choose to not pursue women. They also know it would be very unpopular and destroy their political base.

    @Jim Warren – Some people think letting her die would be the more humane thing to do. Some people have living wills set up that demand this. Others want to be kept alive under any circumstance, or have relatives who would demand it. Having seen what a hospital does when you have a DNR on file, I would recommend never signing one, but assigning power of attorney to a trusted friend or relative who’s understands what you want and judgment you respect long before any circumstances dictate that it come into effect. No document can anticipate all circumstances, but hospital legal can make horrible decisions based on what is (poorly) written.

    @Alan – Most of the readers of this blog are men. But until very recently, the split between men and women on abortion in America has been very evenly divided and has been for 50 years. The numbers were almost identical, usually within the margin of error. And you also have to realize that the terms are often very poorly defined. There’s a big difference between someone who is pro-choice, but believes in restrictions after 12 weeks and someone who is pro-choice, and believes that a woman and her doctor should be able to terminate up until birth.

  5. I tried to express an opinion for or against the topic but the PC police decide to censor me.

  6. “I would not expect those attempts to ultimately be upheld.”

    I agree with your assessment of the constitutional issue here; however, because the Court is illegitimate as presently constituted, the strength of that legal reasoning is irrelevant, rather, the Court will simply arrive at the outcome it desires.

    This is not mere conjecture; the Court has *already* done it – c.f. the TX private AG law which does exactly this (with respect to the then-constitutionally protected right to an abortion; but of course the right to interstate travel is equally vulnerable to similar laws).

  7. @Jim Warren… Thank you, you beat me to the punch. I was going to write something similar, but your analogy is spot-on. Nice work!

  8. There’s something we can all agree on – there is no explicit right to an abortion in the constitution (as opposed to something like the right to own a gun). That means no state can outright say people can’t own guns in that state whereas a state can outright ban an abortion. The Roe decision was based on a cobbling together of a few amendments to ‘imply’ a right to an abortion across the entire country. Even liberal justices over time have admitted it’s a shaky constitutional argument. I doubt any of the protesters know the first thing about the way the supreme court operates. It’s sole job is too look at laws/rights and determine if they fit within the framework of the constitution. In this case, there were enough justices to determine that the constitution doesn’t, in fact, guarantee abortion as a right, but states are free to choose for themselves. This is exactly how SCOTUS is supposed to work, not by listening to protesters outside of judges houses.

    If such an overwhelming majority of Americans really wanted this right, there would be enough law makers to amend the constitution through a legislative process (the same way states operate). In fact, the ruling allows bluer states to make abortion rights even less restrictive then Roe allowed.

    What are people in CA and NY protesting? Their states are just fine and now have even more freedom to create access to abortions. Are they protesting for the minority of people in Louisiana? for the people of Texas? Seriously, raise your hand if you live in CA and lose sleep every night because of the laws in Alabama. If a majority of people in Texas want to ban abortions, why can’t they just as if a majority of people in California want it to be legal they should be allowed? That’s supreme court came to the conclusion that this issue is so divisive along state lines, within states it is not and there’s no solid constitutional argument to say there should be an rule that applies equally to all states (like freedom of the press).

    Those people who say this will lead to a national ban clearly don’t understand one of the most fundamental aspects of the supreme court – it doesn’t make laws. To nationally ban abortion it would have to be done legislatively and in order for that to happen an overwhelming majority of Americans would have to want it – if that were the case, who is anyone to argue that majority rules in a democracy? If you don’t like the majority you are free to leave.

    The other thing people on the left never want to discuss is that getting pregnant is also a CHOICE (except in the minute number of cases that are rape/incest – but we all know you can’t legislate to the exceptions). If you are so concerned don’t get pregnant. What is the liberal obsession with not wanting to make people take responsibility for their actions.

    The supreme court gave states the rights to choose their own path when it comes to abortion which is precisely what the founding fathers intended as states were largely self governing. Really ironic that the liberal elite who supported the Harvey Weinsteins of the world for decades, who throw hundred of millions of dollars at Harry and Megan (two people who are rich because the royal family profited immensely off the slave trade for hundreds of years and even into the 1900s) how they care so much about peoples’ rights.

    Also @Tony – the court is illegitimate? I thought all justices on the court went through the same process. Oh wait, it’s the sore loser argument – all the people I like are honest, upstanding perfect people who went through the proper channels, but the ones I don’t like they cheated and they’re liars. Give me a break. I bet by your logic our entire government is illegitimate as is every government in history. Really, what democrat has every lied or done something outside the bounds of honesty to get what they wanted. You spouting that BS is just as absurd as Trump’s stolen election claim. What’s your undeniable evidence that the court is illegitimate? Because some justice may have changed their mind on something they said in a hearing? If what you’re saying is justices are not allowed to change their minds then again, both sides are equally illegitimate. You are the problem with democracy the same way Trump is – you didn’t get what you want so you cry foul. Tell where in the ‘rule book’ a justice can’t say one thing in a hearing and then change their mind. Did anyone of them say under oath “I promise to not overturn Roe V Wade”?

  9. Tony (and other lunatics) will see the SCOTUS as “legitimate” only when there are nine black trannys on it.

  10. @Tony

    All laws and legal theories are at their core are nothing more than the opinions of those who support them. All judges will make decisions that align with their personal aims, goals, and agenda and often use precedent or past legal theories to support it. Sometimes they will develop new “tests” and legal concepts. At the end of the day, they’ll rule how they want to.

    The current court is illegitimate according to you because you disagree with the majority decision. That’s what democracy is; one group forcing their views on others. It doesn’t have to be this way. Conservatives want independence and freedom. Liberals are always against that. They literally want to force bakers to bake cakes and force people to sell their homes to who they don’t care to or face bankruptcy. They support taxation so conservatives can’t spend their money how they please. They oppose free speech because liberals only believe their views should be heard.

    The court is illegitimate because conservatives should not tolerate enforcement of any law it doesn’t support or have anything it doesn’t consent to forced on them.

  11. Agreeing with Vijay. I don’t care a bit about the so called “life” of an embryo or fetus, and neither do I care too much about shrimps, lettuces, or even cows and pigs (which are far more sentient than a human fetus when we eat them). Religious people with faith in the “human soul” can feel free to irrationally fetishize embroyos and fetuses as a matter of religious belief – as is their right – unless they’re “living” inside of a real adult human being who doesn’t want it in there, doesn’t want to give birth, and prefers to get on with their life.

  12. Can’t wait for C_M and the other Trump fans to happily pay up loads of tax money and donations for the 18 years of childcare of all the unwanted children who are now going to be born to females aged 8-60 years old because these girls and women now have fewer rights to control their own genitals in the US than in most of Europe and be forced to subject their bodies to bringing a pregnancy to term because of the US depriving them of a right that

    Their Lord Trump and people like him will continue to pay a lower proportion of their income in taxes during their lifetime than most Americans and they and the wealthy will have easier access to abortion than the average American in the states with the highest proportion of Trump fans. And so it will be his useful idiots and the rest paying the financial and societal price that comes from what the Bush-Trump Justices have come to mean for America: a country that is less free for women than most countries in Europe.

    It’s just a matter of time until some Americans will be claiming asylum in Europe because of what this Supreme Court’s assault on bodily and medical freedom for women and girls in the US means.

  13. drrichard

    Birth control is prior to conception. Your rebuttal is not applicable to your example or my rebuttal.

    Thank you

  14. drrichard

    Both hitler and Beethoven were most likely products of their life and personal experiences. Yes, perhaps Beethoven was naturally gifted but did little adolph (does not deserve his name to be capitalized) devise mass murder in the womb and could his access to power that allowed his devil/murder plan to proceed be just a terrible course of events?

    Again, your statement, even if it has been repeated by others through the years, is unrealistic and not applicable to a cogent defense of your own words.

    Thank you

  15. @Jason Almo – “There’s something we can all agree on – there is no explicit right to an abortion in the constitution (as opposed to something like the right to own a gun). That means no state can outright say people can’t own guns in that state whereas a state can outright ban an abortion. ”

    One does no follow from the other. The fact that a right is not explicitly mentioned is NOT SUPPOSED TO MEAN IT IS NOT PROTECTTED BY THE CONSTITUTION. That is literally the 9th amendment:
    “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    Without the 9th amendment there would have been no agreement for a bill of rights and no 2nd amendment!

    Sadly the Supreme Court largely ignores the 9th amendment, and only one justice (Gorsuch) has indicated any willingness to resurrect it.

  16. Entirely predictable temper tantrum’s coming from those who now need to convince voters to support their cause.instead of relying on an unconstitutional court ruling. The issues are now in the legislative arenas where they always belonged. People can travel or not travel where they wish.

  17. @Gary Leff The unenumerated right to privacy should also be protected by the 14th Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities Clause, in addition to the rights retained by the People under the 9th.

    It’s richly ironic that the left wing New Deal jurisprudence that destroyed these doctrines that destroyed most of our rights and empowered the enlargement of government regulation of everything over the past 75 years are now claimed to be concepts invented suddenly by Conservative judges to overrule Roe. The chickens have unfortunately finally come home to roost – and we’re all worse off for it.

  18. I have done this since 2016 and will continue the rest of my life. Have not missed a damn thing. Not pregnant and past the age to become pregnant.

  19. “SCOTUS as ‘legitimate’ only when there are nine black trannys on it.”

    Wouldn’t hurt! Honestly I’m surprised the court reached this far this quickly; I figured they’d finesse it over a few years to avoid this type of reaction. I’ve long been part of a (once) minority sounding the alarm on the court’s illegitimacy crisis and the need to fix it for years, but I’ve been amazed to see the traction we’ve been getting in the last 48 hours — more than the past three or four years combined!

  20. There is no explicit right in the plain text of the constitution for an individual to own a gun. The Second Amendment is explicit about a well-regulated militia and the people — the people as a collective, not as an individual — having a right to keep and bear arms.

  21. Scott,

    “Birth control” as a term covers pre-conception measures and also post-conception measures; it also covers measures that prevent an embryo from even forming.

  22. What a great idea for those feeling strongly about right to have abortions to boycott travel to those states whose legislatures have disallowed abortions. If you can go on vacation anywhere, just don’t go there. States that see a big drop in revenue might change their minds. On other hand there are those from this blog who would make it a point to go there just to get even. The court reactionary judges are a disgrace. Their religious belief has dictated this. Most are Catholics. Women are hurt. Men too since often couples decide this. Yes rapists win. Being forced to have a baby from incest is an abomination. Thank you That certain party. To take away a 50 year old freedom is just insane.

  23. GUWonder

    Thank you for confirming my point.

    I am no absolutest. Pre conception, post conception, within a reasonable time (1st trimester?) sure.

    After 3 months; it’s going to be a human being. That’s a long time. 3 months ago SPX was 4600. It’s a long time.

    There should be compromises.

    Unless you’re the Pope or make your living selling fetal tissue the extremes are not helpful. I am sorry if someone has deep beliefs either way, I don’t mean to insult anybody’s argument nor to escalate.

    But the only path forward is to compromise and solve the problem.

    Politicians don’t want to solve problems, they want to engineer solutions that entrench their interests.

    There have been only a few elected who actually WANT to solve problems. I am sorry to inform you, but one of whom is named Donald Trump.

    Yes, it is messy, disruptive, antagonizing, stressful, idiotic, dramatic and insane at times…yes.

    But it’s better than intentional destruction of all that is sane and holy in the name of democracy.

    I just don’t see any democracy in American leadership today. They are career disrupters of progress. The whole lot of them.

    Thank you

  24. @ James N

    “experimental gene therapies”

    C’mon James, do tell us, do you take any medications or do you refuse them all?

    Do you have any knowledge or experience in genetics?

    Do you know the difference between DNA and mRNA?

    How information flows through biological systems?

    Do you have any idea how organisms manage complexity?

    Have you ever actually designed and implemented a scientifically robust experiment?

    Or (as it appears) are you just regurgitating the same old vomit from some right wing / denialist media outlet.

    “don’t stop transmission”

    Why this comment is errant stupidity has been explained to you repeatedly. You have (or some other dumb twat just like you has) been encouraged to self-educate on the R number and models of control measures in a population and how they work when combined.

    Come and join the debate when you have been mature enough to do the reading and self-educate.

    I’ve repeatedly provided the references on this and other blogs to get folk like you kick started.

    If you refuse to do the work you will only ever be spouting your own personal opinion (or what some idiot has told you) with very poor levels of substance.

    “Even if you accept the drug companies argument that they reduce symptoms, there’s no evidence to support this”

    Please, James, seriously, grow up. The available data in the medical literature is extensive.

    “it affects the fetus she just killed”

    Only if you are slave to the position that life begins at or before conception. Not everyone agrees with you. Alternative (medically and biologically informed) positions have already been cogently argued in another post above.

    And there again, others have take a religious position that contraception itself is wrong because it denies the opportunity for life.

    The vast majority of abortions occur at relatively very early stages of pregnancy – literally a blob of organised biological tissue 1 to 1.5 cm or smaller. Get over it.

    “one decision that might, highly unlikely, impact others”

    Ah no, for so many reasons you are wrong, including your denial of the effectiveness of vaccines and their various medical, community and economic downstream benefits. If you refuse to accept the existence of extensive datasets you are a hopelessly lost cause.

    “affect one individual greatly.”

    Only according to your (non-biologically and non- medically unformed) personally ascribed belief system.

    “killing of a fetus as “reproductive freedom””

    Again, only according to your (non-biologically and non- medically unformed) personally ascribed belief system.

    “ disingenuous and lazy thinking”

    Look in the mirror, buddy. You are a logical lightweight in denial of the scientific and medical data. Your choice to wallow in ignorance.

    “a lack of principles and moral clarity”

    FWIW Your own positions are contrary (and thereby hypocritical).

    Moral systems (which differ from ethical systems) are generally faith-based: your claims of clarity only relate to the system to which you personally decide to ascribe yourself.

    If you practice contraception, you are non-compliant with one or more moral faith-based systems, if you eat pork likewise, etc. etc. In some faiths it’s Ok to have women priests and in some others it isn’t.

    Now if you were to declare that you had a faith-based position, that such begets a certain moral framework, then I’d look beyond your childish ramblings and take more notice of your opinions.

    But you’d still have a problem. Because you don’t get to inflict your faith-based moral framework on others in a pluralistic society rather than one in which religion and state are intimately intertwined.

    So, mate, you can beat your drum and shake your tambourine to celebrate your god delusion as much as you like, but never think you are articulating a rational rather than a faith based moral position.

    In the meantime, the rest of us will be listening to what the women of our society want and need, promoting inclusion, appropiate access to health care and support.

    And, one trusts, that if you are so fixated on saving “lives” that you‘ll be applying such commitment to the obvious causes (smoking, sugar in foods, mass civilian casualties in war zones, the protection and welfare of refugees, etc. etc.) – because without such you are once again just another right wing, denialist hypocrite trying to inflict your limited moral compass on others and thereby a worthy subject for my pity and derision.

  25. @ Scott

    “an abscess or cancer will grow up to be a medical risk to the point of possibly killing the person.”

    So what – so can a fetus.

    “A developing fetus will grow up to be a son or daughter, friend, wife or husband, mother or father…”

    So what – so can a viable sperm and /or a viable egg (do you advocate contraception or not, do you self-pleasure or not, do you only mate with the intention of pregnancy or not, do you advocate harvesting all of a women’s eggs or allow them to be naturally lost?).

    “Abortion is more about limiting the potential of a future life”

    More than what? Contraception? Self -pleasuring? Reluctance to marry (or enter a committed relationship) and / or have children? Failing to advocate for non-smoking? Excessive sugar in foodstuffs? Universal health care for children? Advocating against child poverty, starvation, poor education? Children being raised in an environment without domestic violence or poverty? Equality of access to health care and education?

    “James N has succinctly and thoughtfully framed the hypocrisy of the loudest protesters”

    Only for those that agree with his personal position. But not for others, as I have shown in my earlier post addressed to him which exposes the shallowness of his logic, the lack of data in his ramblings and the hypocrisy of a faith based “moralism” trying to impose their belief systems on others.

    “They help no one and only make a mockery of our democracy.”

    Actually, there are those who are putting the health and welfare of women above the narrow confines of others’ belief systems and arrogantly defined associated moral frameworks.

    “They are allowed to rant, rave, invite and injure”

    Isn’t “rant, rave and invite” part of the very free speech that apologists for the right wing are so obsessed about?!

    Injure? Have you ever put yourself in the shoes of the women who you seek to disenfranchise and considered the damage and injury caused to them?! Why should they be injured by somebody else’s limited moral framework? Does it occur that women may be smart enough to direct their choices at the future wellbeing of a child?!

    “those who want to argue a more nuanced view”

    Yep – cry freedom when it suits you. And then deny it when it suits you. Like I said, a simpering bunch of hypocrites on this blog.

    “The problem….”

    Enjoy the ride, then. Perhaps we are lucky not to suffer such self-implosion in Australia, at least, not over the civilised progress enjoyed over many potentially contentious issues (abortion, same- sex marriage, assisted dying, effective gun control, etc., etc).

    “Both hitler and Beethoven were most likely products of their life and personal experiences”

    Yes and no. As someone who has researched genetic response to environment, I would propose that they are products of both genetics and environment (as you seem to recognise by referring to Beethoven as possibly naturally gifted). On the one hand tiny differences in genetic make-up (such as what geneticist would call SNPs or single nucleotide polymorphisms) can have quite an impact. On the other hand, impoverished diet can be catastrophic.

    Ironically, it can be considerations of both that inform choice when it comes to abortion – on the one hand known genetic disorders of which some can be identified during pregnancy (such as Down’s Syndrome), versus an abusive home environment or one beset with poverty, etc.

    The further irony is that the US system is potentially less amenable to a challenged mother to-be – by way of comparison Australia’s universal health care system offers equality of access to health care (in simple terms poor kids can see a doctor), entrance to tertiary education isn’t corporatized to the extent in the US (in simple terms kids from poor backgrounds have chance at a life transforming education), there is a National Disability Insurance Scheme (disabled kids / people get the care they need based upon a funded and personalised care plan).

    Such lessen the need for women to seek abortions. Put another way, if those on this blog who are railing against abortion stopped for one moment to address the real issues, they’d have to question some of their right-wing political positions are found very wanting.

    “But the only path forward is to compromise and solve the problem”.

    The way forward is to respect a woman’s choice, whilst addressing the reasons for social disenfranchisement, medical and educational disadvantage that injure the children in your society.

    “I am sorry to inform you, but one of whom is named Donald Trump.”

    Yes, if you believe that driving division, engaging in deceit and exhibiting blithering incompetence can solve problems. You are left mopping up his mess and still in denial.

    For perspective, you support the guy that claims that “god” made the decision on the Supreme Court ruling?!

    C’mon, mate, surely, you’re smarter than that, or are you just another religious faith-based apologist slave to a limited moral framework (?)…;)

    Be well and thanks for your input.

  26. It’s being reported in Australia that on page 119 of the Supreme Court ruling that Justice Clarence Thomas wrote:

    “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell…because any substantive due process decision is demonstrably erroneous, we have a duty to correct the error established in those precedents.”

    Apparently, some legal stuff about the validity of substantive due process – these cases are pertinent to access to contraception, sexual relationships with members of the same sex, and marrying partners of the same sex.

    Buckle up folks!!!

  27. @gary – I said there is no explicit right – look up the definition of the word explicit then show in the constitution where you find the word abortion. As for the 2nd amendment, yes, it says a well regulated militia, but my point was that there is a specific call out to gun ownership being a right – in fact it was so important to the founders that’s it’s the second thing on the list.

    The 9th amendment is simply the equivalent to a contract that says “..including, but not limited to…”. You still have to prove with the language in the constitution/precedent that something is a right and for many years the fear has been Roe’s argument was shaky (and it is – read the history).

    By your logic anything I can come up with is a ‘right’ – how do you suggest we determine what rights not explicitly mentioned are actual rights? If you say you agree with the original ruling that the patchwork of amendments and interpretations leads to a right to abortion, fine, we’ll agree to disagree. I’m a little more strict in my reading of the constitution and think the overall argument and use of the 14th to get to a right to abortion isn’t a sound argument.

    I’d also be curious about your thoughts on the other issues I mention.

  28. @GUWonder – I’ve never voted for Trump, not in the primaries, not in the general, not for dog catcher, and not for anything involving a publicly traded company or for class president.. But thanks for playing our game. When you’ve got nothing left, just toss out random accusations.

    As for your argument about tax dollars, thanks for confirming your racist bonafides by claiming that abortion is out there to reduce the welfare roles. If there is a more vile pro-choice argument out there, I’ve yet to hear it. Eagerly awaiting your claim that it’s all about the Jews…

  29. Furthermore @Gary – do you see the irony in that you want the 2nd amendment read strictly that guns are only necessary as part of a “well regulated militia” because that’s what the document says, but in regards to abortion, with no mention, you think it’s an absolute right because of the 9th amendment and some interpretive logic? So if I’m a member of a militia I can carry an AR15 down the streets of LA and the city can’t create laws to stop me from doing so because it specifically says I can in the constitution? If you read the opinion, it wasn’t throwing the 9th out the window it was the 14th. Roe was always a house of cards that depended on a particular interpretation of 4 different amendments working together. You lose one, you lose the whole argument. SCOTUS decided that in lieu of a clear path let’s leave it up to the states since that’s where the divisions actually lie. I really don’t understand why people have such a problem with this other than ignorance of how our government actually works from a legislative standpoint as opposed to operating on peoples’ personal feelings. The right looses out on this too because it allows places like CA to say we will let women get abortions up until the day of delivery. Roe was never an ‘absolute’ right except for the first trimester and that’s a fairly narrow window to begin with. If there is a national ban then it means the country has the legislative backing to ban it nationally – if the will of the majority is to ban abortions outright (or the other way around in regards to adding an amendment specifically addressing a right to abortion) and you have a problem with our government functioning like that then don’t claim to be a supporter of democracy – you want a one party system run by Twitter and Facebook.

  30. “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    – 9th Amendment

    Gary, you’re forgetting about the 10th Amendment, which reserves nonenumerated and concurrent powers solely to the states. Things like birth, death, and family law have always been state decisions and state purviews. While the 9th Amendment may well imply rights such as privacy and abortion, the 10th Amendment will control on how those rights are interpreted and protected.

    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    – 10th Amendment

    While not getting into whether abortion is right or wrong, the Supreme Court simply made a 10th Amendment decision. They didn’t ban abortion despite what all of the screamers and complainers will say in the press or in the streets. They didn’t state that the right to an abortion doesn’t exist. They simply said that its up to the several states and their people to decide on its scope within their own borders. In the end, neither hard core anti-abortion conservatives nor hard core pro-abortion liberals really got what they wanted. Abortion was not banned nationwide (sorry conservatives), nor was it expanded to include nationwide partial birth and “day before birth” abortions (sorry liberals). Neither side will be cheering or screaming as much once the hullabaloo dies down because neither side scored an outright win.

  31. Bob Moran is confusing the matter.

    When it comes to those constitutional rights retained by the people which happen to not be enumerated explicitly in text in the Constitution, those rights are not the equivalent of powers reserved for the states.

    Rights retained by the people are not one and the same the thing as powers reserved by/for the state (or even federal) governments.

  32. C_M is as lost as ever.

    My mentioning of tax dollars has to do with financial reality, and that remains what it is regardless of race. My comment has nothing to do with C_M’s nonsense about “racist bonafides” and “Jews”. Given C_M’s off the wall comments undermine C_M’s own credibility, pardon me for not being so gullible as to trust C_M to not be more of a Trump fan than a Biden fan.

  33. @ Jason Alino

    “there is a specific call out to gun ownership”

    There is a call out to keeping and bearing arms (within the context militia, which you accept) and as being necessary for the security of the free state.

    The interpretation of inferred rights for the individual have been of subject of highly divided (5-4 split) Supreme Court opinions (for example Heller 2008, McDonald 2010), which technically applied to possession of handguns in civilians’ homes and accepted that it was presumptively lawful to impose various bans on possession of firearms (by some such as felons and mentally ill) and in sensitive places, etc., etc.

    Apparently, the argument asserted by some for a constitutional right to gun ownership is not as clear cut as some would like to portray.

    “ in fact it was so important to the founders that’s it’s the second thing on the list”

    This may not be surprising since the security of the free state depended upon well-regulated militia at that time in history and such needed to be armed to function. Such context no longer applies.

    In any event, modern legal interpretation (in the above cases) has had to balance the 14th against the 2nd (protection against state infringement).

    “I’m a little more strict in my reading of the constitution and think the overall argument and use of the 14th to get to a right to abortion isn’t a sound argument”

    But you would accept its application in the interpretation of gun ownership per the cases cited above?

    “SCOTUS decided that in lieu of a clear path let’s leave it up to the states since that’s where the divisions actually lie”

    Decided? Apparently, the justices were divided 6-3 long political lines. Clear path? The outcome required 119 pages of ruling and has now raised greater questions about substantive due process.

    “I really don’t understand why people have such a problem with this other than ignorance of how our government actually works from a legislative standpoint as opposed to operating on peoples’ personal feelings.”

    Yes, but surely, the legal division is evidence that your constitution is not the absolute document that some would like to believe. That it’s interpretation can be subject to justices adopting their preferred political position and thereby politically manipulated through the appointments to the bench?

    “Roe was never an ‘absolute’ right”

    But gun ownership (your term) has not been established as an absolute right. Prevalent legal interpretation is that gun ownership can be limited (who can carry and where can be carried).

    “you have a problem with our government functioning like that then don’t claim to be a supporter of democracy”

    It would seem the US would have a far more fundamental problem with its democratic workings, given it appears that a ruling can be made by the Supreme Court on constitutional matters along political lines by justices appointed politically who are prepared to follow political lines.

    This might be viewed a farce if you have any commitment for the separation of powers.

    Now it starts to get interesting. The current case was triggered by the state of Mississippi. But what of the next steps forewarned by Justice Clarence Thomas (access to contraception, same sex relations, gay marriage) – can the Supreme Court just decide to review past cases at their own discretion or do they need a trigger (not that one would presume that would be hard to find from some right leaning state)?!

    It would seem that your constitution can be both a strength and a millstone, especially for modern questions it is evidently poorly equipped to address.

    “you want a one party system run by Twitter and Facebook.”

    Are you referring to the former t*RUMP administration?

    Geez – America has problems…!

  34. @GuWonder(racist) – You fail to add anything substantive to counter my arguments. I continue to assume you have nothing. But I do appreciate your comments regarding the 9th and 10th.

    As for Trump vs. Biden, you really need to start thinking outside the box. There were more than two candidates on the ballot. There is the option of not voting on that ballot line. There is a write-in option. There is None of the Above. A protest vote. Flip a coin. Random pick. Non-binary is the In Thing. All the Cool Kids are doing it. Get with the program, Boomer.

  35. The US is looking to be more and more like India, a country which itself is looking more and more like Pakistan.

    Pakistan is dominated by a nominally Muslim Taliban mentality, India now by a nominally Hindu Taliban mentality, and the US is headed toward increased rule by a nominally Christian Taliban.

    In each of these three populous countries with the trappings of democracy but an underlying religious fascist element, stacking the courts with religious fundamentalists has been a key element in the zealots’ agenda.

  36. @GUWonder(racist) – And yet, for some reason, people are beating down the doors to get into the place. Fake news from the border? Record wait times for legal immigrant visas also fake? Why, it’s almost like you don’t know what you’re talking about.

  37. @ C_M

    Your readings are shallow and confused.

    Clearly @ GUWonder was exercising sarcastic humour a few posts ago. The essential point is well made. The right wing has co-opted an anti-abortion credo derived from faith-based fundamentalist ideology as a political cause on the one hand, but ironically, on the other hand, the right wing also has adopted political positions which disenfranchise people from access to welfare, universal health care, education, protection of women in society, etc.

    Look at the reasons for abortion and map these to the differential core political positions of the major parties. Hint – the Republicans are up a creek without a paddle.

    GUWonder’s point about religious interference in politics and society is also well made. Certain political positions are derived from faith based “moral” frameworks (anti abortion, anti contraception, anti same sex marriage, anti vaccines derived from foetal cell lines, etc). The legal arguments (interpretation of the constitution, etc.) are used to support such religious ideology post hoc.

    The US is framed as a secular nation. But to what extent does this apply when a faith-based “moral” framework is trying to exert itself over others, and in which the proponents feel emboldened because they have their god delusion on their side of what they think is “righteous”.

    Isn’t the whole point of a secular nation to avoid such and to promote a plurality (i.e. freedom of choice on matters of personal morality / ethics) and not inflict just the one moral religious viewpoint on others?

    It’s a shame these concepts weren’t obvious enough when initially expressed.

    These observations hold whether you are indeed a Donald duckling or not in your voting preferences, although I perfectly understand why you would be upset to be presumed to have voted for the t*RUMP – a shocking and demeaning label when you all’s considered.

    “Record wait times for legal immigrant visas also fake?”

    Wait times are a product of two fundamental factors – rate of application and rate of processing. For your argument to hold you need to claim solely the former, not the combination of the two factors. Such is a basic logical error on your part and, to quote your good self, “it’s almost like you don’t know what you’re talking about.”

    Oh yeah – you’ll also need to factor in the emigration rate (people leaving the USA), not to mention the reasons for migrating and those for not leaving (such as double taxation burdens (FATCA).

    FWIW I really enjoyed your first post in this thread. Cool contribution, mate!

  38. Gary’s mouth was watering when he wrote this article because he knew it would draw a lot of viewers and comments. Lol

  39. The majority of Americans who support abortion rights and many methods of gun control should avoid Texas on general principle. Why support it?

  40. Brad,

    I think he has a bit of that “Crossfire” fan left in him, a show that was sort of the political equivalent to The Jerry Springer Show which made its mark with crazy social conflicts rather than explicitly political ones like on Crossfire.

    Conflict as entertainment to try to run up the audience numbers and related money is old hack at this point. Add in the “social media” industry and group think/sorting dynamics in play with an audience/population produced by a questionably educated system, and it should be no surprise that society is on the path for more conflict rather than more harmony as insecurity rises and zealots push to get back or retain power to try to go back to some imagined nostalgic past where they felt like it was “our group” that had power and not all these “other”. Going back to pre-Civil War power dynamics is just fine with too many of those zealots longing for some nostalgic past to come about again in the present and future.

  41. “GUWonder says:
    June 27, 2022 at 2:32 pm
    Bob Moran is confusing the matter.”

    No, I’m not confusing the matter. A lifetime ago I use to teach Constitutional Law. You’re not understanding what I’m saying.

    Yes, the 9th Amendment states that rights not enumerated in the Constitution are reserved and still exist. However, since these rights are by their very nature not enumerated the states will have the ability to regulate them in a reserved powers situation, in a great many circumstances; not all, but a very great many.

    As an example, the right to privacy is clearly implied through the 9th Amendment. It is NOT an enumerated right, but it is implied through English Common Law, the need for a warrant under the 4th Amendment, etc. Okay, so how do we handle things like wiretapping and recording people without their consent, especially in private and semi-public settings? Each state will decide how far an individual person’s right of privacy goes under the 10th Amendment, assuming we’re not talking about filming on federal property. Some states require prior consent and notice, others do not. Some follow an obvious notice/plain sight doctrine. See? That’s what I was referring to – 9th Amendment non-enumerated rights may be defined and regulated or protected under the several states’ 10th Amendment powers. Simple.

    In the same way, the Supreme Court did not say that the right to an abortion DOES NOT exist. They merely said that it’s scope is definable and regulatable by the states under the 10th Amendment and each state will define how far its scope will go within their borders.

    So no, I’m not confusing the issue. I’m actually specifying precisely how this functions.

  42. re: Koggerj says:
    June 26, 2022 at 8:35 am

    “There is a right to life not a right to kill.”

    Abortion is not killing, it’s done before there is life yet.

    “Nothing in the constitution mentions abortion. There is nothing anywhere that says abortion is a right”

    There are a lot of constitutional rights we have today that are not in the original constitution because they weren’t issues at the time. As times change, the constitution has been amended many times to include these new issues and rights, including women voting, slavery being illegal and abortion being a right. Abortion is a medical procedure and medical procedures are natural human rights, they don’t need to be constitutioal rights, they exist because one is human so these human rights are not given by the state nor does the state have the right to deprive one of these rights. As such, states do not have the right to decide about abortion, only the woman does.

    “Women are so entitled they think they have the “right” to take another life.”

    Women are NOT entitled, and don’t think they have a right to take another life, and when abortion is done it is NOT taking another life. Any pregnancy can cause serious or life threatening complications unexpectedly so up to the woman to decide to take the risks.. If men got pregnant , YOU and every other fake anti-abortion male hypocrite would get an abortion and nobody would dream of making it illegal. Women like men have a right to make any medical decisions about their bodies and that is NOT entitlement but a human right.

    “Now they have to take responsibility and that is horrifying to the coddle band entitled America woman.”

    First of all, American women are not coddled or entitled, quite the opposite, American women are far more oppressed in some areas than women in many other countries and very oppressed if pregnant in America now. It is American men like you that are coddled and entitled. As far as taking responsibility, while men and women both should use birth control, if someone doesn’t and is irresponsible it does NOT change the fact that they have a right to make the medical decision of abortion. People don’t lose bodily rights because they are irresponsible. Men are the last ones to talk about responsibility as the average American man is totally irresponsible when it comes to sex or supporting an unwanted kid. Women’s abortions are none of your business, butt out male hypocrite.

  43. I’m so sick of hearing the nonsense that abortion was not in the original constitution so therefore it isn’t a right. Many constitutional rights we have today were not in the original constitution because they weren’t issues in the 1700’s. Part of the constitution’s purpose is to use it as a base to interpret issues as the arise and as such, as the years passed, new issues arose that were interpreted using the constitution and became constitutional rights such as women being able to vote, slavery being banned, the right to use contraception, the right to abortion and internet speech. The constitution has and is always being amended and added to. Abortion is a private medical procedure and in 1973, the court CORRECTLY decided that private medical procedures are between a woman and her doctor not a woman and the state based on the right to liberty and privacy free of the state.

    The 9th right in the Bill of Rights covered rights not mentioned in the constitution by stating that just because something wasn’t listed in the original constitution, doesn’t mean it is not a right. Some rights are NATURAL AND HUMAN rights, as such, these rights are not given by the state nor does the state have the right to take them away, they exist for all humans everywhere because they are human rights. Women’s bodies do NOT belong to the state they are NOT public property. Any pregnancy can cause serious or life-threatening medical complications unexpectedly and while time limits have to be placed on abortion, in the first trimester certainly up to the woman to make the medical decision about her body and that is not the states’ business.

  44. Re:Jackson Waterson
    “While situations in Malta do happen, they are 1 in 10 million. 99.999999% of women won’t need an emergency D&C for a life threatening complication. The pro abortion advocates are disingenuous when they talk about the mother needing an abortion for medical reasons. They really just think that women should kill their kids inside them for convenience and fun.”

    WRONG. Any pregnancy can unexpectedly cause serious or life threatening complications unexpectedly and a third result in major abdominal surgery ie.c-section. The anti-choice ilk is dishonest by denying this exists but then they don’t value women as full human beings and don’t care about female life so not surprising. Abortion isn’t “killing your kid’s as you don’t have a kid yet and women don’t get abortions for “fun or convenience”. Abortion is a medical procedure, and nobody gets one for fun. Abortion is not done for convenience because pregnancy is not an inconvenience, waiting in line at the DMV is an inconvenience, pregnancy is a major medical event so not an inconvenience and thus abortion is not done for convenience. If men got pregnant, EVERY anti-abortion male would change his tune and get an abortion pronto and nobody would dream of making abortion illegal.

  45. Wrong Bob Moran. Abortion is a medical procedure and the right of the individual to make medical decisions about their own body regarding having a medical procedure including abortion is a natural human right. Human rights are not rights that need to be constitutional rights and they are not rights that are given by the state nor does the state have the right to deprive people of such rights, Human rights exist for people everywhere because people everywhere are human so the state has no right to make abortion, certainly in the first trimester illegal, as that is a violation of a woman’s right to make a medical decision.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.