As the Supreme Court hears an important reproductive rights case, legal experts lined up to criticize some of the questions and arguments in the right's efforts to end medical abortions in the United States.
Among the arguments facing criticism were that women are doing well enough and that they can simply offer children up for adoption, as an alternative to abortion.
Adoptions would require women the undue burden to pay $30,000 for an uncomplicated vaginal birth to $50,000 for a C-section, the possibility of death and health dangers, medical leave, and whatever costs incurred from being forced to carry and deliver the child.
The lawyers and legal scholars believe that Roe v. Wade will be overturned.
See the comments below:
The \u201ccontraception\u201d is accessible arg ignores women who get pregnant with contraception or mistakes or the fact that abortion foes have fought contraception. #DobbsvJackson— Maya Wiley (@Maya Wiley) 1638377666
He's been waiting a long time for this case ...https://twitter.com/joelockhart/status/1466083542144794627\u00a0\u2026— Shanlon Wu (@Shanlon Wu) 1638378262
I used to believe that the Supreme Court would simply defang Roe rather than overturning it, saying that various intrusions on abortion access don't constitute undue burdens. \n\nI no longer believe this to be true. There are 5 votes to overturn Roe v. Wade.— Miranda Yaver, PhD (@Miranda Yaver, PhD) 1638378044
This seems to be where things are at: A GOP effort to find some way to bring Roberts on board to make this radical decision look less unreasonable.https://twitter.com/ameliatd/status/1466090176548155394\u00a0\u2026— emptywheel (@emptywheel) 1638378257
OMFG HEARING A WHITE GUY ARGUING THAT SAFE HAVEN LAWS TAKE AWAY THE BURDEN OF PREGNANCY I CANNOT FUCK ALL OF THIS— KSV (@KSV) 1638377577
Like countless Americans, listened to oral argument before SCOTUS this morning with horror and disgust.\n\nKey takeaway is that Biden should be swinging for the fences when it comes to judicial nominations. For each and every seat AND especially for SCOTUS.— Leslie Proll (@Leslie Proll) 1638377707
Prelogar rightly says MS is asking SCOTUS to \u201cignore weighty interests of women!\u201d #DobbsvJackson— Maya Wiley (@Maya Wiley) 1638377176
It\u2019s always so frustrating to hear justices whose jurisprudence has eroded the promise of Brown, cite Brown repeatedly & cynically to justify overturning precedents that (like Brown) strengthened constitutional protections for disfavored groups.— Sherrilyn Ifill (@Sherrilyn Ifill) 1638377010
Roberts keeps saying on \u201creliance\u201d on abortion is that 15 weeks doesn\u2019t bar access. Prelogar rightly goes to the reliance on liberty interest on viability. He goes back to no \u201ctotal probibition.\u201d #DobbsvJackson— Maya Wiley (@Maya Wiley) 1638377064
Justices who gutted the Voting Rights Act invoking Plessy-Brown is a bit much.— Greg Lipper (@Greg Lipper) 1638376689
Equating human freedom and black subjugation is Orwellian.https://twitter.com/hegemommy/status/1466080021034930182\u00a0\u2026— Norm Eisen (@Norm Eisen) 1638376393
I thought the Court was afraid of looking partisan & would want to make it seem as if overruling Roe struck the justices as a hard question. I thought that would mean Roe would be gone in 2023 or 2024 rather than this year.\nI now think I was wrong.— Mary Ziegler (@Mary Ziegler) 1638376598
Is this not unduly burdensome?: Women in 27 cities w 50k ppl have to travel 100 miles for an abortion. Women face 14x the risk to health of being forced to carry to term vs abortions which are very safe. We have 38% fewer providers & 6 states have 1 clinic only. #DobbsvJackson— Maya Wiley (@Maya Wiley) 1638376245
Justice Thomas ready to overrule the entire line of cases that [checks notes] made his own marriage legal.— KSV (@KSV) 1638375252
This is the angriest I\u2019ve ever heard Stephen Breyer.— Miranda Yaver, PhD (@Miranda Yaver, PhD) 1638376570
Somewhere Susan Collins is being disappointed in him.— Jonathan Selbin (@Jonathan Selbin) 1638375911
37. Miss SG then goes to Kavanaugh saying Ct should be \u201cscrupulously neutral\u201d and Ct should stay out. Again, exactly the right move given what Ct has signaled in the oral argument here.— Neal Katyal (@Neal Katyal) 1638377644
If the Court leaves Roe on the books, then there is a basic right to abortion under the 14th Amendment, SECTION 1.\nThen Congress can pass a "congruent & proportional" statute to protect that right under the 14th A. SECTION 5.\nBut if the Court overturns Roe/Casey, no 14th Sec. 5.— Jed Shugerman (@Jed Shugerman) 1638377585
Again, this IS neutrality for Kavanaugh: That privilege for people like him is "neutral."https://twitter.com/elizabeth_joh/status/1466080043151462402\u00a0\u2026— emptywheel (@emptywheel) 1638377499
Kavanaugh keeps trying out arguments against Roe/Casey: \nIf Constitution is unclear, why not judicial restraint, defer to states... defer to Congress.\nRemember that: "Defer to Congress." The only recourse is a reproductive rights statute. \nBut that's why Roe is key...— Jed Shugerman (@Jed Shugerman) 1638377452
Kavanaugh - this issue is hard because you can\u2019t accommodate interest of woman and fetus. What does the Constitution say about that? Why not leave it to legislation? Prelogar - SCOTUS recognized fundamental right of women so don\u2019t leave that to States. #DobbsvJackson— Maya Wiley (@Maya Wiley) 1638377384
Gorsuch asks if there is any alternative line other than viability.\nSG Prelogar gives a good answer: Viability is workable, has been workable for decades, and it's the only workable line.— Jed Shugerman (@Jed Shugerman) 1638377301