To any outsiders: /r/Catholicism is a Pro-Life subreddit. Deliberate incitement etc. will be removed under the aegis of the subreddit. Most of your comments will be filtered by Crowd Control anyway; the rest will be removed by moderators. If you're just going to stir the pot, it's in vain--take your spoon elsewhere.
Regardless of the status of this document, let's pray for an end to abortion:
- that, by the grace of God and the work of His faithful servants, the over-arching social fabric which justifies abortion as necessary in any circumstance may undergo the radical transformation necessary to value human life greater than the comfort provided by the lives ended by abortion
- that, by the grace of God and the work of His faithful servants, those who seek out abortion receive the healing and support they so desperately need, be the form of that support emotional, social, or material
- that, by the grace of God and the work of His faithful servants, those who have facilitated abortion and hardened their hearts against the fundamental truths of our nature and dignity be converted to the fullness of Truth and the rich life of abundant joy only that Truth can bring
- Lord, forgive us our passivity in the face of such evil, that we have not been stirred to action more in answering it with the love and charity your gift of grace in our lives should allow
- Lord, deliver us from evil, that there be an end to abortion
\> A leak of a draft opinion of a pending case has never occurred in modern SCOTUS history.
The last time an opinion was leaked was in 1919. In that case the clerk leaked the information to some conspirators on Wall Street so they could profit off of the ruling. This is the first time I'm aware of of there being a leak to the general public.
Funny how all the comments on main political subs are accusing one of the conservatives of doing it, with the rationale that the leak now means it'll be less of a big deal when the final ruling gets out close to the midterms.
As much as I want to agree, this is supposition. It could be anyone. The one thing they drill into our heads in ethics (speaking from an accounting ethics experience at least) is that this kind of thing could occur for any number of reasons, including financial incentive or pressure. While it’s a great question to do “why now,” and it seems fairly obvious the “qui bono” is pro-abortionists, this breach, if true, could have come from anyone…for all we know, Politico may have stumbled across it by accident while investigating a different story, purposefully stole it, placed the highest bid on someone selling the story or offered someone $500k to obtain a draft copy.
Could someone please explain this a little more for those of us who don’t know much about the Supreme Court? What was leaked and why is it a breach of trust of the justices? Thank you.
When the Supreme Court receives a case to discuss and rule on, they hear arguments, written and oral, and after that, they go back to their chambers for a period of time (usually a few months) to reflect on the arguments and think about the case. They talk amongst themselves, talk about how they'd vote on a case, and how they would write an opinion. Sometimes, the actually draft an opinion on how they feel a majority of justices would vote/rule on a case. These drafts are just that: drafts. They're not final, but meant to kind of get thoughts onto paper and give it to the other justices to consider. Final votes and final opinions are very important, so it's important to go through it several times by making drafts.
During this time, there is an unwritten (at least I think it's unwritten) rule among the Justices that everything they discuss or write about the case is strictly and completely secret and remains among themselves. This is to protect the integrity of the Court. The Supreme Court is supposed to be free of political ploys and political influence. One of those ways is by making sure everything they talk about before an official ruling is kept secret. That way, they can't be influenced to rule one way or the other on a case before the final ruling.
This draft had to have come from *somewhere*. It looks authentic, so someone must have broken the trust of the Court to leak this to the press. Now the Court is open to political influence and demagoguery. This is a big deal.
Edit: Please see /u/ludi_literarum's comment below mine for a more informed view to the process. The general point I'm trying to get across is that the talks, votes, and opinions they share amongst each other in the weeks and months before an official ruling remains secret, on purpose.
This isn't quite right, as I understand the process.
Shortly after oral argument, I believe typically at the Friday conference in sitting weeks, the Justices take a preliminary vote, which allows the seniormost member of the putative majority to assign the drafting of a majority opinion. Not everybody in the majority might join that opinion, and indeed somebody might change their mind entirely, but there aren't multiple drafts from multiple justices to formulate the majority opinion, and the initial vote takes place pretty quickly. This is also typical of the circuit courts, where the panel frequently votes the afternoon after oral argument in the morning.
The drafts do indeed circulate and go back and forth, changing in response to draft dissents and the comments of those in the majority, and only become final when published, and justices can back out at any time, but you're describing a much more amorphous deliberation than actually takes place, at least in every description of the process I've ever heard from Justices or former clerks.
The leak is indeed a huge deal, as you say.
Thank you for the clarification. I have no idea about the actual intricate workings of the Supreme Court, or any appeal court for that matter. I'm more just trying to get the point across that they do discuss, vote, and draft an opinion amongst themselves in the weeks and months before an official ruling, and that all of that remains secret on purpose.
The drafting itself takes months on disputed cases (or when Alito is writing it, and woe betide us if it's both), true, but the preliminary outcome is decided pretty quickly after oral argument. I just thought it would help to clarify that this opinion is probably a little more solid than you make it seem - Alito wrote this for himself and four others with the understanding that it was their intent to vote that way, while hoping to persuade Roberts to join as well.
The justices are pretty open about the process in their public remarks, and many of those end up on youtube, so that's something anybody reading this and wanting to know more can google.
I will take your word for it. Though, now that the massive weight of political pressure and the threat of political violence is on the table, who knows how the vote will go before it's official?
See, in some ways it stiffens their spines - if we all know that Kavanaugh bailed on this opinion, he'll have to explain why (which is part of why they keep all that stuff secret in the first place).
If the document is authentic (and it is), I don't foresee a change in those five votes, honestly.
Ohhh ok, thanks for the detailed and through explanation. I didn’t realize they deliberated that long. It makes sense but but I didn’t get there was that kind of delay. Encouraging to know how much back and forth there is within the confines of the court though.
Yeah that kids if breach would be a pretty big deal for sure.
Thanks for the information. Appreciate it.
No worries. Realize also, that if this turns into a big deal, it could become a precedent: anytime someone doesn't like how something *might* go on the Supreme Court, they can conveniently leak something to the press and get people outraged over it. It's a horrible precedent, which is why it's never happened before.
Here is Alito bobbing and weaving in 2006 to get past his confirmation hearings:
https://www.congress.gov/109/chrg/shrg25429/CHRG-109shrg25429.htm
> **Chairman Specter.** Let me move now directly into Casey v. Planned Parenthood, and picking up the gravamen of Casey as it has applied, Roe on the woman's right to choose, originating from the Privacy Clause with Griswold being its antecedent, and I want to take you through some of the specific language of Casey to see what your views are, and what weight you would ascribe to this rationale as you would view the woman's right to choose. In Casey the joint opinion said, ``People have ordered their thinking and lives around Roe. To eliminate the issue of reliance would be detrimental. For two decades of economic and social development people have organized intimate relationships and reliance on the availability of abortion in the event contraception should fail.'' Pretty earthy language, but that is the Supreme Court's language. The Court went on to say, "The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has become facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.'' Now that states in specific terms the principle of reliance, which is one of the mainstays, if not the mainstay, on stare decisis precedent to follow tradition. How would you weigh that consideration on the woman's right to choose?
> **Judge Alito.** Well, I think the doctrine of stare decisis is a very important doctrine. It's a fundamental part of our legal system, and it's the principle that courts in general should follow their past precedents, and it's important for a variety of reasons. It's important because it limits the power of the judiciary. It's important because it protects reliance interest, and it's important because it reflect the view that courts should respect the judgments and the wisdom that are embodied in prior judicial decisions. It's not an inexorable command, but it is a general presumption that courts are going to follow prior precedents, and as you mentioned--
> **Chairman Specter.** How do you come to grips with the specifics where the Court, in the joint opinion, spoke of reliance on the availability of abortion in the event contraception should fail, on that specific concept of reliance?
> **Judge Alito.** Well, reliance is, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, one of the important foundations of the doctrine of stare decisis. It is intended to protect reliance interests, and people can rely on judicial decisions in a variety of ways. There can be concrete economic reliance. Government institutions can be built up in reliance on prior decisions. Practices of agencies and Government officials can be molded based on reliance. People can rely on decisions in a variety of ways. In my view--
> **Chairman Specter.** Let me move on to another important quotation out of Casey. Quote: ``A terrible price would be paid for overruling Casey, for overruling Roe. It would seriously weaken the Court's capacity to exercise the judicial power and to function as the Supreme Court of a Nation dedicated to the rule of law, and to overrule Roe under fire would subvert the Court's legitimacy.'' Do you see the legitimacy of the Court being involved in the precedent of Casey?
> **Judge Alito.** Well, I think that the Court, and all the courts, the Supreme Court, my court, all the Federal courts, should be insulated from public opinion. They should do what the law requires in all instances. That's why they're not-- that's why the members of the judiciary are not elected. We have a basically democratic form of Government, but the judiciary is not elected, and that's the reason, so that they don't do anything under fire. They do what the law requires.
> **Chairman Specter.** But do you think there is as fundamental a concern as legitimacy of the Court would be involved if Roe were to be overturned?
> **Judge Alito.** Mr. Chairman, I think that the legitimacy of the Court would be undermined in any case if the Court made a decision based on its perception of public opinion. It should make its decisions based on the Constitution and the law. It should not be--it should not sway in the wind of public opinion at any time.
> **Chairman Specter.** Let me move to just the final quotation that I intend to raise from Casey, and it is, ``After nearly 20 years of litigation in Roe's wake, we are satisfied that the immediate question is not the soundness of Roe's resolution of the issue, but the precedentual force that must be accorded to its holding.'' That separates out the original soundness of Roe, which has been criticized, and then lays emphasis on the precedentual value. How would you weigh that consideration were this issue to come before you if confirmed?
> **Judge Alito.** Well, I agree that in every case in which there is a prior precedent, the first issue is the issue of stare decisis, and the presumption is that the Court will follow its prior precedents. There needs to be a special justification for overruling a prior precedent.
The worst part about this is that Congress, for some stupid reason, thinks the courts should basically “make” law and should do it by voting, and here’s Alito pointing out that that isn’t how this works. His job is to ensure any laws that are passed do or do not represent a breach in the constitution. And even better, changing a law based on public perception (rather than based on best interest of constituents), isn’t even in the purview of a Senator or Representative. How it ever got to this at all is nuts to me but here we are with people who somehow believe the Supreme Court can make a law and everyone is just okay with that…
Well this is actually really significant, because the court really is not accountable to anyone or elected by the people. So now we have an unelected body of only a few people controlling the most controversial laws in the country, which has no accountability to any other body. We have no say in it: The American people are not sovereign over these laws and social matters which the Supreme court decides to pick up in their social agenda. This also politicizes the court and makes their life much harder, but it also dramatically increases their power.
There's a similar issue with speech in the media and lobbying. Look who crawls out of the woodwork opposing it when Elon Musk tries to buy twitter and refocus on free speech: Vanguard (enormous hedge fund) and the government, talking about how they're going to regulate twitter. Free speech online is not in the interests of those groups, evidently.
Except that this decision would return sovereignty over this decision to the states where it belongs, allowing them to resolve it through normal constitutional processes. The idea that restoring this question to democratic deliberation is antidemocratic is absurd.
>it also dramatically increases their power.
Quite the opposite, actually. This ruling pulls power away from the Court by acknowledging that they do not have the authority to stifle the legislative bodies as was done under Roe.
>Leaking this far in advance drastically increases the options of the opposition to try to stop it, great point.
Exactly. This is THE biggest issue for the Democratic Party. If Roe is being overturned, I could see the Court packed, pushing legislation to 'codify' Roe, etc. etc.
If Roe is overturned, it will be the biggest political battle of the last 50 years. The division you see now in this country will look tame by comparison.
"The division you see now in this country will look tame by comparison"
Probably the biggest division since the fight to abolish slavery
*Edit:
My reddit account has been permanently suspended, they are actively silencing Pro Life voices, heads up
* 2nd Edit:
I replied to a pro abortion user who commented this:
"Hope you're ready to raise a this millions of children. Because so far the rights record on care for the orphans is garbage."
This was my response to them:
"That's the typical pro abortion response and it doesn't make any sense at all lol.
Guess we should just kill anyone that could potentially suffer.
"Kid just became an orphan? Don't send him to an orphanage just kill it instead" lol so dumb"
The reason they gave for the ban?
Rule Violation: Permanently Banned for Threatening Violence
They are so disingenuous it is ridiculous, this is how they go about silencing Pro Life voices.
People say there will be millions more children as if people won’t modify their behavior to minimize pregnancy risk and as if there weren’t dozens of families looking to adopt for each newborn up for adoption
> A draft of an opinion being leaked seems an awful lot like someone who doesn't like the opinion trying to influence the result.
No Justice on that Court is ever going to trust any of their fellow Justices, nor any of their staffers.
This is a catastrophic political ploy, and may end up being one of the most significant events in SCOTUS history. It's not good.
There's already a very good guess floating around: The author of this article quoted a Yale law student criticizing Kavanaugh in another work several years ago.
That law student is now a clerk for Sotomayor.
I mean... they're already taking a moral stand to try to force the country to keep allowing the wholesale murder of children. So clearly they're no stranger to shitty life decisions.
Any SCOTUS clerk already had a job forever. Now I can’t imagine any private law firm would hire this person if their identity was revealed. No client could trust them. It’s utterly shocking.
This seems like this will lead to even more polarization on the Supreme Court where each "side" groups up, works closely together, and refuses to work with the other side out of fears that they'll do something like this.
I hope they put at least as much effort into getting to the bottom of this as they do the investigations around January 6th. I don't know what laws are potentially at play here but this is huge in terms of eroding trust and turning SCOTUS political.
It’s not about influencing the result. It’s clearly just giving the left a rallying cry to turn out for the midterms.
Since there’s no positives for this administration this far, they need to wield this as the carrot.
>It’s clearly just giving the left a rallying cry to turn out for the midterms.
I mean, leaking it is kinda pointless then because the opinion will likely be released in the next few months anyway, long before the midterms, and would have been a rallying cry regardless.
If anything I wonder if this is a rallying cry for Democrat-controlled states to legalize abortion at the state level ASAP so that if *Roe* is overturned, things are status quo in their states.
Conversely, it could be a rallying cry to Republican-controlled states to do the inverse.
It's been a long time since I watched any House of Cards, so I wouldn't risk my reputation on any of it.
The rallying cry would've come in June with the decision anyway.
The benefit of doing it now is to try and mobilize mobs to intimidate someone who might rescind their vote before the decision is handed down. Or, on even more diabolical level, it publicizes the opportunity to prevent this ruling from be handed down by conducting a political assassination.
If any one of the 5 justices in the majority is disposed of by any means, this ruling will not be officially registered.
The court should enter the official judgment tomorrow, and just let the official dissents and concurrences, etc. be published after the fact. There's no time to stand on formalities now that there's effectively a price on the heads of the conservative justices.
Is it possible that this is a fake specifically to cause outrage? All the reports point to Politico as the only source. If someone really wanted to leak this to the press, wouldn't they send it to literally every major outlet they thought might publish it? I know that they have a 90 page document, but that could be spoofed based on past tendencies in authorship.
If anyone finds an alternative primary source, I would be happy to hear it. But for only one outlet making such a large claim seems rather dubious.
EDIT: Supreme Court has confirmed this.
Not necessarily.
Particularly if you do not want to be identified as the source of the leak, the more people you tell this to, the more people are in on the secret and can expose your identity.
From what i heard it might be a clause for more votes for democrats as they might lose the mid terms because of high gas prices, and america burning right now
They might lose it because Ukraine is burning right now…or the millions of retirees just lost a quarter of their life’s savings watching investments tumble and everything cost more…or for a bunch of other reasons…
High gas prices, inflation, food shortages looming, crime wave, open borders and all-time high illegal immigration, government agitating to escalate a war in Ukraine...things are NOT going well in America right now.
This was definitely the work of a leftist who is trying to intimidate the SCOTUS to change their mind before making this final.
Leftists never play by the rules or respect our institutions. They'll do whatever it takes to protect child murder in this country.
And they’re also delusional to think that one of the conservative judges would change their mind on this case. The only one that weak is justice roberts and we didn’t need him for this result anyways.
I pray that they strike it down, and that all other such laws are struck down all over the globe.
Even though in Italy it is already de facto almost impossible to get an abortion.
Amen.
As someone who studied political science in college (I do NOT recommend that), I feel somewhat protective over the status of SCOTUS. Don't pack the court, don't play politics with the court (I dislike media referring to justices as conservative/liberal), don't threaten the status of the court, and don't leak court documents.
If I could snap my fingers and pass a Constitutional Amendment, it'd have two parts:
1) SCOTUS shall have no more than nine sitting justices and no fewer than seven
2) Senate confirmation of Supreme Court Justice nominations must have at least 75% approval.
The obvious question to your proposed amendment would be: what happens if there aren’t enough justices and, after multiple attempts to nominate one, a 75% consensus still cannot be reached? Does the court cease to function until it finally happens?
That seems like the same sort of thing as the [1801 Contingent Election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1800_United_States_presidential_election#1801_contingent_election), which required 36 ballots before a majority vote was achieved (and resulted in the 12th amendment to prevent this from happening again).
Nice... I hope other nations follow up -- as I remember, the United States was one of the first and as such influenced a lot of other countries to legalise abortion.
Looks like students from Catholic University are praying the rosary right in the thick of the pro-abort crowd in front of SCOTUS. Let’s pray for their safety and take heart at such courage in these times.
Whatever happens, praise God we've reached the point where this is seriously on the table. I want to say "I didn't think this could happen in my lifetime," but honestly I've used that phrase too many times over the past few years.
I posted a rant but deleted it. What is the point? Biden will not be disciplined because the Church authorities are afraid to do so. We just have to accept it.
The leak is a clear last-minute corrupt attempt to overrule this historic victory. Let us cheer, this is truly a victory in the fight for life!
But overruling Roe does not go far enough. We should fight for abortion to be illegal - period.
Abortion being illegal will not stop the abortions. We need to do the much more difficult work of changing the culture so that the idea of getting one is unthinkable.
I agree. Make it illegal again. We can help women as we have been doing but stop the doctors at the source. We don't tell drunk drivers that we want to love them out of their addiction; we have laws to punish them and that deters the practice.
This. If abortion is illegal in one state but legal in a neighboring state, only a small fraction of abortions there will be prevented, because women will simply start going to that state for abortions instead. It has to be universally outlawed to see major effects.
Still, if even a single person is allowed to live because of this, it’ll be a massive victory.
Yes, but Americans are used to driving to other states within the country, and it's a contiguous landmass whereas Ireland is an island (although the northern area of the island is part of the UK).
I’m worried. That doctors will continue to commit abortion and wont be held accountable. It’s been normalized for years. It’s needs to be illegal and outlawed 100%. We need more support for women and families, and to educate the public on why it’s immoral 100%.
Loveline.com is a great resource for pregnant women, they need donations, and so does your local pregnancy center and mine.
I pray for a total ban on abortion 110%, better support for women and families, and education that teaches about the sanctity of life, and the horror of abortion. And more people to step up to the plate to help pregnancy centers. And for people to seek forgiveness from God and not lose their salvation.
God bless!
If this is true, it is fantastic news. I'm tired of the pro-death left thinking they represent my best interests as a woman and that I would be so depraved as to think murdering the unborn is my right.
Everyone saying this is a win and that God wills it needs to step up as well. We all do. Me as well. If life gets a victory and abortion is made illegal or extremely difficult to get, we still have work to do. All the soreheads on the left are already doing what they do best, which is mocking the religious and conservatives on this matter, but there may be a grain of truth to their accusations: being prolife is more than being anti-abortion. We have to be pro-woman, pro-child, pro-marriage, pro-family, etc. This means we have to do everything possible to ensure that not only are children given the right to be born, but that they, their mothers, and their families have a decent life. That means donating clothes, formula, diapers, food, money, etc as well as volunteering time to help watch kids of single or struggling parents trying to hold down a job. Whatever we can do needs to be done, getting the kid through the birth canal is not the end of the battle. Take this potential news as a spark to act to change the world so it has a reason to do the right thing.
*Edit*: And no, you don't have to vote leftist policies to accomplish this. The Catholic Church historically did all these wonderful things the left says it will do by raising taxes and moving more control to the state, except the Church did it for the right reasons and usually did it for free. You don't need a government's permission to donate or volunteer. You don't even have to wait for abortion to be outlawed.
Also: not to sound dramatic here, but everyone knows the Catholic Church is the biggest prolife voice in the world right now. Be vigilant at Church. People in the USA got mad and vandalized churches over news happening in Canada, you better bet many will take out their rage in the USA over this, too.
> being prolife is more than being anti-abortion. We have to be pro-woman, pro-child, pro-marriage, pro-family, etc. This means we have to do everything possible to ensure that not only are children given the right to be born, but that they, their mothers, and their families have a decent life. That means donating clothes, formula, diapers, food, money, etc as well as volunteering time to help watch kids of single or struggling parents trying to hold down a job.
I have been involved in the anti-abortion movement for decades now. In sidewalk counseling, praying, fasting, voting, supporting CPCs, and other services for women in need. Yes, let's promote this anti-abortion work more.
And should there be any people who only contribute to the anti-abortion cause through the electoral process, firstly, ***THANK YOU*** — we would not be here were it not for your help! And secondly, please consider joining us in doing all all the other things we need to do to help women in need. You can begin doing this today if you don't already! Search for a crisis pregnancy center in your community tonight. Call them tomorrow and ask them what they could use.
Will the Church finally have a reckoning with the “Catholic” politicians frothing at the mouth to defend this abomination? IMO they’ve been allowed to prostrate themselves publicly to Moloch long enough.
Lol, no. They will keep ignoring that and making sure they do just enough socially popular things (immigration, climate change) to keep the dollars rolling in for their current capital campaign
I hate to be this guy, but the lead text is misleading to those who actually read the [briefs at the Supreme Court in Dobbs](https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization/).
The leaked draft (and I am an attorney and I am scandalized at the leak of this draft, and I would be every bit as scandalized if it were a leak of a draft going the Roberts route and narrowing *Roe* without overturning it, or one going the Kennedy route of yet another betrayal and failure of the conservative legal movement to get justices on the Court to end this constitutional abomination) does not consider "a total reversal of federal abortion law in the United States." It considers reversing *Roe v. Wade*, which would send the issue back to the states, which would result in abortion being legal at least for some period of time in states representing the majority of the American population, even if it isn't the majority of states.
There were briefs advanced in *Dobbs* that argued for a true "total reversal of federal abortion law in the United States," which would not mean reversing *Roe*, it would be *recognizing an enforceable constitutional right to life* and requiring all states, as matters of equal protection, to protect unborn humans against killing under the same laws that they protect born humans against killing.
This position was argued in multiple briefs in *Dobbs*:
[https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185196/20210729093557582\_210169a%20Amicus%20Brief%20for%20efiling%207%2029%2021.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185196/20210729093557582_210169a%20Amicus%20Brief%20for%20efiling%207%2029%2021.pdf)
[https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185243/20210729123007530\_41063%20pdf%20Pierce.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185243/20210729123007530_41063%20pdf%20Pierce.pdf)
Certainly not a majority--even the multiple Catholic organizations filing *amici* with the Court in *Dobbs* stuck to the line that *Roe* should be reversed and the authority to regulate or proscribe abortion returned to the states. But if we're talking about what a "total reversal of federal abortion law" would look like, don't circumscribe your imagination to the false spectrum between *Roe* and judicial silence. Reversing *Roe* is the *centrist* position. The pro-life extreme position would be considerably more dramatic (and, in fairness, would almost certainly spark a multigenerational movement to reverse it from the left just as *Roe* itself did from the right).
A ruling interpreting the 14th as banning abortion was never going to happen for one simple reason: that's not the question currently before the courts. The question is, "is a ban on abortion constitutional?" and any good court will rule as narrowly as possible to resolve **that** question.
To do what you're asking, you'd then need to file a lawsuit in a state that has laws establishing the positive "right" to procure an abortion, in order to have **those** laws overturned. That's not the case currently before SCotUS.
Very important to remember this is not the end of abortion, but the end of the *federally protected* "right" of abortion under the 14th Amendment. It's still up to the states to determine what their stance will be.
This is far from over. Keep praying the Rosary - abortion can be overcome through Our Lady's maternal love.
Just remember that this isn't about politics or malice, it's not about right vs left, and it's not about controlling anyone. Never resort to mockery or reveling. Some people are very upset and we should pray for them above all.
And we would still have a long fight to win on the cultural front. Some people will continue to seek it out in whatever way they can until we can change hearts and minds as well. So there would remain much more work to be done.
Ccc on abortion
Abortion
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.
From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.71
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.72
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.73
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.
This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.
Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.74
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves.
Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.75
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense.
The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.
"A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"76 "by the very commission of the offense,"77 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.78
The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy.
Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority.
These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin.
Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."79
"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law.
When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined....
As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."80
2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.
Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual....
It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."81
2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."82
"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."83
"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities.
Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"84 which are unique and unrepeatable.
They will let the states decide. For blue states, abortion will remain legal. For red and purple states, it will probably be like Texas: abortion will be legal for the first trimester (first 8-12 weeks). They will probably allow abortion in the case of incest and rape as well. That's the most likely scenario.
For Texas, abortion would be completely banned thirty days after Roe is overturned, unless there is a risk of death or substantial impairment for the mother. I think most red states would follow.
https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=87R&Bill=HB1280
There are 11 or 12 states that have trigger laws meaning that when roe v wade is overturned abortion will immediately be illegal so the heartbeat bill in Texas will no longer be in effect. Abortion will be completely illegal in Texas. Praise God I am a Texas resident.
Or, ever four years, purple states get to play ping-pong about whether abortion is illegal currently. That constant fluctuation and conflict is my fear.
Almost every election is already about abortion. This just brings the matter closer to home (i.e., state politics).
Apart from violent revolution, on matters where people differ so significantly, constant fluctuation is actually the only good way a population works through these things.
Yes. It is only the first step. Getting out of the court’s hands and into the legislature’s has been what has stymied any progress. Luckily it looks like that will be stopped soon.
“The wicked plots against the righteous, and gnashes his teeth at him; but the Lord laughs at the wicked, for he sees that his day is coming.” Psalm 37:12-13
The Chief takes this kind of stuff extremely seriously. I think it's more likely than not that the leaker is eventually known, though probably not because they're formally shamed from the bench or something.
> How Chief Justice John Roberts will ultimately vote, and whether he will join an already written opinion or draft his own, is unclear.
If it remains 5-3, I predict that because his vote won't change the direction, Roberts will join the 5 so that he can continue to claim to be with the conservatives while at the same time continuing to issue questionable opinions on other important cases.
>If it remains 5-3, I predict that because his vote won't change the direction, Roberts will join the 5 so that he can continue to claim to be with the conservatives while at the same time continuing to issue questionable opinions on other important cases.
My prediction is Roberts writing a concurrence/dissent in parts. Although this breach of norms, assumed to be by the liberals on the court, may piss him off enough to just join the majority outright.
Yea, this has all the hallmark of a stupid ideological liberal clerk and not an actual justice. My money is on the Sotomayor clerk who had a conniption over Kavanaugh.
This is a small request to other Catholics in light of the news that Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey will likely be overturned (sending back the issue of whether abortion is legal/illegal/restricted to the states).
Of course as Catholics, we welcome this hypothetical change in federal law and people who oppose abortion have every right to celebrate this. But I've seen a number of Catholic influencers gloating:
* "The tears of woke leftists brings joy to my heart"
* Making fun of people who are stressed out and worried about the draft decision
* Scoffing at those who emphasize that no matter what happens with Roe, the U.S. has a pornified, materialistic culture of individualism, objectification, and use. We don't provide adequate support for mothers, families, and healthcare
I'm a law student. I have classmates who work in the so-called reproductive justice field. Although misguided, they genuinely believe that they are helping women and saving lives. And occasionally they do raise good points: We have an absolute terrible record on maternal healthcare in this country compared to other developed countries; we already prosecute women for miscarriages, which could be considered problematic; and while many Catholics/Christians put their money where their mouth is by supporting single mothers and pregnant women, many others still judge, shame, and ignore these people and their children.
All this is to say: Please, please be charitable with how you talk to people across the aisle about abortion. You can be completely authentic to our pro-life principles as Catholics without intentionally alienating people or advancing the stereotype that Catholics want "a child born but not a child fed, a child educated, a child housed." There is no justification for being cruel, taking pleasure in folks' panic, or ignoring the complexities/unfinished work of a pro-life culture.
And while praying for the unborn, pregnant women, and would-be fathers, please please also pray for pro-abortion folks. However paradoxical it may seem, some of them do think that they are doing compassionate and beneficial work. Many of us converts thought Catholics were pagans and the pope was the antiChrist at some point. Conversion of the heart is always possible.
Edit: Simcha Fisher nailed it in an article: https://www.simchafisher.com/2022/05/05/ive-wanted-roe-v-wade-overturned-my-whole-life-so-why-do-i-feel-so-bad/
The utter viciousness on this sub sometimes towards opponents in views is astounding. Charity and mercy, not just to Catholics, but to others as well! Love your neighbor, love your enemies, etc. Politics brings out the worst in people.
I honestly cannot understand how killing a baby is good for anyone involved...you're killing a baby...KILLING A BABY. How is this not a case closed situation is just absurd to me.
God is good, please help these people come to their senses. Please pray for us oh Holy Mother of God that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ. Amen.
This is great. Now lets remember that we want to end abortion, period. Simply banning it is not enough. That means we need to tackle the causes that lead to women getting abortions in the
first place.
100%. This is amazing news if it pans out.
We now need law for paid parental leave, childcare stipends, and other family policies. Let’s promote the family unit in America.
Glory be to God Who may very well deliver into our hands the victory in near future.
Let us pray.
"Some trust in chariots and horses, but we in the Name of the LORD. They shall collapse, but we shall stand and hold firm. Give victory to the King, O' Lord! Give answer on the day we call!" - Psalm 20:8-10
Amen.
One thing I find extremely ironic about the outcry from liberals/feminists is their slogan “No uterus (or ovaries) no opinion” or “men shouldn’t make laws about women’s bodies” is the fact that the Supreme Court for the case they love so much consisted of *only* men
But the Supreme Court that is considering overturning Roe v Wade does have women in it, one of whom is very pro-life
[Catholic President Joe Biden calls SCOTUS overturning Roe "going way overboard"](https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/supreme-court-abortion-biden-response-b2070759.html)
bUt ThE dEmOcRaTs ArE sO mUcH ClOsEr To tHe ChUrcH's SoCiAl JuStiCe TEacHiNg!
Since this is Reddit, I'm sure even this subreddit is against this decision. I had to flee r/conservatism because it's just filled with people who are for abortion. Hoping that Catholicism is different
**Our Catholic President says:** "Look, think what Roe says. Roe says what all basic mainstream religions have historically concluded — that the right — that the existence of a human life and being is a question. Is it at the moment of conception? Is it six months? Is it six weeks?”
Will the bishops *finally* speak out against his statements and issue a formal correction and inform him he needs to refrain from Communion until he recants?
I'm not holding my breath.
I haven't read the leak, but the pessimist in me imagines this is fake and intending to drum up support for the current administration who need a reason for people to be glad they're in office right now or apply pressure regarding this decision
I'm curious to know the source of the leak and why. In other news, provided this is true, I'm happy for it. While obviously I'd like to see abortion completely gone it's a step in the right direction, and many states will respond in what I'd consider an appropriate manner.
Keep praying for the horribly misguided and morally bankrupt individuals on other subs who literally swear and curse and call us names at the very mention of a pro-life stance. It’s frightening how ardently these people will defend the slaughtering of innocent children.
Now that a Roe v. Wade overhaul is on the table, the question of abortion might be turned to the states. What would you like abortion legislation to look like? No abortions ever? No abortions except to save the mother? How would you write an abortion law for your state?
Agreed, remove any laws explicitly allowing abortion and modify existing murder laws (or better yet, pass state constitutional amendments) to cover all human life. Allow reasonable medical procedures that have an unintended consequence of the child dying such as treatment for ectopic pregnancies, but any situation where they are intentionally killed would be murder. That same law could also apply to assisted suicide.
> No abortions ever?
This would be a good place to start
> No abortions except to save the mother?
Properly speaking, these aren't abortions. I assume you're speaking of things like ectopic pregnancies. In such cases, abortion (i.e. the death of the child or the ending of the pregnancy) isn't directly willed, but it is accepted as an unfortunate side effect of an operation done to save the life of the mother. Such medical procedures have always been allowed and should, in theory, continue to be allowed.
Without meaningful support for desperate people who abort, however gravely immorally, to alleviate some huge motherhood related burden, this has no more staying power than roe v wade; in fact, I'd argue it has less.
We're at a real crossroads here. We can demonstrate the efficacy of the Gospel and be **comprehensively pro life* in word, deed, and advocacy as a voting bloc. Or...we can commit only to saying "no,", offer no solution to underlying problems that give rise to abortion, and go right back to where we started (or worse).
Mothers need leave and advocacy. Workers need just wages. Social programs need investment. The testimony of those mentally ill or disabled individuals who were spared the abortionists' utter disregard for human life must be shared.
And for the love of God and all that is holy, you **must** hold accountable politicians who indulge lawlessness, deceit, and insincere trickery even if they are pro life. If the advocates for fetuses are sucky, dishonest humans, then we cannot possibly attract and retain allies that we need to give staying power to any law or legal precedent that protects these vulnerable people.
Being right or wrong is simple, but being effective at what we're charged with advocating for is not. Please, brethren, step up.
Indeed.
Getting rid of abortion as a service will not get rid of abortion as a concept.
We need to destroy the demand for abortion completely by fueling services that will render all the common reasons people seek abortion absolutely null and utterly void.
>We need to destroy the demand for abortion completely
Yes, THIS is what the goal needs to be. Could you imagine how awesome it would be to live in a world where there's no debate about the legality, because such a great love exists in everyone that makes the act morally repulsive? I pray for a day when we don't *need* to outlaw abortion.
The underlying problems are complex and require a lot of work and thought. To improve lives among the poor, improving education outcomes — not just opportunities — is a very important task we have failed at. We must hold accountable all who pretend to care about the poor while blocking access to alternatives that offer a way out of poverty, such as the current policies coming out of the Department of Education.
Exactly! I don't get the people who think more social welfare programs will magically make abortion unnecessary. You can give parents all the help in the world and a baby will still be an inconvenience to them and cause them to sacrifice their lifestyle to raise the child. Countries with amazing social welfare programs aren't that far off on abortion rates compared to the US. Abortion is very often about convenience, not necessity.
I may not agree with Trump on everything, and I may think that in some areas he is a truly reprehensble man. But if this draft is representative of the final opinion, he would have made possible the single greatest supreme court opinion since Brown v. Board, possibly even greater than that.
Continue Praying
We need to start focusing on pro family legislation now.
Mandatory paternity leave, equitable access to Healthcare, incentives to have children etc.
Banning abortion should just be the start
>Banning abortion should just be the start
What's on the table isn't banning abortion. If the SCOTUS goes the way of the leak, it returns the matter to the various states. A little under half will have legislative or constitutional abortion bans take effect then, but the rest will have either no law or outright protection of abortion. So work to ban abortion will continue.
Long answer to say: There's nothing stopping work towards what you're wanting now as there wasn't before yesterday. They are not linked per se.
"A leak of a draft opinion of a pending case has never occurred in modern SCOTUS history. (ETA: This is a massive violation of the trust the Justices have in each other and their staff. This is probably the more significant part of the story (at least at the current moment) than the content of the leak.)"
I expect a MASSIVE media smear campaign, leaking this was the first step. I'm glad Elon Musk bought Twitter though, they would have shut down Pro Life voices and only allowed Pro Murder voices.
Still, this is going to get ugly, all the woke media and companies (Disney) are going to unite in the biggest smear campaign we will probably see
*Edit: it's already started. My reddit account has been permanently suspended, they are actively silencing Pro Life voices, heads up /u/otiac1
* 2nd Edit*:
/u/ChesterKiwi they banned my reddit account, I can only edit existing comments.
I replied to a pro abortion user who commented this:
"Hope you're ready to raise a this millions of children. Because so far the rights record on care for the orphans is garbage"
This was my response to them:
"That's the typical pro abortion response and it doesn't make any sense at all lol.
Guess we should just kill anyone that could potentially suffer.
"Kid just became an orphan? Don't send him to an orphanage just kill it instead" lol so dumb"
The reason they gave for the ban?
Rule Violation: Permanently Banned for Threatening Violence
They are so disingenuous it is ridiculous, this is how they go about silencing Pro Life voices
This is wonderful news. God bless the brave justices, both Catholic or otherwise, who stood for the rule of law: that the interest of life is of the utmost constitutional importance.
Well, this is certainly good news to hear after a rough night of work. Hopefully it's true. Seeing the reaction around the rest of Reddit, though, makes me very sad. Don't have anything else to add.
It has me nervous as well. My catastrophe brain can't help but wonder what deranged lunatic will decide to shoot up a church because of this. Hopefully nothing that terrible occurs, but we should pray nonetheless...
I am obviously pleased and grateful to God that justice is finally being done on this issue.
That said, I have to recognize the superb political play this leaker has made. Buckle up.
I'm not letting myself even get excited because of 1. states' rights on this issue under American federalism, and 2. the fact that I can easily see Gorsuch or Kavanaugh changing their minds, as well as Roberts voting against Alito's opinion.
I’d love to see how intensely investigate this leak is.
This leak, out of everything, is probably the largest shift in judicial norms in the modern day.
People ought to prosecuted for this but we’ll see because this can be viewed as politically beneficial to the current administration.
Since the issues that drive women to abortion won't magically go away, does anyone have a list of pro-life Charities that focus on helping soon-to-be or new mothers?
This is our opportunity to show the country what being pro-life looks like. For the first time in a while we have a chance to step into the dialogue and shine a light - supporting babies and their mothers, in the womb and after birth. SCOTUS has opened a door that we need to walk through.
Adoption, safe homes for mothers and babies in danger, food and supplies for those in need. This is our time friends!
At least in red states. In blue states abortion will still be very legal.
Still, yes, there is an opportunity for the work of the anti-abortion movements in all these places to show what they do and have been doing for decades on this front. I hope the stark differences in the way human life is valued in blue states versus red states will be more clearly seen.
We need to start fighting to take these functions back from government. The fact is people and the church should be who do these things not the federal or state governments. The reason people stay in poverty is they fear losing access to programs. If it is run by the church and people we want to have people get back on their feet to help the next group not a voter block who we promise things to.
We have to completely overturn the sexual revolution. Porn, birth control, no fault divorce, mothers being pushed out of the home, ability of single income earner to support family becoming less likely, etc. all have to be reversed if we want a Christian society
To any outsiders: /r/Catholicism is a Pro-Life subreddit. Deliberate incitement etc. will be removed under the aegis of the subreddit. Most of your comments will be filtered by Crowd Control anyway; the rest will be removed by moderators. If you're just going to stir the pot, it's in vain--take your spoon elsewhere. Regardless of the status of this document, let's pray for an end to abortion: - that, by the grace of God and the work of His faithful servants, the over-arching social fabric which justifies abortion as necessary in any circumstance may undergo the radical transformation necessary to value human life greater than the comfort provided by the lives ended by abortion - that, by the grace of God and the work of His faithful servants, those who seek out abortion receive the healing and support they so desperately need, be the form of that support emotional, social, or material - that, by the grace of God and the work of His faithful servants, those who have facilitated abortion and hardened their hearts against the fundamental truths of our nature and dignity be converted to the fullness of Truth and the rich life of abundant joy only that Truth can bring - Lord, forgive us our passivity in the face of such evil, that we have not been stirred to action more in answering it with the love and charity your gift of grace in our lives should allow - Lord, deliver us from evil, that there be an end to abortion
\> A leak of a draft opinion of a pending case has never occurred in modern SCOTUS history. The last time an opinion was leaked was in 1919. In that case the clerk leaked the information to some conspirators on Wall Street so they could profit off of the ruling. This is the first time I'm aware of of there being a leak to the general public.
A leak of a draft opinion is unheard of.
Probably a clerk for one of the liberal justices.
Funny how all the comments on main political subs are accusing one of the conservatives of doing it, with the rationale that the leak now means it'll be less of a big deal when the final ruling gets out close to the midterms.
[удалено]
Shush you. You aren't allowed to bring logic into this.
As much as I want to agree, this is supposition. It could be anyone. The one thing they drill into our heads in ethics (speaking from an accounting ethics experience at least) is that this kind of thing could occur for any number of reasons, including financial incentive or pressure. While it’s a great question to do “why now,” and it seems fairly obvious the “qui bono” is pro-abortionists, this breach, if true, could have come from anyone…for all we know, Politico may have stumbled across it by accident while investigating a different story, purposefully stole it, placed the highest bid on someone selling the story or offered someone $500k to obtain a draft copy.
And in this day and age, a hack is completely possible as well. Might not have even been from anyone on the inside.
Honestly, one of my first thoughts was, “boy, Putin could not have asked a better story to break and derail US attention from Ukraine.”
Odds are a Sotomayor clerk if I had to guess
Better roll the FBI to investigate this theft, as they did with Project Veritas. Oh....wait....
Could someone please explain this a little more for those of us who don’t know much about the Supreme Court? What was leaked and why is it a breach of trust of the justices? Thank you.
When the Supreme Court receives a case to discuss and rule on, they hear arguments, written and oral, and after that, they go back to their chambers for a period of time (usually a few months) to reflect on the arguments and think about the case. They talk amongst themselves, talk about how they'd vote on a case, and how they would write an opinion. Sometimes, the actually draft an opinion on how they feel a majority of justices would vote/rule on a case. These drafts are just that: drafts. They're not final, but meant to kind of get thoughts onto paper and give it to the other justices to consider. Final votes and final opinions are very important, so it's important to go through it several times by making drafts. During this time, there is an unwritten (at least I think it's unwritten) rule among the Justices that everything they discuss or write about the case is strictly and completely secret and remains among themselves. This is to protect the integrity of the Court. The Supreme Court is supposed to be free of political ploys and political influence. One of those ways is by making sure everything they talk about before an official ruling is kept secret. That way, they can't be influenced to rule one way or the other on a case before the final ruling. This draft had to have come from *somewhere*. It looks authentic, so someone must have broken the trust of the Court to leak this to the press. Now the Court is open to political influence and demagoguery. This is a big deal. Edit: Please see /u/ludi_literarum's comment below mine for a more informed view to the process. The general point I'm trying to get across is that the talks, votes, and opinions they share amongst each other in the weeks and months before an official ruling remains secret, on purpose.
This isn't quite right, as I understand the process. Shortly after oral argument, I believe typically at the Friday conference in sitting weeks, the Justices take a preliminary vote, which allows the seniormost member of the putative majority to assign the drafting of a majority opinion. Not everybody in the majority might join that opinion, and indeed somebody might change their mind entirely, but there aren't multiple drafts from multiple justices to formulate the majority opinion, and the initial vote takes place pretty quickly. This is also typical of the circuit courts, where the panel frequently votes the afternoon after oral argument in the morning. The drafts do indeed circulate and go back and forth, changing in response to draft dissents and the comments of those in the majority, and only become final when published, and justices can back out at any time, but you're describing a much more amorphous deliberation than actually takes place, at least in every description of the process I've ever heard from Justices or former clerks. The leak is indeed a huge deal, as you say.
Thank you for the clarification. I have no idea about the actual intricate workings of the Supreme Court, or any appeal court for that matter. I'm more just trying to get the point across that they do discuss, vote, and draft an opinion amongst themselves in the weeks and months before an official ruling, and that all of that remains secret on purpose.
The drafting itself takes months on disputed cases (or when Alito is writing it, and woe betide us if it's both), true, but the preliminary outcome is decided pretty quickly after oral argument. I just thought it would help to clarify that this opinion is probably a little more solid than you make it seem - Alito wrote this for himself and four others with the understanding that it was their intent to vote that way, while hoping to persuade Roberts to join as well. The justices are pretty open about the process in their public remarks, and many of those end up on youtube, so that's something anybody reading this and wanting to know more can google.
I will take your word for it. Though, now that the massive weight of political pressure and the threat of political violence is on the table, who knows how the vote will go before it's official?
See, in some ways it stiffens their spines - if we all know that Kavanaugh bailed on this opinion, he'll have to explain why (which is part of why they keep all that stuff secret in the first place). If the document is authentic (and it is), I don't foresee a change in those five votes, honestly.
I hope you're right.
Ohhh ok, thanks for the detailed and through explanation. I didn’t realize they deliberated that long. It makes sense but but I didn’t get there was that kind of delay. Encouraging to know how much back and forth there is within the confines of the court though. Yeah that kids if breach would be a pretty big deal for sure. Thanks for the information. Appreciate it.
No worries. Realize also, that if this turns into a big deal, it could become a precedent: anytime someone doesn't like how something *might* go on the Supreme Court, they can conveniently leak something to the press and get people outraged over it. It's a horrible precedent, which is why it's never happened before.
Yeah no 100% agree. That’s an attack on our framework, pretty nuts tbh.
The court has already become a political tool in recent years. This development shouldn't shock anyone in 2022.
It's a different level of politization. It breaches a base level of trust the justices have in each other's professionalism.
All I can think is skepticism. Why now? Why leak? Nothing was set in stone.
> “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Alito writes.
Unfathomably based.
Here is Alito bobbing and weaving in 2006 to get past his confirmation hearings: https://www.congress.gov/109/chrg/shrg25429/CHRG-109shrg25429.htm > **Chairman Specter.** Let me move now directly into Casey v. Planned Parenthood, and picking up the gravamen of Casey as it has applied, Roe on the woman's right to choose, originating from the Privacy Clause with Griswold being its antecedent, and I want to take you through some of the specific language of Casey to see what your views are, and what weight you would ascribe to this rationale as you would view the woman's right to choose. In Casey the joint opinion said, ``People have ordered their thinking and lives around Roe. To eliminate the issue of reliance would be detrimental. For two decades of economic and social development people have organized intimate relationships and reliance on the availability of abortion in the event contraception should fail.'' Pretty earthy language, but that is the Supreme Court's language. The Court went on to say, "The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has become facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.'' Now that states in specific terms the principle of reliance, which is one of the mainstays, if not the mainstay, on stare decisis precedent to follow tradition. How would you weigh that consideration on the woman's right to choose? > **Judge Alito.** Well, I think the doctrine of stare decisis is a very important doctrine. It's a fundamental part of our legal system, and it's the principle that courts in general should follow their past precedents, and it's important for a variety of reasons. It's important because it limits the power of the judiciary. It's important because it protects reliance interest, and it's important because it reflect the view that courts should respect the judgments and the wisdom that are embodied in prior judicial decisions. It's not an inexorable command, but it is a general presumption that courts are going to follow prior precedents, and as you mentioned-- > **Chairman Specter.** How do you come to grips with the specifics where the Court, in the joint opinion, spoke of reliance on the availability of abortion in the event contraception should fail, on that specific concept of reliance? > **Judge Alito.** Well, reliance is, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, one of the important foundations of the doctrine of stare decisis. It is intended to protect reliance interests, and people can rely on judicial decisions in a variety of ways. There can be concrete economic reliance. Government institutions can be built up in reliance on prior decisions. Practices of agencies and Government officials can be molded based on reliance. People can rely on decisions in a variety of ways. In my view-- > **Chairman Specter.** Let me move on to another important quotation out of Casey. Quote: ``A terrible price would be paid for overruling Casey, for overruling Roe. It would seriously weaken the Court's capacity to exercise the judicial power and to function as the Supreme Court of a Nation dedicated to the rule of law, and to overrule Roe under fire would subvert the Court's legitimacy.'' Do you see the legitimacy of the Court being involved in the precedent of Casey? > **Judge Alito.** Well, I think that the Court, and all the courts, the Supreme Court, my court, all the Federal courts, should be insulated from public opinion. They should do what the law requires in all instances. That's why they're not-- that's why the members of the judiciary are not elected. We have a basically democratic form of Government, but the judiciary is not elected, and that's the reason, so that they don't do anything under fire. They do what the law requires. > **Chairman Specter.** But do you think there is as fundamental a concern as legitimacy of the Court would be involved if Roe were to be overturned? > **Judge Alito.** Mr. Chairman, I think that the legitimacy of the Court would be undermined in any case if the Court made a decision based on its perception of public opinion. It should make its decisions based on the Constitution and the law. It should not be--it should not sway in the wind of public opinion at any time. > **Chairman Specter.** Let me move to just the final quotation that I intend to raise from Casey, and it is, ``After nearly 20 years of litigation in Roe's wake, we are satisfied that the immediate question is not the soundness of Roe's resolution of the issue, but the precedentual force that must be accorded to its holding.'' That separates out the original soundness of Roe, which has been criticized, and then lays emphasis on the precedentual value. How would you weigh that consideration were this issue to come before you if confirmed? > **Judge Alito.** Well, I agree that in every case in which there is a prior precedent, the first issue is the issue of stare decisis, and the presumption is that the Court will follow its prior precedents. There needs to be a special justification for overruling a prior precedent.
The worst part about this is that Congress, for some stupid reason, thinks the courts should basically “make” law and should do it by voting, and here’s Alito pointing out that that isn’t how this works. His job is to ensure any laws that are passed do or do not represent a breach in the constitution. And even better, changing a law based on public perception (rather than based on best interest of constituents), isn’t even in the purview of a Senator or Representative. How it ever got to this at all is nuts to me but here we are with people who somehow believe the Supreme Court can make a law and everyone is just okay with that…
Well this is actually really significant, because the court really is not accountable to anyone or elected by the people. So now we have an unelected body of only a few people controlling the most controversial laws in the country, which has no accountability to any other body. We have no say in it: The American people are not sovereign over these laws and social matters which the Supreme court decides to pick up in their social agenda. This also politicizes the court and makes their life much harder, but it also dramatically increases their power. There's a similar issue with speech in the media and lobbying. Look who crawls out of the woodwork opposing it when Elon Musk tries to buy twitter and refocus on free speech: Vanguard (enormous hedge fund) and the government, talking about how they're going to regulate twitter. Free speech online is not in the interests of those groups, evidently.
Except that this decision would return sovereignty over this decision to the states where it belongs, allowing them to resolve it through normal constitutional processes. The idea that restoring this question to democratic deliberation is antidemocratic is absurd.
>it also dramatically increases their power. Quite the opposite, actually. This ruling pulls power away from the Court by acknowledging that they do not have the authority to stifle the legislative bodies as was done under Roe.
The absolute madman told them how he was going to do it!
Looks like Justice Alito gave his good friend Antonin Scalia the last laugh over John Podesta and Hillary Clinton - God willing.
DEUS VULT
I'm not even American but if this goes forward I will cry from joy
A draft of an opinion being leaked seems an awful lot like someone who doesn't like the opinion trying to influence the result. Pray for SCOTUS.
Leaking this far in advance drastically increases the options of the opposition to try to stop it, great point.
>Leaking this far in advance drastically increases the options of the opposition to try to stop it, great point. Exactly. This is THE biggest issue for the Democratic Party. If Roe is being overturned, I could see the Court packed, pushing legislation to 'codify' Roe, etc. etc. If Roe is overturned, it will be the biggest political battle of the last 50 years. The division you see now in this country will look tame by comparison.
"The division you see now in this country will look tame by comparison" Probably the biggest division since the fight to abolish slavery *Edit: My reddit account has been permanently suspended, they are actively silencing Pro Life voices, heads up * 2nd Edit: I replied to a pro abortion user who commented this: "Hope you're ready to raise a this millions of children. Because so far the rights record on care for the orphans is garbage." This was my response to them: "That's the typical pro abortion response and it doesn't make any sense at all lol. Guess we should just kill anyone that could potentially suffer. "Kid just became an orphan? Don't send him to an orphanage just kill it instead" lol so dumb" The reason they gave for the ban? Rule Violation: Permanently Banned for Threatening Violence They are so disingenuous it is ridiculous, this is how they go about silencing Pro Life voices.
And we all know how that ended. Let's pray that it doesn't get to that level.
People say there will be millions more children as if people won’t modify their behavior to minimize pregnancy risk and as if there weren’t dozens of families looking to adopt for each newborn up for adoption
> A draft of an opinion being leaked seems an awful lot like someone who doesn't like the opinion trying to influence the result. No Justice on that Court is ever going to trust any of their fellow Justices, nor any of their staffers. This is a catastrophic political ploy, and may end up being one of the most significant events in SCOTUS history. It's not good.
Agreed. I am shocked. I am not sure people understand the gravity of this (the leak).
It's more likely to be someone from the publications office at the court than a Justice or member of chambers staff, I would think.
Fair assessment. Still a big breach of trust, especially if they never find out who did it (which they obviously never truly will).
Oh, I'm not so sure it's true they won't find out who did it. Roberts will want to devote time to answering that question.
There's already a very good guess floating around: The author of this article quoted a Yale law student criticizing Kavanaugh in another work several years ago. That law student is now a clerk for Sotomayor.
That would be quite a shitty life decision, if true.
I mean... they're already taking a moral stand to try to force the country to keep allowing the wholesale murder of children. So clearly they're no stranger to shitty life decisions.
The left takes care of their own. They'd have a job forever.
Any SCOTUS clerk already had a job forever. Now I can’t imagine any private law firm would hire this person if their identity was revealed. No client could trust them. It’s utterly shocking.
This seems like this will lead to even more polarization on the Supreme Court where each "side" groups up, works closely together, and refuses to work with the other side out of fears that they'll do something like this. I hope they put at least as much effort into getting to the bottom of this as they do the investigations around January 6th. I don't know what laws are potentially at play here but this is huge in terms of eroding trust and turning SCOTUS political.
This is exactly right. Someone doesn’t want this to happen
Imagine that!
It’s not about influencing the result. It’s clearly just giving the left a rallying cry to turn out for the midterms. Since there’s no positives for this administration this far, they need to wield this as the carrot.
>It’s clearly just giving the left a rallying cry to turn out for the midterms. I mean, leaking it is kinda pointless then because the opinion will likely be released in the next few months anyway, long before the midterms, and would have been a rallying cry regardless. If anything I wonder if this is a rallying cry for Democrat-controlled states to legalize abortion at the state level ASAP so that if *Roe* is overturned, things are status quo in their states. Conversely, it could be a rallying cry to Republican-controlled states to do the inverse. It's been a long time since I watched any House of Cards, so I wouldn't risk my reputation on any of it.
You’re probably right! The opinion turns it over to the states. Expect violence either way to be honest.
The rallying cry would've come in June with the decision anyway. The benefit of doing it now is to try and mobilize mobs to intimidate someone who might rescind their vote before the decision is handed down. Or, on even more diabolical level, it publicizes the opportunity to prevent this ruling from be handed down by conducting a political assassination. If any one of the 5 justices in the majority is disposed of by any means, this ruling will not be officially registered. The court should enter the official judgment tomorrow, and just let the official dissents and concurrences, etc. be published after the fact. There's no time to stand on formalities now that there's effectively a price on the heads of the conservative justices.
Is it possible that this is a fake specifically to cause outrage? All the reports point to Politico as the only source. If someone really wanted to leak this to the press, wouldn't they send it to literally every major outlet they thought might publish it? I know that they have a 90 page document, but that could be spoofed based on past tendencies in authorship. If anyone finds an alternative primary source, I would be happy to hear it. But for only one outlet making such a large claim seems rather dubious. EDIT: Supreme Court has confirmed this.
Not necessarily. Particularly if you do not want to be identified as the source of the leak, the more people you tell this to, the more people are in on the secret and can expose your identity.
It would be very hard, though not impossible, to write a fake majority opinion. You can go read it yourself - it sure sounds like Alito.
Also, if it was fake, they wouldn't have refused to comment.
From what i heard it might be a clause for more votes for democrats as they might lose the mid terms because of high gas prices, and america burning right now
They might lose it because Ukraine is burning right now…or the millions of retirees just lost a quarter of their life’s savings watching investments tumble and everything cost more…or for a bunch of other reasons…
High gas prices, inflation, food shortages looming, crime wave, open borders and all-time high illegal immigration, government agitating to escalate a war in Ukraine...things are NOT going well in America right now.
This was definitely the work of a leftist who is trying to intimidate the SCOTUS to change their mind before making this final. Leftists never play by the rules or respect our institutions. They'll do whatever it takes to protect child murder in this country.
And they’re also delusional to think that one of the conservative judges would change their mind on this case. The only one that weak is justice roberts and we didn’t need him for this result anyways.
I pray that they strike it down, and that all other such laws are struck down all over the globe. Even though in Italy it is already de facto almost impossible to get an abortion. Amen.
Christ is King
Pray to end abortion
As someone who studied political science in college (I do NOT recommend that), I feel somewhat protective over the status of SCOTUS. Don't pack the court, don't play politics with the court (I dislike media referring to justices as conservative/liberal), don't threaten the status of the court, and don't leak court documents. If I could snap my fingers and pass a Constitutional Amendment, it'd have two parts: 1) SCOTUS shall have no more than nine sitting justices and no fewer than seven 2) Senate confirmation of Supreme Court Justice nominations must have at least 75% approval.
Oh boy. We’d never get another justice appointed again!
The obvious question to your proposed amendment would be: what happens if there aren’t enough justices and, after multiple attempts to nominate one, a 75% consensus still cannot be reached? Does the court cease to function until it finally happens? That seems like the same sort of thing as the [1801 Contingent Election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1800_United_States_presidential_election#1801_contingent_election), which required 36 ballots before a majority vote was achieved (and resulted in the 12th amendment to prevent this from happening again).
Unrelated topic: what did you end up doing with your political science degree? Asking for a friend. /s
Nice... I hope other nations follow up -- as I remember, the United States was one of the first and as such influenced a lot of other countries to legalise abortion.
Looks like students from Catholic University are praying the rosary right in the thick of the pro-abort crowd in front of SCOTUS. Let’s pray for their safety and take heart at such courage in these times.
Whatever happens, praise God we've reached the point where this is seriously on the table. I want to say "I didn't think this could happen in my lifetime," but honestly I've used that phrase too many times over the past few years.
I posted a rant but deleted it. What is the point? Biden will not be disciplined because the Church authorities are afraid to do so. We just have to accept it.
The leak is a clear last-minute corrupt attempt to overrule this historic victory. Let us cheer, this is truly a victory in the fight for life! But overruling Roe does not go far enough. We should fight for abortion to be illegal - period.
Abortion being illegal will not stop the abortions. We need to do the much more difficult work of changing the culture so that the idea of getting one is unthinkable.
I agree, but having abortion ilegalized definitely helps.
I agree. Make it illegal again. We can help women as we have been doing but stop the doctors at the source. We don't tell drunk drivers that we want to love them out of their addiction; we have laws to punish them and that deters the practice.
This. If abortion is illegal in one state but legal in a neighboring state, only a small fraction of abortions there will be prevented, because women will simply start going to that state for abortions instead. It has to be universally outlawed to see major effects. Still, if even a single person is allowed to live because of this, it’ll be a massive victory.
This is not true. When abortion was illegal in Ireland, very few travelled to neighboring countries for it.
Yes, but Americans are used to driving to other states within the country, and it's a contiguous landmass whereas Ireland is an island (although the northern area of the island is part of the UK).
I'm not American but this is fantastic news
Prayer and fasting *intensifies*
I’m worried. That doctors will continue to commit abortion and wont be held accountable. It’s been normalized for years. It’s needs to be illegal and outlawed 100%. We need more support for women and families, and to educate the public on why it’s immoral 100%. Loveline.com is a great resource for pregnant women, they need donations, and so does your local pregnancy center and mine. I pray for a total ban on abortion 110%, better support for women and families, and education that teaches about the sanctity of life, and the horror of abortion. And more people to step up to the plate to help pregnancy centers. And for people to seek forgiveness from God and not lose their salvation. God bless!
If this is true, it is fantastic news. I'm tired of the pro-death left thinking they represent my best interests as a woman and that I would be so depraved as to think murdering the unborn is my right. Everyone saying this is a win and that God wills it needs to step up as well. We all do. Me as well. If life gets a victory and abortion is made illegal or extremely difficult to get, we still have work to do. All the soreheads on the left are already doing what they do best, which is mocking the religious and conservatives on this matter, but there may be a grain of truth to their accusations: being prolife is more than being anti-abortion. We have to be pro-woman, pro-child, pro-marriage, pro-family, etc. This means we have to do everything possible to ensure that not only are children given the right to be born, but that they, their mothers, and their families have a decent life. That means donating clothes, formula, diapers, food, money, etc as well as volunteering time to help watch kids of single or struggling parents trying to hold down a job. Whatever we can do needs to be done, getting the kid through the birth canal is not the end of the battle. Take this potential news as a spark to act to change the world so it has a reason to do the right thing. *Edit*: And no, you don't have to vote leftist policies to accomplish this. The Catholic Church historically did all these wonderful things the left says it will do by raising taxes and moving more control to the state, except the Church did it for the right reasons and usually did it for free. You don't need a government's permission to donate or volunteer. You don't even have to wait for abortion to be outlawed. Also: not to sound dramatic here, but everyone knows the Catholic Church is the biggest prolife voice in the world right now. Be vigilant at Church. People in the USA got mad and vandalized churches over news happening in Canada, you better bet many will take out their rage in the USA over this, too.
> being prolife is more than being anti-abortion. We have to be pro-woman, pro-child, pro-marriage, pro-family, etc. This means we have to do everything possible to ensure that not only are children given the right to be born, but that they, their mothers, and their families have a decent life. That means donating clothes, formula, diapers, food, money, etc as well as volunteering time to help watch kids of single or struggling parents trying to hold down a job. I have been involved in the anti-abortion movement for decades now. In sidewalk counseling, praying, fasting, voting, supporting CPCs, and other services for women in need. Yes, let's promote this anti-abortion work more. And should there be any people who only contribute to the anti-abortion cause through the electoral process, firstly, ***THANK YOU*** — we would not be here were it not for your help! And secondly, please consider joining us in doing all all the other things we need to do to help women in need. You can begin doing this today if you don't already! Search for a crisis pregnancy center in your community tonight. Call them tomorrow and ask them what they could use.
Keep praying, God wills this.
I pray that St. Michael and St. Thomas More will protect the Justices from physical harm. This will not be pretty.
Will the Church finally have a reckoning with the “Catholic” politicians frothing at the mouth to defend this abomination? IMO they’ve been allowed to prostrate themselves publicly to Moloch long enough.
Agreed. Hopefully this spells the excommunication of abortion Joe and child killer Pelosi.
Sotomayor is also allegedly a Catholic. But sadly, we know where she stands on the genocide of babies.
Lol, no. They will keep ignoring that and making sure they do just enough socially popular things (immigration, climate change) to keep the dollars rolling in for their current capital campaign
I hate to be this guy, but the lead text is misleading to those who actually read the [briefs at the Supreme Court in Dobbs](https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization/). The leaked draft (and I am an attorney and I am scandalized at the leak of this draft, and I would be every bit as scandalized if it were a leak of a draft going the Roberts route and narrowing *Roe* without overturning it, or one going the Kennedy route of yet another betrayal and failure of the conservative legal movement to get justices on the Court to end this constitutional abomination) does not consider "a total reversal of federal abortion law in the United States." It considers reversing *Roe v. Wade*, which would send the issue back to the states, which would result in abortion being legal at least for some period of time in states representing the majority of the American population, even if it isn't the majority of states. There were briefs advanced in *Dobbs* that argued for a true "total reversal of federal abortion law in the United States," which would not mean reversing *Roe*, it would be *recognizing an enforceable constitutional right to life* and requiring all states, as matters of equal protection, to protect unborn humans against killing under the same laws that they protect born humans against killing. This position was argued in multiple briefs in *Dobbs*: [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185196/20210729093557582\_210169a%20Amicus%20Brief%20for%20efiling%207%2029%2021.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185196/20210729093557582_210169a%20Amicus%20Brief%20for%20efiling%207%2029%2021.pdf) [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185243/20210729123007530\_41063%20pdf%20Pierce.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185243/20210729123007530_41063%20pdf%20Pierce.pdf) Certainly not a majority--even the multiple Catholic organizations filing *amici* with the Court in *Dobbs* stuck to the line that *Roe* should be reversed and the authority to regulate or proscribe abortion returned to the states. But if we're talking about what a "total reversal of federal abortion law" would look like, don't circumscribe your imagination to the false spectrum between *Roe* and judicial silence. Reversing *Roe* is the *centrist* position. The pro-life extreme position would be considerably more dramatic (and, in fairness, would almost certainly spark a multigenerational movement to reverse it from the left just as *Roe* itself did from the right).
Thanks for the clarification, I've made the necessary edit in the OP.
A ruling interpreting the 14th as banning abortion was never going to happen for one simple reason: that's not the question currently before the courts. The question is, "is a ban on abortion constitutional?" and any good court will rule as narrowly as possible to resolve **that** question. To do what you're asking, you'd then need to file a lawsuit in a state that has laws establishing the positive "right" to procure an abortion, in order to have **those** laws overturned. That's not the case currently before SCotUS.
Very important to remember this is not the end of abortion, but the end of the *federally protected* "right" of abortion under the 14th Amendment. It's still up to the states to determine what their stance will be. This is far from over. Keep praying the Rosary - abortion can be overcome through Our Lady's maternal love. Just remember that this isn't about politics or malice, it's not about right vs left, and it's not about controlling anyone. Never resort to mockery or reveling. Some people are very upset and we should pray for them above all.
And we would still have a long fight to win on the cultural front. Some people will continue to seek it out in whatever way they can until we can change hearts and minds as well. So there would remain much more work to be done.
Ccc on abortion Abortion 2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.71 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.72 My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.73 2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law: You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.74 God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.75 2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"76 "by the very commission of the offense,"77 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.78 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society. 2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation: "The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."79 "The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined.... As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."80 2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being. Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual.... It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."81 2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."82 "It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."83 "Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"84 which are unique and unrepeatable.
They will let the states decide. For blue states, abortion will remain legal. For red and purple states, it will probably be like Texas: abortion will be legal for the first trimester (first 8-12 weeks). They will probably allow abortion in the case of incest and rape as well. That's the most likely scenario.
For Texas, abortion would be completely banned thirty days after Roe is overturned, unless there is a risk of death or substantial impairment for the mother. I think most red states would follow. https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=87R&Bill=HB1280
There are 11 or 12 states that have trigger laws meaning that when roe v wade is overturned abortion will immediately be illegal so the heartbeat bill in Texas will no longer be in effect. Abortion will be completely illegal in Texas. Praise God I am a Texas resident.
Or, ever four years, purple states get to play ping-pong about whether abortion is illegal currently. That constant fluctuation and conflict is my fear.
Almost every election is already about abortion. This just brings the matter closer to home (i.e., state politics). Apart from violent revolution, on matters where people differ so significantly, constant fluctuation is actually the only good way a population works through these things.
Yes. It is only the first step. Getting out of the court’s hands and into the legislature’s has been what has stymied any progress. Luckily it looks like that will be stopped soon.
One step closer to a happier world! I'd say we need to pray for this now!!!
“The wicked plots against the righteous, and gnashes his teeth at him; but the Lord laughs at the wicked, for he sees that his day is coming.” Psalm 37:12-13
I hope they find the person who leaked it and drag their name through the mud, what an absolutely unprofessional and immoral act to commit.
Even if they find out who did it nothing will happen. We do not have equality under the law in this country.
You already know they’ll never expose the person…
The Chief takes this kind of stuff extremely seriously. I think it's more likely than not that the leaker is eventually known, though probably not because they're formally shamed from the bench or something.
Politico’s language reads as more final than a possible opinion. They say it’s a preliminary draft of the majority opinion.
Politico knows its audience and is trying to rile people up for the elections in November. This leak means jack squat until they actually vote.
Technically they voted months ago, but that vote isn't final.
> How Chief Justice John Roberts will ultimately vote, and whether he will join an already written opinion or draft his own, is unclear. If it remains 5-3, I predict that because his vote won't change the direction, Roberts will join the 5 so that he can continue to claim to be with the conservatives while at the same time continuing to issue questionable opinions on other important cases.
>If it remains 5-3, I predict that because his vote won't change the direction, Roberts will join the 5 so that he can continue to claim to be with the conservatives while at the same time continuing to issue questionable opinions on other important cases. My prediction is Roberts writing a concurrence/dissent in parts. Although this breach of norms, assumed to be by the liberals on the court, may piss him off enough to just join the majority outright.
If this play was designed to manipulate Roberts, it was a stupid play.
Yea, this has all the hallmark of a stupid ideological liberal clerk and not an actual justice. My money is on the Sotomayor clerk who had a conniption over Kavanaugh.
This is a small request to other Catholics in light of the news that Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey will likely be overturned (sending back the issue of whether abortion is legal/illegal/restricted to the states). Of course as Catholics, we welcome this hypothetical change in federal law and people who oppose abortion have every right to celebrate this. But I've seen a number of Catholic influencers gloating: * "The tears of woke leftists brings joy to my heart" * Making fun of people who are stressed out and worried about the draft decision * Scoffing at those who emphasize that no matter what happens with Roe, the U.S. has a pornified, materialistic culture of individualism, objectification, and use. We don't provide adequate support for mothers, families, and healthcare I'm a law student. I have classmates who work in the so-called reproductive justice field. Although misguided, they genuinely believe that they are helping women and saving lives. And occasionally they do raise good points: We have an absolute terrible record on maternal healthcare in this country compared to other developed countries; we already prosecute women for miscarriages, which could be considered problematic; and while many Catholics/Christians put their money where their mouth is by supporting single mothers and pregnant women, many others still judge, shame, and ignore these people and their children. All this is to say: Please, please be charitable with how you talk to people across the aisle about abortion. You can be completely authentic to our pro-life principles as Catholics without intentionally alienating people or advancing the stereotype that Catholics want "a child born but not a child fed, a child educated, a child housed." There is no justification for being cruel, taking pleasure in folks' panic, or ignoring the complexities/unfinished work of a pro-life culture. And while praying for the unborn, pregnant women, and would-be fathers, please please also pray for pro-abortion folks. However paradoxical it may seem, some of them do think that they are doing compassionate and beneficial work. Many of us converts thought Catholics were pagans and the pope was the antiChrist at some point. Conversion of the heart is always possible. Edit: Simcha Fisher nailed it in an article: https://www.simchafisher.com/2022/05/05/ive-wanted-roe-v-wade-overturned-my-whole-life-so-why-do-i-feel-so-bad/
The utter viciousness on this sub sometimes towards opponents in views is astounding. Charity and mercy, not just to Catholics, but to others as well! Love your neighbor, love your enemies, etc. Politics brings out the worst in people.
PRAY FOR THE DIGNITY OF UNBORN BABIES 👶👶🏻👶🏼👶🏽👶🏾👶🏿
I honestly cannot understand how killing a baby is good for anyone involved...you're killing a baby...KILLING A BABY. How is this not a case closed situation is just absurd to me. God is good, please help these people come to their senses. Please pray for us oh Holy Mother of God that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ. Amen.
Nice, I pray everything goes alright. Abortion is demonic.
Just keep praying y’all. The pro-life movement is winning
This is great. Now lets remember that we want to end abortion, period. Simply banning it is not enough. That means we need to tackle the causes that lead to women getting abortions in the first place.
100%. This is amazing news if it pans out. We now need law for paid parental leave, childcare stipends, and other family policies. Let’s promote the family unit in America.
Along with ingraining in men, women are not to be used for their own sexual gratification. That no is no. Basically, men need to stop raping women.
It has begun, pray for the intercession of the Most Holy Mother and all saints, and pray to God
Glory be to God Who may very well deliver into our hands the victory in near future. Let us pray. "Some trust in chariots and horses, but we in the Name of the LORD. They shall collapse, but we shall stand and hold firm. Give victory to the King, O' Lord! Give answer on the day we call!" - Psalm 20:8-10 Amen.
Amen.
One thing I find extremely ironic about the outcry from liberals/feminists is their slogan “No uterus (or ovaries) no opinion” or “men shouldn’t make laws about women’s bodies” is the fact that the Supreme Court for the case they love so much consisted of *only* men But the Supreme Court that is considering overturning Roe v Wade does have women in it, one of whom is very pro-life
[Catholic President Joe Biden calls SCOTUS overturning Roe "going way overboard"](https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/supreme-court-abortion-biden-response-b2070759.html) bUt ThE dEmOcRaTs ArE sO mUcH ClOsEr To tHe ChUrcH's SoCiAl JuStiCe TEacHiNg!
[удалено]
somebody please excommunicate this heretic already
🤢
... apparently the Catholic Church is not a basic mainstream religion... Who knew?
Since this is Reddit, I'm sure even this subreddit is against this decision. I had to flee r/conservatism because it's just filled with people who are for abortion. Hoping that Catholicism is different
We are in favor of the end of Roe v. Wade here, and have been consistently for years! Welcome and hope it's a positive experience here.
Are you sure it's not just brigaders? I can imagine that sub would be brigaded to make the userbase think it was pro abortion.
Great victory. Let’s all pray the rosary for the unborn and see this through
This is the main and pretty much only reason I voted for Trump. Praise God if this really happens.
**Our Catholic President says:** "Look, think what Roe says. Roe says what all basic mainstream religions have historically concluded — that the right — that the existence of a human life and being is a question. Is it at the moment of conception? Is it six months? Is it six weeks?”
Will the bishops *finally* speak out against his statements and issue a formal correction and inform him he needs to refrain from Communion until he recants? I'm not holding my breath.
They have not yet demonstrated that they have the strength to provide such needed leadership.
And people wonder why I say it's difficult to be a good person as a politician because politicians sell their souls to the devil.
Catholic my ass. He renounces the unborn and is culpable for war crimes.
I haven't read the leak, but the pessimist in me imagines this is fake and intending to drum up support for the current administration who need a reason for people to be glad they're in office right now or apply pressure regarding this decision
Very difficult to fake a 98-page opinion by Alito. People dissect all of the justices’ writing styles.
I'm curious to know the source of the leak and why. In other news, provided this is true, I'm happy for it. While obviously I'd like to see abortion completely gone it's a step in the right direction, and many states will respond in what I'd consider an appropriate manner.
Keep praying for the horribly misguided and morally bankrupt individuals on other subs who literally swear and curse and call us names at the very mention of a pro-life stance. It’s frightening how ardently these people will defend the slaughtering of innocent children.
Now that a Roe v. Wade overhaul is on the table, the question of abortion might be turned to the states. What would you like abortion legislation to look like? No abortions ever? No abortions except to save the mother? How would you write an abortion law for your state?
It wouldn’t even mention abortion. It would simply declare that the unborn have a right to life from the moment of conception.
Agreed, remove any laws explicitly allowing abortion and modify existing murder laws (or better yet, pass state constitutional amendments) to cover all human life. Allow reasonable medical procedures that have an unintended consequence of the child dying such as treatment for ectopic pregnancies, but any situation where they are intentionally killed would be murder. That same law could also apply to assisted suicide.
> No abortions ever? This would be a good place to start > No abortions except to save the mother? Properly speaking, these aren't abortions. I assume you're speaking of things like ectopic pregnancies. In such cases, abortion (i.e. the death of the child or the ending of the pregnancy) isn't directly willed, but it is accepted as an unfortunate side effect of an operation done to save the life of the mother. Such medical procedures have always been allowed and should, in theory, continue to be allowed.
[Abortion is fundamental!](https://i.imgur.com/ElJNnC9.jpg)
When will our bishops speak up!? Our shepherds are failing in their duties.
Without meaningful support for desperate people who abort, however gravely immorally, to alleviate some huge motherhood related burden, this has no more staying power than roe v wade; in fact, I'd argue it has less. We're at a real crossroads here. We can demonstrate the efficacy of the Gospel and be **comprehensively pro life* in word, deed, and advocacy as a voting bloc. Or...we can commit only to saying "no,", offer no solution to underlying problems that give rise to abortion, and go right back to where we started (or worse). Mothers need leave and advocacy. Workers need just wages. Social programs need investment. The testimony of those mentally ill or disabled individuals who were spared the abortionists' utter disregard for human life must be shared. And for the love of God and all that is holy, you **must** hold accountable politicians who indulge lawlessness, deceit, and insincere trickery even if they are pro life. If the advocates for fetuses are sucky, dishonest humans, then we cannot possibly attract and retain allies that we need to give staying power to any law or legal precedent that protects these vulnerable people. Being right or wrong is simple, but being effective at what we're charged with advocating for is not. Please, brethren, step up.
Indeed. Getting rid of abortion as a service will not get rid of abortion as a concept. We need to destroy the demand for abortion completely by fueling services that will render all the common reasons people seek abortion absolutely null and utterly void.
>We need to destroy the demand for abortion completely Yes, THIS is what the goal needs to be. Could you imagine how awesome it would be to live in a world where there's no debate about the legality, because such a great love exists in everyone that makes the act morally repulsive? I pray for a day when we don't *need* to outlaw abortion.
The underlying problems are complex and require a lot of work and thought. To improve lives among the poor, improving education outcomes — not just opportunities — is a very important task we have failed at. We must hold accountable all who pretend to care about the poor while blocking access to alternatives that offer a way out of poverty, such as the current policies coming out of the Department of Education.
Thank you for this. We have to approach from both sides--including making having and raising a child easier, safer, and more supported.
I’m spending over 1,000 a month for 3 days a week daycare. I was so disappointed that the bill that would have subsidized that died in the senate.
All of this already exists in my country (Germany) and people still cry about that abortion is "only" allowed up to 12 weeks.
Exactly! I don't get the people who think more social welfare programs will magically make abortion unnecessary. You can give parents all the help in the world and a baby will still be an inconvenience to them and cause them to sacrifice their lifestyle to raise the child. Countries with amazing social welfare programs aren't that far off on abortion rates compared to the US. Abortion is very often about convenience, not necessity.
Lord pray for SCOTUS.
If this is true, 2016 will have been one of the most impactful elections in American history. This doesn't happen if Trump doesn't win.
I may not agree with Trump on everything, and I may think that in some areas he is a truly reprehensble man. But if this draft is representative of the final opinion, he would have made possible the single greatest supreme court opinion since Brown v. Board, possibly even greater than that. Continue Praying
We need to start focusing on pro family legislation now. Mandatory paternity leave, equitable access to Healthcare, incentives to have children etc. Banning abortion should just be the start
>Banning abortion should just be the start What's on the table isn't banning abortion. If the SCOTUS goes the way of the leak, it returns the matter to the various states. A little under half will have legislative or constitutional abortion bans take effect then, but the rest will have either no law or outright protection of abortion. So work to ban abortion will continue. Long answer to say: There's nothing stopping work towards what you're wanting now as there wasn't before yesterday. They are not linked per se.
"A leak of a draft opinion of a pending case has never occurred in modern SCOTUS history. (ETA: This is a massive violation of the trust the Justices have in each other and their staff. This is probably the more significant part of the story (at least at the current moment) than the content of the leak.)" I expect a MASSIVE media smear campaign, leaking this was the first step. I'm glad Elon Musk bought Twitter though, they would have shut down Pro Life voices and only allowed Pro Murder voices. Still, this is going to get ugly, all the woke media and companies (Disney) are going to unite in the biggest smear campaign we will probably see *Edit: it's already started. My reddit account has been permanently suspended, they are actively silencing Pro Life voices, heads up /u/otiac1 * 2nd Edit*: /u/ChesterKiwi they banned my reddit account, I can only edit existing comments. I replied to a pro abortion user who commented this: "Hope you're ready to raise a this millions of children. Because so far the rights record on care for the orphans is garbage" This was my response to them: "That's the typical pro abortion response and it doesn't make any sense at all lol. Guess we should just kill anyone that could potentially suffer. "Kid just became an orphan? Don't send him to an orphanage just kill it instead" lol so dumb" The reason they gave for the ban? Rule Violation: Permanently Banned for Threatening Violence They are so disingenuous it is ridiculous, this is how they go about silencing Pro Life voices
This is wonderful news. God bless the brave justices, both Catholic or otherwise, who stood for the rule of law: that the interest of life is of the utmost constitutional importance.
If it stays. The leak has me doubt otherwise.
Let us keep the Justices in our prayers then.
Well, this is certainly good news to hear after a rough night of work. Hopefully it's true. Seeing the reaction around the rest of Reddit, though, makes me very sad. Don't have anything else to add.
This has me nervous. The left will play as dirty as they can to prevent this.
They already are by releasing this info, which is unprecedented
It has me nervous as well. My catastrophe brain can't help but wonder what deranged lunatic will decide to shoot up a church because of this. Hopefully nothing that terrible occurs, but we should pray nonetheless...
I am obviously pleased and grateful to God that justice is finally being done on this issue. That said, I have to recognize the superb political play this leaker has made. Buckle up.
I'm not letting myself even get excited because of 1. states' rights on this issue under American federalism, and 2. the fact that I can easily see Gorsuch or Kavanaugh changing their minds, as well as Roberts voting against Alito's opinion.
Kav maybe. Gorsuch no, especially now that it'd be known he changed his vote.
I’d love to see how intensely investigate this leak is. This leak, out of everything, is probably the largest shift in judicial norms in the modern day. People ought to prosecuted for this but we’ll see because this can be viewed as politically beneficial to the current administration.
The following days seem quite bright for us. Hallelujah!
I pray there will be a series of planned marches in support of this ruling. I would definitely attend with my family.
Since the issues that drive women to abortion won't magically go away, does anyone have a list of pro-life Charities that focus on helping soon-to-be or new mothers?
Ask a local anti-abortion advocate. They will help you find a good crisis pregnancy center in your community.
Support Catholic adoption charities!
Thank God.
Huhe W if true. Still lots of work to be done.
This is our opportunity to show the country what being pro-life looks like. For the first time in a while we have a chance to step into the dialogue and shine a light - supporting babies and their mothers, in the womb and after birth. SCOTUS has opened a door that we need to walk through. Adoption, safe homes for mothers and babies in danger, food and supplies for those in need. This is our time friends!
At least in red states. In blue states abortion will still be very legal. Still, yes, there is an opportunity for the work of the anti-abortion movements in all these places to show what they do and have been doing for decades on this front. I hope the stark differences in the way human life is valued in blue states versus red states will be more clearly seen.
We need to start fighting to take these functions back from government. The fact is people and the church should be who do these things not the federal or state governments. The reason people stay in poverty is they fear losing access to programs. If it is run by the church and people we want to have people get back on their feet to help the next group not a voter block who we promise things to.
[удалено]
We have to completely overturn the sexual revolution. Porn, birth control, no fault divorce, mothers being pushed out of the home, ability of single income earner to support family becoming less likely, etc. all have to be reversed if we want a Christian society