News

Supreme Court overturns federal abortion rights

Newsom signs Bauer-Kahan's bill protecting abortion access as local lawmakers pledge to 'fight' for additional assurances in post-Roe era

By a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court overturned the landmark Roe V. Wade decision on abortion rights on June 24, 2022. Courtesy Getty Images.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday reversed the court's Roe v. Wade decision granting women the federal right to an abortion in the United States. The 6-3 decision sends authority to regulate abortion back to the states.

The final opinion, which upheld a Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks, was an expected but nonetheless stunning end to 50 years of federal abortion rights for women throughout the country. The decision doesn't end rights granted in individual states, and abortion is still legal in California.

"The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 are overruled; the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives," the court wrote.

In justifying its decision, the majority wrote: "We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely — the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition' and 'implicit in the concept of ordered Liberty.' The right to abortion does not fall within this category."

"It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives," the decision continued. "The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting."

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

Reaction was swift to the court's opinion.

Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda) had already been bracing herself and the state for the ruling, as an outspoken critic of the rollback of legal abortions throughout the country and after the leaked draft of the Supreme Court opinion earlier this spring.

However, she noted that despite being aware of the inevitability and ramifications of Friday's news, it was still "hard to comprehend that our rights to control our own future and our own bodies were just ripped away from us."

"This decision is unconscionable," Bauer-Kahan said in a statement Friday morning. "It is devastating. The institution meant to protect us has betrayed us."

Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan speaks at a rally against abortion bans in 2019. (Image courtesy Bauer-Kahan's office)

Bauer-Kahan said that while she was impacted by the decision personally as a woman and mother of a daughter, she has "never been more ready to fight," via her position as an elected representative, alongside other state lawmakers. In particular, she pointed to legislation she's authored: Assembly Bill 1242 and AB 1666. The latter was signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday afternoon, after clearing the State Senate on Thursday. It is effective immediately under an urgency clause.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

"This bill will immediately protect anyone in California from civil penalties for abortion," Bauer-Kahan said on Twitter. "We will continue to fight and be a sanctuary for abortion care."

"Extremist laws that the Supreme Court has now deemed constitutional will endanger our incredible providers and will penalize people desperately seeking abortions in their last effort to control their own lives," she continued. "In California we will not let this happen."

AB 1242 is set for a hearing on Tuesday, and requires clearance from the Senate Public Safety Committee.

The two bills are aimed at providing a "comprehensive framework of civil and criminal protections for everyone in California, especially the patients who will seek care and our incredible providers," Bauer-Kahan said Friday.

Tri-Valley Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-Livermore) also emphasized that he and fellow California lawmakers would be continuing to push for protecting access to legal abortions in the state.

"We are frustrated, we are upset, and we are angry -- but we are not helpless," Swalwell said in a statement on Friday. "The Senate must immediately take up legislation that we passed in the House to codify Roe into federal law."

"House Democrats won't back down from this fight," he added. "Too much is at stake."

Swalwell followed the statement with an invitation for community members to join him at the Hayward Planned Parenthood on Saturday morning in support of reproductive rights, where he sought to address constituents' concerns.

Although debate around access to legal abortion services has come to be increasingly partisan in recent years, Congressman Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord) noted that the Supreme Court's decision Friday came in spite of widespread support from voters for reproductive rights, and decades of legal precedent.

"This ruling overturns nearly 50 years of precedent and runs counter to what over 60% of Americans of both political parties favor," DeSaulnier tweeted Friday. "We must do everything we can to fight it — the health, safety, and freedom of millions of Americans depends on it."

Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O'Malley and Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton were among the more than 80 signatories of prosecutors around the country to a letter pledging not to prosecute providers, patients, or others aiding in the procurement of abortion services as of Friday afternoon.

"Criminalizing and prosecuting individuals who seek or provide abortion care makes a mockery of justice; prosecutors should not be part of that," the letter said in closing.

The two candidates for the newly redrawn Assembly District 20 that now includes a portion of the Tri-Valley also weighed in on Friday's news.

"This is a dark day in history for women in America," said Liz Ortega, who garnered the most votes in this month's primary election for the seat, on Twitter Friday. "But as a mother, union leader and your next Assemblymember I will do everything in my power (to) ensure CA stays a safe haven for all women and girls."

Her opponent, Dublin City Councilmember Shawn Kumagai, also emphasized his commitment to reproductive rights in a statement Friday.

"I'm proud to have a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood Advocates Mar Monte for my steadfast pro-choice record," Kumagai said. "I support a state constitutional amendment to enshrine reproductive rights into the California Constitution, and when I am in the Assembly, I will continue to be a relentless voice at the state level to protect fundamental abortion rights and expand access to critical care."

Stanford Law School Professor Henry T. (Hank) Greely, director of Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, predicted during an interview just prior to Friday's decision that the court would completely overturn Roe v. Wade and say there is no federal constitutional right to an abortion.

Abortion rights are "a corpse whose ventilator will be disconnected" in the coming year on a state-by-state basis, he said.

"States like California ... will probably make it easier for people from another state to come in. States like Oklahoma and Texas and Mississippi, but also some of the Upper Midwest, some of the Midwest states will ban it and make it illegal," he said.

Greely said it's likely that there will be a workaround through the use of abortion pills.

"I must state that some of the states with the most stringent laws may end up modifying them to include, say, rape and incest exceptions or make clear the health of the mother exception or maybe even establish early time limits like 10 weeks or six weeks instead of zero weeks," he said.

But passage of laws might be limited in their overall effectiveness, he said.

"I think it's very easy for legislators to pass very, very stringent laws that they know won't go into effect, that make the 20% of their constituents who are strongly pro life happy and don't really change the world in any way. The pill makes enforcing a ban much harder on the states that will ban it. And some of the states that have banned it may loosen their laws a little bit," he said.

Stanford Professor Henry T. (Hank) Greely, director of Stanford Law School's Center for Law and the Biosciences. Courtesy Eleanor Greely.

Socially and politically, Greely said he it's unclear how the Supreme Court decision will play out but predicted that the most passionate advocates will become even more politically active.

"This is one of those issues that minorities (of people) on both sides care very, very deeply about. Most of the population will have a view one way or the other, but it's not something as important to them as the price of gasoline. I doubt that there will be major political swings based on this," he said.

But there could be political consequences. Empowering or mobilizing a small number of people can end up having major political effects, even if most of the people don't feel strongly one way or the other, he said.

"I don't feel confident making any prediction about what the long-term political effects will be. Short term, the pro-abortion forces will be very motivated, and will work very hard," he said. Exactly how that would play out isn't clear, but they would likely work on state legislatures and maybe Senate seats.

"But it's hard to overturn a Supreme Court decision. It took the anti-abortion people 49 years to overturn Roe. I think the pro-life people, the anti-abortion people, will feel empowered and emboldened by their success, which is an impressive success," he said.

"But I think they're also going to be faced with the question, 'Where do they go from here?' And for many of them, they probably don't go anywhere. For many of them, the goal was ending abortion if they've ended abortion in their state, or at least passed laws," he said.

"Even if the practice of abortion ended, given the availability of the pill, I think they'll say OK, good, mission accomplished. Go back to something else. But there will be some, some people who will want to continue, continue to push the borders: of protecting embryos, of protecting fertilized eggs, and who will push farther. So I think there'll be small groups — small but not trivial groups — of people who will be strongly motivated by this result in opposite directions," he said.

Greely said thus far he doesn't see a law that would effectively make it illegal for a woman to travel to another state to receive an abortion, while some bills might be introduced.

"I think they would run into a lot of political resistance to that and particularly from relatively well-off people who think that their spouses or partners or daughters might want to go across the border from Missouri to Illinois to have an abortion," he said.

There are substantial constitutional questions to trying to enforce a law that would ban an activity done in another state where the activity is legal.

"I would have said over the last 50 years that those (laws) probably would be held unconstitutional as violating the rights of Americans to travel from place to place and do things in one state that they can't do otherwise. Nobody has ever tried to punish their citizens for doing gambling that would be illegal in their state if they do it in Las Vegas. So I think there would have been serious constitutional questions. I think there are still serious constitutional questions," he said.

But he didn't know how the current Supreme Court would react if such laws were passed.

"I don't know of any way to know how these five — the five most conservative (justices) — would react to it. I think the three liberal justices plus Chief Justice Roberts would be very sympathetic to the view. You can't constitutionally criminalize in one state something somebody does in another state," he said.

However, California Senator Diane Feinstein noted that traveling to another state would not be an option for everyone seeking abortion services, and highlighted dire ramifications.

“Make no mistake, some women will die because of this decision – whether through unsafe and unregulated abortions, a lack of access to medically necessary lifesaving abortions, or suicide," Feinstein said in a statement Friday morning. "I remember those dark days, passing a plate in college to collect money for a classmate to go to Mexico for an abortion. This court has returned us to that shameful past."

Feinstein urged Congress to pass a law that would "restore women’s reproduction rights and ensure control over their own health care," calling this the "only option."

"Anything short of that devalues the lives of women and signals they can’t be trusted to make decisions about their own bodies," Feinstein added.

Stanford Law School Constitutional scholar and professor Jane Schacter wrote in an online essay that the court's decision is "seismic" and will potentially have additional consequences down the line.

"Justice (Samuel) Alito's opinion emphasizes that states can now choose their policy on this contested issue and Justice (Brett) Kavanaugh's concurrence goes out of its way to emphasize that point. But Kavanaugh explicitly raises the specter of a national legislative response. His opinion, which seems meant to emphasize that states are still free to choose their own resolution of the abortion question, is far from reassuring with its reference to a role for Congress in reproductive rights. He is foreshadowing what is inevitable: a drive for Congress to enact a national ban on abortion. Indeed, calls for a national ban picked up steam as soon as the Dobbs opinion was leaked. Such a ban would put a quick end to any federalism-inspired notion that different states can choose different policies on this fraught subject. Kavanaugh's reference to such a national ban at least suggests that he sees in the Constitution a basis for congressional authority to enact such a ban."

Schacter added that the same constitutional doctrine, the 14th Amendment, which supported the Roe and Casey decisions cited in the justices' opinion also supports other important rights, including access to birth control, a right to be intimate with the partner of your choice and marriage equality. If the justices' same reasoning is applied to those other rights, it certainly would jeopardize them, she said.

In a statement on Friday morning, Stanford University School of Medicine Dean Lloyd Minor and Vaden Health Services Executive Director Jim Jacobs said that as a university and academic medical center operating in California, Stanford abides by California state laws, which require that comprehensive reproductive care is available to patients and provide legal protections for those seeking these services.

"We continue to abide by California laws and will keep providing these services in support of women's health and health equity for all those who rely on this access regardless of identity," Jacobs said.

The statement also included resources for mental health and well being for individuals and families in the face of the decision.

A front row seat to local high school sports.

Check out our new newsletter, the Playbook.

Follow PleasantonWeekly.com and the Pleasanton Weekly on Twitter @pleasantonnews, Facebook and on Instagram @pleasantonweekly for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Get uninterrupted access to important local political news. Become a member today.

Supreme Court overturns federal abortion rights

Newsom signs Bauer-Kahan's bill protecting abortion access as local lawmakers pledge to 'fight' for additional assurances in post-Roe era

by Sue Dremann and Jeanita Lyman / Embarcadero Media

Uploaded: Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 3:36 pm
Updated: Sun, Jun 26, 2022, 4:58 pm

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday reversed the court's Roe v. Wade decision granting women the federal right to an abortion in the United States. The 6-3 decision sends authority to regulate abortion back to the states.

The final opinion, which upheld a Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks, was an expected but nonetheless stunning end to 50 years of federal abortion rights for women throughout the country. The decision doesn't end rights granted in individual states, and abortion is still legal in California.

"The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 are overruled; the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives," the court wrote.

In justifying its decision, the majority wrote: "We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely — the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition' and 'implicit in the concept of ordered Liberty.' The right to abortion does not fall within this category."

"It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives," the decision continued. "The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting."

Reaction was swift to the court's opinion.

Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda) had already been bracing herself and the state for the ruling, as an outspoken critic of the rollback of legal abortions throughout the country and after the leaked draft of the Supreme Court opinion earlier this spring.

However, she noted that despite being aware of the inevitability and ramifications of Friday's news, it was still "hard to comprehend that our rights to control our own future and our own bodies were just ripped away from us."

"This decision is unconscionable," Bauer-Kahan said in a statement Friday morning. "It is devastating. The institution meant to protect us has betrayed us."

Bauer-Kahan said that while she was impacted by the decision personally as a woman and mother of a daughter, she has "never been more ready to fight," via her position as an elected representative, alongside other state lawmakers. In particular, she pointed to legislation she's authored: Assembly Bill 1242 and AB 1666. The latter was signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday afternoon, after clearing the State Senate on Thursday. It is effective immediately under an urgency clause.

"This bill will immediately protect anyone in California from civil penalties for abortion," Bauer-Kahan said on Twitter. "We will continue to fight and be a sanctuary for abortion care."

"Extremist laws that the Supreme Court has now deemed constitutional will endanger our incredible providers and will penalize people desperately seeking abortions in their last effort to control their own lives," she continued. "In California we will not let this happen."

AB 1242 is set for a hearing on Tuesday, and requires clearance from the Senate Public Safety Committee.

The two bills are aimed at providing a "comprehensive framework of civil and criminal protections for everyone in California, especially the patients who will seek care and our incredible providers," Bauer-Kahan said Friday.

Tri-Valley Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-Livermore) also emphasized that he and fellow California lawmakers would be continuing to push for protecting access to legal abortions in the state.

"We are frustrated, we are upset, and we are angry -- but we are not helpless," Swalwell said in a statement on Friday. "The Senate must immediately take up legislation that we passed in the House to codify Roe into federal law."

"House Democrats won't back down from this fight," he added. "Too much is at stake."

Swalwell followed the statement with an invitation for community members to join him at the Hayward Planned Parenthood on Saturday morning in support of reproductive rights, where he sought to address constituents' concerns.

Although debate around access to legal abortion services has come to be increasingly partisan in recent years, Congressman Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord) noted that the Supreme Court's decision Friday came in spite of widespread support from voters for reproductive rights, and decades of legal precedent.

"This ruling overturns nearly 50 years of precedent and runs counter to what over 60% of Americans of both political parties favor," DeSaulnier tweeted Friday. "We must do everything we can to fight it — the health, safety, and freedom of millions of Americans depends on it."

Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O'Malley and Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton were among the more than 80 signatories of prosecutors around the country to a letter pledging not to prosecute providers, patients, or others aiding in the procurement of abortion services as of Friday afternoon.

"Criminalizing and prosecuting individuals who seek or provide abortion care makes a mockery of justice; prosecutors should not be part of that," the letter said in closing.

The two candidates for the newly redrawn Assembly District 20 that now includes a portion of the Tri-Valley also weighed in on Friday's news.

"This is a dark day in history for women in America," said Liz Ortega, who garnered the most votes in this month's primary election for the seat, on Twitter Friday. "But as a mother, union leader and your next Assemblymember I will do everything in my power (to) ensure CA stays a safe haven for all women and girls."

Her opponent, Dublin City Councilmember Shawn Kumagai, also emphasized his commitment to reproductive rights in a statement Friday.

"I'm proud to have a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood Advocates Mar Monte for my steadfast pro-choice record," Kumagai said. "I support a state constitutional amendment to enshrine reproductive rights into the California Constitution, and when I am in the Assembly, I will continue to be a relentless voice at the state level to protect fundamental abortion rights and expand access to critical care."

Stanford Law School Professor Henry T. (Hank) Greely, director of Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, predicted during an interview just prior to Friday's decision that the court would completely overturn Roe v. Wade and say there is no federal constitutional right to an abortion.

Abortion rights are "a corpse whose ventilator will be disconnected" in the coming year on a state-by-state basis, he said.

"States like California ... will probably make it easier for people from another state to come in. States like Oklahoma and Texas and Mississippi, but also some of the Upper Midwest, some of the Midwest states will ban it and make it illegal," he said.

Greely said it's likely that there will be a workaround through the use of abortion pills.

"I must state that some of the states with the most stringent laws may end up modifying them to include, say, rape and incest exceptions or make clear the health of the mother exception or maybe even establish early time limits like 10 weeks or six weeks instead of zero weeks," he said.

But passage of laws might be limited in their overall effectiveness, he said.

"I think it's very easy for legislators to pass very, very stringent laws that they know won't go into effect, that make the 20% of their constituents who are strongly pro life happy and don't really change the world in any way. The pill makes enforcing a ban much harder on the states that will ban it. And some of the states that have banned it may loosen their laws a little bit," he said.

Socially and politically, Greely said he it's unclear how the Supreme Court decision will play out but predicted that the most passionate advocates will become even more politically active.

"This is one of those issues that minorities (of people) on both sides care very, very deeply about. Most of the population will have a view one way or the other, but it's not something as important to them as the price of gasoline. I doubt that there will be major political swings based on this," he said.

But there could be political consequences. Empowering or mobilizing a small number of people can end up having major political effects, even if most of the people don't feel strongly one way or the other, he said.

"I don't feel confident making any prediction about what the long-term political effects will be. Short term, the pro-abortion forces will be very motivated, and will work very hard," he said. Exactly how that would play out isn't clear, but they would likely work on state legislatures and maybe Senate seats.

"But it's hard to overturn a Supreme Court decision. It took the anti-abortion people 49 years to overturn Roe. I think the pro-life people, the anti-abortion people, will feel empowered and emboldened by their success, which is an impressive success," he said.

"But I think they're also going to be faced with the question, 'Where do they go from here?' And for many of them, they probably don't go anywhere. For many of them, the goal was ending abortion if they've ended abortion in their state, or at least passed laws," he said.

"Even if the practice of abortion ended, given the availability of the pill, I think they'll say OK, good, mission accomplished. Go back to something else. But there will be some, some people who will want to continue, continue to push the borders: of protecting embryos, of protecting fertilized eggs, and who will push farther. So I think there'll be small groups — small but not trivial groups — of people who will be strongly motivated by this result in opposite directions," he said.

Greely said thus far he doesn't see a law that would effectively make it illegal for a woman to travel to another state to receive an abortion, while some bills might be introduced.

"I think they would run into a lot of political resistance to that and particularly from relatively well-off people who think that their spouses or partners or daughters might want to go across the border from Missouri to Illinois to have an abortion," he said.

There are substantial constitutional questions to trying to enforce a law that would ban an activity done in another state where the activity is legal.

"I would have said over the last 50 years that those (laws) probably would be held unconstitutional as violating the rights of Americans to travel from place to place and do things in one state that they can't do otherwise. Nobody has ever tried to punish their citizens for doing gambling that would be illegal in their state if they do it in Las Vegas. So I think there would have been serious constitutional questions. I think there are still serious constitutional questions," he said.

But he didn't know how the current Supreme Court would react if such laws were passed.

"I don't know of any way to know how these five — the five most conservative (justices) — would react to it. I think the three liberal justices plus Chief Justice Roberts would be very sympathetic to the view. You can't constitutionally criminalize in one state something somebody does in another state," he said.

However, California Senator Diane Feinstein noted that traveling to another state would not be an option for everyone seeking abortion services, and highlighted dire ramifications.

“Make no mistake, some women will die because of this decision – whether through unsafe and unregulated abortions, a lack of access to medically necessary lifesaving abortions, or suicide," Feinstein said in a statement Friday morning. "I remember those dark days, passing a plate in college to collect money for a classmate to go to Mexico for an abortion. This court has returned us to that shameful past."

Feinstein urged Congress to pass a law that would "restore women’s reproduction rights and ensure control over their own health care," calling this the "only option."

"Anything short of that devalues the lives of women and signals they can’t be trusted to make decisions about their own bodies," Feinstein added.

Stanford Law School Constitutional scholar and professor Jane Schacter wrote in an online essay that the court's decision is "seismic" and will potentially have additional consequences down the line.

"Justice (Samuel) Alito's opinion emphasizes that states can now choose their policy on this contested issue and Justice (Brett) Kavanaugh's concurrence goes out of its way to emphasize that point. But Kavanaugh explicitly raises the specter of a national legislative response. His opinion, which seems meant to emphasize that states are still free to choose their own resolution of the abortion question, is far from reassuring with its reference to a role for Congress in reproductive rights. He is foreshadowing what is inevitable: a drive for Congress to enact a national ban on abortion. Indeed, calls for a national ban picked up steam as soon as the Dobbs opinion was leaked. Such a ban would put a quick end to any federalism-inspired notion that different states can choose different policies on this fraught subject. Kavanaugh's reference to such a national ban at least suggests that he sees in the Constitution a basis for congressional authority to enact such a ban."

Schacter added that the same constitutional doctrine, the 14th Amendment, which supported the Roe and Casey decisions cited in the justices' opinion also supports other important rights, including access to birth control, a right to be intimate with the partner of your choice and marriage equality. If the justices' same reasoning is applied to those other rights, it certainly would jeopardize them, she said.

In a statement on Friday morning, Stanford University School of Medicine Dean Lloyd Minor and Vaden Health Services Executive Director Jim Jacobs said that as a university and academic medical center operating in California, Stanford abides by California state laws, which require that comprehensive reproductive care is available to patients and provide legal protections for those seeking these services.

"We continue to abide by California laws and will keep providing these services in support of women's health and health equity for all those who rely on this access regardless of identity," Jacobs said.

The statement also included resources for mental health and well being for individuals and families in the face of the decision.

Comments

Joe Doaks
Registered user
San Ramon
on Jun 24, 2022 at 4:00 pm
Joe Doaks, San Ramon
Registered user
on Jun 24, 2022 at 4:00 pm

Hilarious listening to Gavin Newsome co-opt Barrack Obama's speech pattern!


dknute
Registered user
Golden Eagle
on Jun 24, 2022 at 5:43 pm
dknute, Golden Eagle
Registered user
on Jun 24, 2022 at 5:43 pm

Just shut up. This decision, if you wish to call it that, doesn’t effectively do anything in California. Not one person will be effected by it in this state, other than Newscum, using taxpayers dollars to pay for abortions for anyone who needs the assistance. And, California has plenty of money to do it!


Swagu
Registered user
Bridle Creek
on Jun 24, 2022 at 5:45 pm
Swagu, Bridle Creek
Registered user
on Jun 24, 2022 at 5:45 pm

GREAT NEWS! BABIES JUMPING FOR JOY!


Michael Austin
Registered user
Pleasanton Meadows
on Jun 24, 2022 at 6:44 pm
Michael Austin , Pleasanton Meadows
Registered user
on Jun 24, 2022 at 6:44 pm

"These Supreme Court justices say that they're going to follow precedent, and the law of precedent includes evaluating precedent to determine whether the precedent is right. These liberal politicians don't have any problem when liberal justices overturn conservative precedent...they only seem to cry about precedent when one of their cases gets overturned."


dknute
Registered user
Golden Eagle
on Jun 24, 2022 at 6:49 pm
dknute, Golden Eagle
Registered user
on Jun 24, 2022 at 6:49 pm

Michael Austin. You get it. This court is following the law. It’s not opinions, it’s a rule of law.
Now, if only the justice department (executive branch) can do the same.


Jake Waters
Registered user
Birdland
on Jun 24, 2022 at 7:29 pm
Jake Waters, Birdland
Registered user
on Jun 24, 2022 at 7:29 pm

The Supreme Court DOES NOT make laws. They make decisions on whether laws made are in conflict with the Constitution. This was their ruling today and accurately so. The Democrats have been complaining that Democracy is dying in plain site, well, here is an example of Democracy- the voters get to decide within their individual states. Just remember, abortion rights are at the bottom along with Climate Change. People are more interested in inflation, gas prices, school curriculums, the southern boarder, and concerns about a war that does not affect this country. When the Democrat enforcers (BLM and Antifa) begin their ‘Night Of Rage,’ it will backfire.


Ben J.
Registered user
Birdland
on Jun 24, 2022 at 9:49 pm
Ben J., Birdland
Registered user
on Jun 24, 2022 at 9:49 pm

This article, written by partisan far left people, not journalists by any definition, other than they were supposedly educated by leftist 'professors', shows what this local rag has devolved into. Unfortunately the new radical leftist 'editor' has hinted at and promoted his agenda. Spin it how you want, but the fact that this ruling follows the constitution, not the UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ruling from 50 years ago, shows how unhinged, uneducated and how ignorant the left and democrats have become.
They literally believe that killing a live person at or after conception, is their choice. So why is it if someone kills a pregnant woman, pretty much 100% of the time, prosecutors charge the killer with double homicide; one for the woman and one for the unborn child?
Was there mention of the terrorist acts inflicted against multiple pregnancy centers that do not promote abortion? Was there mention that this administration did zero to stop the terrorist attacks against those pregnancy centers or the terrorist threats against Supreme Court justices? Nope, doesn't fit these fake journalists agenda.


Lisa L Disbrow
Registered user
Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 24, 2022 at 9:52 pm
Lisa L Disbrow, Another Pleasanton neighborhood
Registered user
on Jun 24, 2022 at 9:52 pm

Today I hear complaints from women and men claiming the SCOTUS decision on Roe v Wade threatens the health and safety of women. I hear no compassion or emotion for the loss of health and safety of the unborn men and women who die because of a successful abortion. Instead we rescue feral cats, foster and chip abandoned kittens and puppies and honor those who care for these needy animals. This is good but the contrast in how we feel towards the ending of little humans is not good. How is it our hearts can reject caring for the health and safety of our own? Compassion is missing for the little humans who have no control over their very creation. They are not at fault. They are the very definition of a victim in the abortion issue. Their rights to life, health and safety are ignored, minimized, canceled by the people whose choices initiated their lives. Why can't the needs of these people be treated with equal passion, protection and honor as the kittens, puppies and other animals we so cherish and adore? Why is it ok to have cold hearts towards these people who with just a few months we will cuddle, photo, rock and celebrate as beautiful miracles?


Ben J.
Registered user
Birdland
on Jun 24, 2022 at 10:06 pm
Ben J., Birdland
Registered user
on Jun 24, 2022 at 10:06 pm

Fact. That this article has zero quotes, opinions or true facts from the 'other' side, proves this was nothing but a far left, democrat endorsed, political hit piece to stir the base.
Lazy, unethical journalists and journalism at its best.


Profx
Registered user
Danville
on Jun 25, 2022 at 8:25 am
Profx, Danville
Registered user
on Jun 25, 2022 at 8:25 am

The key word in the article is "Federal". The Supreme Court correctly ruled that the Federal Government did not have the authority to set abortion standards.
States have that right and California is just one example of a State that is expanding abortion rights. Ironically the Supreme Court ruling removes any Federal restrictions on abortions so all the outrage is pure politics... in my opinion.


Just Another Resident
Registered user
Pleasanton Valley
on Jun 25, 2022 at 9:10 am
Just Another Resident, Pleasanton Valley
Registered user
on Jun 25, 2022 at 9:10 am

"In the end, the majority says, all it must say to override stare decisis is one thing: that it believes Roe and Casey 'egregiously wrong. That rule could equally spell the end of any precedent with which a bare majority of the present Court disagrees. It makes radical change too easy and too fast, based on nothing more than the new views of new judges."

This is not how the Supreme Court is supposed to work.


Michael Austin
Registered user
Pleasanton Meadows
on Jun 25, 2022 at 5:59 pm
Michael Austin , Pleasanton Meadows
Registered user
on Jun 25, 2022 at 5:59 pm

A new Rasmussen poll shows more Americans want Roe V Wade overturned than want to keep the infamous Supreme Court decision in place that allows abortions up to birth.

Abortion activists have engaged in violence, vandalism and heated protests in response to a leaked draft opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court Reo V Wade. although Democrats and the liberal media want the Country to think a majority of Americans support Roe and abortions, the opposite is true.

Just as 11 recent polls show Americans are pro-life on abortion and online survey find more Americans want Roe overturned.

According to Rasmussen, 48% of likely U.S. voters would approve of a Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe V Wade, including 32% who would strongly approve, 45% would disapprove of overturning Roe V Wade, including 35% who would strongly disapprove.


PToWN94566
Registered user
Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 27, 2022 at 10:33 am
PToWN94566, Another Pleasanton neighborhood
Registered user
on Jun 27, 2022 at 10:33 am

Quite the typical Pleasanton responses on here. Since ya'll are claiming that SCOTUS simples upholds the law, then they better overturn loving v Virginia. And now with the ruling on prayer, it's only a matter time before prayer is implemented as a standard in PUBLIC schools. Thomas' leaked document a month ago also called for overturning same sex marriage, having a nation wide abortion ban, contraception, and sodomy laws. If anything, all these decisions are being made based off their Christian beliefs, There is no more separation of church and state. It's time the constitution is burned up and we return Lady Liberty to France. If it ain't white and Christian, it doesn't fit with the US dream. FYI to you pro-birth activities...Judaism doesn't define and believe that a fetus is alive or has a soul until it's birthed. The Talmud specifically states it's mere water and is subhuman until it's born. Judaism places a MOTHER's choice and her life above a POTENTIAL life. All those states outlawing all forms of abortion (and soon to be contraception...South Dakota), are literally denying a woman's religious freedoms. Slippery slopes folks.

This US experiment has been grand but it's failing miserably. And don't bother telling me to move. Telling someone to leave the country is about as anti-American as one can get.


Dave Ott
Registered user
Vintage Hills
on Jun 27, 2022 at 12:16 pm
Dave Ott, Vintage Hills
Registered user
on Jun 27, 2022 at 12:16 pm

Great news the Roe v Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court. Very sad that CA still wants to murder more babies! Shameful actions by governor Newsom and assembly woman Rebecca Bauer-Kahan. Come Nov 2022 let's vote them out of office.


Get the Facts
Registered user
Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 27, 2022 at 6:23 pm
Get the Facts, Another Pleasanton neighborhood
Registered user
on Jun 27, 2022 at 6:23 pm

Quotes from above:

"A new Rasmussen poll shows more Americans want Roe V Wade overturned ..."
This is false, many polls show anywhere from 55 to well over 60% approve of a woman's right to choose.

"They literally believe that killing a live person at or after conception..."
Killing, for lack of a better word, at or after conception is very much not a "live person". A fetus cannot survive outside the womb until 22 weeks, and at 22 weeks the chance of survival is just 10%.

"I hear no compassion or emotion for the loss of health and safety of the unborn men and women who die because of a successful abortion"
Again, unborn babies perhaps? Not unborn "men and women". And over 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriages, so is that now a crime?

"Very sad that CA still wants to murder more babies!"
It's NOT killing babies, it's simply not. And if you feel that it is, I'm guessing that you think that these poor women who had to carry their babies to term (no matter what their situation is) could use the adoption system to their advantage. Well, there are over 60k kids in foster care in CA right now, so step up pro-lifers, put your money where your mouth is and help shrink this number.








Pleasanton Parent
Registered user
Pleasanton Meadows
on Jun 27, 2022 at 8:40 pm
Pleasanton Parent, Pleasanton Meadows
Registered user
on Jun 27, 2022 at 8:40 pm

You’re surprised by loaded polarized language used by politicians and zealots. Democrats and Republicans do this all the time. Keep voting based on polarized positions and get more of the same. For every newsom there will be a cruz. Find moderates in both parties if you want the country back.


Michael Austin
Registered user
Pleasanton Meadows
on Jun 27, 2022 at 9:28 pm
Michael Austin , Pleasanton Meadows
Registered user
on Jun 27, 2022 at 9:28 pm

Scott Rasmussen was registered democrat, voted for Jimmy Carter 1977. Scott Rasmussen later became registered independent.

Scott Rasmussen was cofounder of Entertainment Sports Program Network, (ESPN).


Jake Waters
Registered user
Birdland
on Jun 28, 2022 at 8:52 am
Jake Waters, Birdland
Registered user
on Jun 28, 2022 at 8:52 am

I reread this article and it hit me: no comments, input, or arguments to the contrary. It is a one way deliberation without the even a hint of an alternative view.

Questions:

Will the Democrats allow the citizens of California to vote on it? If not, why?

Is Gavin going to begin increasing the footprint of Planned Parenthood into more of the poor ethnic neighborhoods?

Do the Democrats acknowledge that this is extremely racist since the majority of abortions are from Black females? Why are they not doing more if Black lives really matter?

Will California Democrats support Biden in his desire to create Federal abortion clinics (extermination centers) in our state?

And lastly, why do Democrats hate our children based on their behavior with abortions, turning our educational centers into sex instruction, and injecting our little ones with experimental drugs? Will there be a limit that they can get away with?


SHale99
Registered user
Village High School
on Jun 28, 2022 at 12:14 pm
SHale99, Village High School
Registered user
on Jun 28, 2022 at 12:14 pm

"Why do Democrats hate our children based on their behavior with abortions, turning our educational centers into sex instruction, and injecting our little ones with experimental drugs"

Please show us examples of this opinion of yours. Just curious.


Kevin
Registered user
Castlewood
on Jun 28, 2022 at 7:58 pm
Kevin, Castlewood
Registered user
on Jun 28, 2022 at 7:58 pm

Jesus came to us as a man, not a king. He did not rule through laws but through love. He was actually against laws from the pharisees. He hung out with worse of the worst - tax collectors and sinners. Christians today want to do the opposite. They want to push their version of morality on the rest of the US. They are the 21st century Pharisees. Instead, they should be converting people through love and understanding. All they are doing is pushing people further away from Jesus.

The separation of church and state is a beautiful part of our constitution. The SCOTUS violated it. Allowing our laws to be dictated by the “evangelical” or Catholic version or interpretation of Christianity is wrong! That is what the Taliban does in Afghanistan- they set their laws by their interpretation of Koran. Let’s not make the US a Christian Taliban country!


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.