New Mexico governor fears a national ban on abortion

[RandySF]

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said Sunday she is worried the U.S. is headed toward a national ban on abortion, as state legislatures and courts move to squeeze abortion access across the country.

“It’s every social issue that you disagree with, is it stem cell research, is it fertility, drugs, whatever it is, in this context, if we’re going to use the federal courts as a way to bar and ban access, we are looking at a national abortion ban and more,” Lujan Grisham said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

The Democratic governor recently signed two bills into law protecting abortion providers and guaranteeing access to reproductive and gender-affirming care, just as a judge in neighboring Texas moved to suspend the FDA’s approval of mifepristone — one of two drugs used together to cause an abortion.

With the fate of mifepristone now tied up in the courts, a number of states which support access to abortion have moved to stockpile the drug. But states need to do more than build up a cache of the abortion pill, Lujan Grisham said.



https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/16/new-mexico-governor-abortion-grisham-00092240

[at140]

1. Zero chance.

The final arbiter SCOTUS sent the decision to individual states. If Congress passes nation wide ban on abortions, it will be ruled illegal by SCOTUS.

[Irish_Dem]

2. Yes the GOP wants the states to engage in warfare.

Putin funds the GOP and wants to break up the US.

[at140]

11. Putin? Worry about China..bigger by orders of magnitude than Russia

Russian economy is Lilliputian compared to China.
No one can be a superpower with feeble economy.

[Irish_Dem]

12. Both China and Russia are major problems.

Russia has spent decades and a fortune interfering in US politics.
Putin puppets are installed at the highest levels across the US government,
taking a wrecking ball to our country. They spout Putin talking points every day
and are turning this country into a fascist state.

[sl8]

3. SCOTUS said it was not protected by the Constitution, not that it couldn't be protected or banned.

One of the Justices specifically said it was a legislative issue.

On edit, from the Dobbs decision:

[...]

(e) Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohib-iting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. The Court overrules those decisions and returns that authority to the people and their elected representatives. Pp. 78–79.

[...]

[In It to Win It]

5. Yes

Kavanaugh indicated that Congress could do something on abortion.

[sl8]

6. I added a bit to my post.

From the Court's decision:

(e) Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohib-iting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. The Court overrules those decisions and returns that authority to the people and their elected representatives. Pp. 78–79.

[In It to Win It]

7. Then Kavanaugh wrote in his concurrence:

After today’s decision, the nine Members of this Court will no longer decide the basic legality of pre-viability abortion for all 330 million Americans. That issue will be resolved by the people and their representatives in the democratic process in the States or Congress. But the parties’ arguments have raised other related questions, and I address some of them here.

On the question of abortion, the Constitution is therefore neither pro-life nor pro-choice. The Constitution is neutral and leaves the issue for the people and their elected representatives to resolve through the democratic process in the States or Congress—like the numerous other difficult questions of American social and economic policy that the Constitution does not address.

I'd like to challenge those words one to see if he truly believes that.

I think that Thomas and Alito both believe that the Commerce Clause doesn't give Congress sufficient authority to regulate abortion.

[sl8]

8. Nice.

He even specified Congress by name.

Of course, I don't assume that every Justice will remain self-consistent, if it would suit their purpose to do otherwise. In this case, though, I don't see them objecting to federal abortion restrictions.

[In It to Win It]

9. Absolutely agree

I don't expect consistency from this bunch. I'm waiting to see if Alito contradicts himself on FDA authority on the mifepristone case.

On federal abortion restrictions, I think the zealots on the court would vote to uphold that. I'm not sure it applies to federal laws liberalizing abortion access. I think they would vote to strike a Roe statute down.

[In It to Win It]

4. There are no words in the Dobbs opinion that limits Congress from acting on abortion

Last edited Sun Apr 16, 2023, 07:15 PM - Edit history (1)

It's why Lindsey Graham felt comfortable enough to propose a 15-week ban in Congress.

If Congress were to codify Roe and pass it in a statute, I believe SCOTUS would strike that down. By the same logic, if SCOTUS would strike down legislation permitting abortion, they would strike down legislation banning it. I'm not even convinced that the zealots on the Court would strike down a nation ban, as contradictory as that sounds.

[PortTack]

10. If SCOTUS were to strike it down then they've really painted themselves into a corner

Even with this group, it would lead to such inconsistencies. if they think they have issues now…just wait.

They might just as well use the Monty Python method of determining a witch.

[Buckeyeblue]

13. The court said the constitution does not protect abortion rights

Therefore, any legislative limit to abortion is constitutional. It doesn't matter if it's state or federal.

[at140]

14. My impression is different

Of course I did not memorize the entire decision write-up.
But my understanding is the court decided the constitution does not award right on a federal scope. It is best decided by elected representatives in each state, is what the decision tried to portray.

[Buckeyeblue]

15. I think we are saying the same thing

The US Constitution, according to the court, does not include abortion rights. That doesn't mean a state's constitution won't protect abortion rights, in that particular state. Or a state could pass legislation protecting abortion rights. Hell, even Congress could pass an abortion rights bill that would usurp state criminalization.

But the US Constitution will no longer guarantee this right.