"It is important to make clear that Roe v. Wade was not 'annulled', the Court simply overruled its prior determination that the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause protected a purported right to an abortion," said Stephen B. Presser, a leading US legal historian and law professor at the Northwestern University.
Presser explained that the case is a fundamental affirmation that the Supreme Court "does not have the right to legislate new policies for Americans, and that the primary lawmakers in our polity are the state legislatures."
"It represents a shift of power away from the federal to the state governments, and a return to sensible Constitutional interpretation," the professor says. "If carried to its logical conclusion it would further remove the Court from national policy -making in a manner suggested by Justice Thomas's concurrence in the case."
Back in 1973, the US Supreme Court held that women have a fundamental right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy prior to the third trimester. This decision was affirmed in the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey case, and subjected to some modifications: in particular, the Supreme Court held "that states could not impose an undue burden on women seeking an abortion prior to [fetal] viability".
Meanwhile, the Democrats perceive the overruling of Roe v. Wade as nothing short of an attack on US women rights. Last year, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her party fellows called to "codify" Roe v. Wade into law, without avail. She has recently pledged to double down on her initiative.
"The case is significant for American society in that it means that women throughout the US no longer have a constitutional right to a safe and legal abortion," insists Robert A. Sedler, a distinguished law professor at Wayne State University Law School specializing in US Constitutional law. "The decision overturns almost 50 years of precedents."
Commenting on the SCOTUS’ recent ruling, the court’s three Democratic appointees, namely Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, claimed that the majority had relegated women to “second-class citizenship."
"I think the biggest fear comes not just from the Supreme Court validating the power of the state to outlaw abortions, but Justice Clarence Thomas' concurring opinion that claims this will pave the way for the Supreme Court to roll back all kinds of other freedoms, including marriage rights (gay marriage, yes but possibly interracial marriage as well, which was decided under similar protections), birth control and contraception," argued John Tures, a political science professor at LaGrange College in Georgia.
A number of Republican-controlled states have already come up with an initiative to toughen abortion laws. In particular, Texas passed a "Heartbeat Act" that bans abortion after the detection of embryonic or fetal cardiac activity, which normally occurs after about six weeks of pregnancy. For its part, Mississippi's legislature prohibits the procedure after 15 weeks of pregnancy. All six Supreme Court conservative justices voted to uphold Mississippi’s abortion ban.
In addition, a total of 13 states, including Mississippi, have so-called "trigger laws" in place to automatically begin the process of enforcing pre-determined abortion restrictions upon the overturning of the Roe v. Wade decision.
"Each state will have to decide for itself, but apparently about one third of the states are likely to restrict abortions further," explained Presser. "It is nonsense to say that the decision relegates women to 'second class citizenship,' is simply about whether state or federal law decides the issue."
Are There Ways to Reverse SCOTUS' Roe Ruling?
It is unlikely that the SCOTUS ruling considering abortions will be reversed in the foreseeable future, according to the legal observers. According to Presser, the only two ways to overturn it would be for a majority of the Court to reinstate Roe, which is unlikely; or for a Constitutional Amendment to be passed guaranteeing a right to abortion.
"That is even more unlikely, since it would require a vote of 2/3 of both houses of congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures, and that is not going to happen any time soon," the professor pointed out.
For his part, Tures presumed that, "If Biden is reelected or another Democrat wins, and they control the Senate, and a conservative justice retires, they could change the composition of the court, and get a new case."
There is yet another way a reversal may come about, which involves a large-scale political backlash or a wave of deaths from unplanned pregnancies that may force "justices to decide that they went too far," according to the political scientist.
Meanwhile, protests erupted in several US cities on Friday with abortion-rights advocates expressing outrage over the SCOTUS ruling. Thousands of people took to the streets of Washington and New York City carrying signs reading “Keep your laws off my body,” “No uterus, no opinion,” and shouting chants like “My body, my choice.”
There will be more planned actions across cities in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Illinois, Texas, New Mexico and California, and many others, CNN has reported, citing human rights activists.
The Office of Intelligence and Analysis of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has warned the government of a possible threat of rising extremist violence in the country over the SCOTUS ruling, according to two US media outlets that obtained the DHS memo. The DHS reportedly expects the country could be engulfed by violent extremism for weeks to come.
House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer sign $1.9 trillion "American Rescue Plan" spending package. 2021.
© Photo : YouTube / Bloomberg Politics
Dems Might Try to Weaponize Discontent Over Roe Reversal
It appears possible that the Dems may try to capitalize on the SCOTUS decision in their attempts to blunt the impact of high inflation and President Joe Biden’s low approval ratings before the November midterms, according to the legal observers. Skyrocketing inflation and looming recession threatens to deprive the Dems of their slim majority in both chambers of the US Congress.
"I believe that will be the Democrats' strategy moving forward. To talk about a 'deprivation of rights,' even though it is fanciful, is the only course of action the Democrats have, since the record of the Biden administration is virtually indefensible," Presser argued.
According to Sedler, the abortion issue could help the Dems galvanize young people and women, prompting them register to vote and to cast their ballots in favor of Democratic candidates in the 2022 midterms.
For his part, Tures warned that it should not be only issue Democrats run on: in 2014, frontrunner Senator Mark Udall, a Colorado Democrat, ran almost entirely on an extreme pro-choice campaign and lost.
"Candidates need to run on multiple issues, not just a single issue," the political scientist emphasized. "They should be prepared to offer a myriad of policies and solutions in order to win."