• Latest
  • All
Reflections on Dobbs and What Might Be Next

Reflections on Dobbs and What Might Be Next

July 1, 2022
Pride Day protests at Glenoaks Elementary ignite controversy on LGBTQ+ education

Pride Day protests at Glenoaks Elementary ignite controversy on LGBTQ+ education

June 6, 2023
New study shows that most abortions are not wanted and cause greater health problems

New study shows that most abortions are not wanted and cause greater health problems

June 6, 2023
More than 4,500 March for Life in Berlin: an unmistakable appeal to German politicians

Nevada’s GOP Governor signs pro-abortion bill amidst Oklahoma’s abortion laws overturn

June 5, 2023
Chris Pratt stands up for his faith, but…

Chris Pratt stands up for his faith, but…

June 5, 2023
Hiding in the shadows: former exec sheds light on the force behind woke corporations

Hiding in the shadows: former exec sheds light on the force behind woke corporations

June 5, 2023
Boys: The forgotten ones in the education system

Boys: The forgotten ones in the education system

June 5, 2023
Trans treatments prohibited for minors in Montana

Trans treatments prohibited for minors in Montana

June 3, 2023
Let’s give the transgender radicals what they want—the end of female sports

Let’s give the transgender radicals what they want—the end of female sports

June 3, 2023
DC Public Library prepares to host children’s pride parade

DC Public Library prepares to host children’s pride parade

June 2, 2023
Pittsburgh Bishop urges cancellation of controversial ‘Pride Mass’

Pittsburgh Bishop urges cancellation of controversial ‘Pride Mass’

June 2, 2023
  • About iFamNews
  • Contact

Navigation Button Subscribe

  • Subscribe
June 6, 2023
  • Login
  • Register
No Result
View All Result
  • English
    • Italiano
    • Español
    • Français
    • Deutsch
    • Polski
    • српски
    • Русский

Navigation Button Donate

  • Donate
International Family News Network (IFN)
  • Home
  • Opinion
  • Life
  • Family
  • Culture
  • Politics
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Shows
  • Petitions
  • Subscribe
  • Donate
International Family News Network (IFN)
  • Home
  • Opinion
  • Life
  • Family
  • Culture
  • Politics
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Shows
  • Petitions
  • Subscribe
  • Donate
No Result
View All Result
International Family News Network (IFN)
No Result
View All Result

Reflections on Dobbs and What Might Be Next

Overturning Roe v Wade has profound implications for more than abortion.

Frank Schubert by Frank Schubert
July 1, 2022
in Foreground, Life
365
Reading Time: 5 mins read
0
Reflections on Dobbs and What Might Be Next
Share on FacebookShare on WhatsAppShare on TelegramShare on TwitterShare on WeChat

Last updated on July 6th, 2022 at 09:16 am

It turns out I was right. In a series of articles for ifamnews.com, I detailed the legal issues presented in the state of Mississippi’s challenge to Roe v Wade, which created a constitutional “right” to abortion in 1973 and Planned Parenthood v Casey which refashioned abortion rules nearly twenty years later, but reaffirmed the “right” created by Roe. I forecast that at least five justices – Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas, Kavanaugh and Barrett – would use the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization case to overturn Roe and Casey. I noted that there would be tremendous pressure, including protests and threats of violence, brought to bear by abortion sympathizers in an attempt to intimidate the justices into preserving Roe. I contested the view of some highly-respected legal analysts that Chief Justice John Roberts would join with the principled conservatives to overturn Roe, predicting that he would ultimately lack the courage to do so.

In the end, pretty much all of these observations proved to be correct. The Court ruled 5-4 to overturn Roe and Casey. (Many in the media report the Dobbs decision as being 6-3 with Roberts in the majority, but that is incorrect. Roberts authored a concurring opinion making clear that he would have upheld Mississippi’s law prohibiting abortions at 15 weeks, but did not agree that Roe and Casey should be reversed.)

While I said in my articles that the Dobbs decision had the potential to roil the country like no other court decision in most people’s lifetimes, there were several developments I did not predict. I did not think it possible that someone within the Supreme Court itself–likely a law clerk for a liberal justice–would leak the draft opinion to the media for the purpose of stoking outrage on the left in order to ramp up pressure on one of the conservatives to change his or her vote. And while I said that the justices would be subjected to the most intense pressure campaign ever mounted, including demonstrations at their homes, I did not predict that the effort to change the projected vote would include an assassination attempt on one of the justices.

Despite all the hue and cry and the countless words spilled by both sides of the abortion issue in the wake of the Dobbs decision, the rationale of the Supreme Court majority in overturning Roe is actually quite simple and straightforward. Reflecting an originalist view of the law, the majority correctly believes that there are only two circumstances where courts can find a constitutional right: it must either be expressly enumerated in the text of the Constitution itself, or be readily inferred based on the nation’s history and traditions existing at the time the Constitution was ratified. Neither Roe nor Casey met those conditions, and thus they were wrongly decided from the outset. There is not, and never has been, a constitutional right to abortion in America.

With the Dobbs decision, the regulation of abortion will be returned to the states to be decided consistent with the 10th Amendment to the Constitution (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.) and other constitutional provisions.

In the short term, the regulation of abortion will hue very closely to the general political lineup of states in our currently divided America. Deep blue states like New York and California will continue to allow for expansive abortion access and indeed will go further by positioning their states as “abortion sanctuaries.” Many deep red states, on the other hand, will prevent abortion entirely (except to preserve the life of the mother). Indeed, many have previously passed “trigger laws” that are now kicking in to ban or severely limit abortion. Still other states will look for some sort of balance, allowing abortions in some cases but prohibiting them in many other cases.

The short term will also see lots of chaos and confusion as the pro-life and pro-abortion camps continue to duel. Courts have temporarily blocked trigger laws from taking effect at the request of abortion providers, but it is highly unlikely that these temporary restraining orders will become permanent once the appellate courts get involved. President Joe Biden and leading Democrats have called on Congress to codify Roe (the legislation in question to do so would actually vastly expand Roe to include abortion on demand at any time of pregnancy), going so far as to eliminate the filibuster in order to pass the legislation. But that effort is likely to fizzle because two prominent Democrat Senators, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, are opposed to breaking the filibuster rule. Biden will issue various executive orders to promote abortion access (constructing abortion facilities on federal lands has been suggested by some) but the Courts will almost certainly invalidate them for lacking legal authority. Packing the Supreme Court to give Biden the chance to nominate more liberal justices will be attempted, but will fail.

Abortion regulation will also become a hot political issue in the short term. Democrats are hoping to make it the preeminent issue of the 2022 midterm elections, believing that support for abortion will be enough to drive massive turnout benefiting Democrats. That is a fantasy. While passion is high on the abortion issue, it is high on both sides. Those who care most about preserving access to abortion mostly live in areas of the country – blue cities and states – that will continue to provide for easy access to abortion. Some people in swing areas, particularly suburban women, may prefer to allow continued access to abortion, but they have far more pressing concerns about the state of the economy, the increasingly untenable rising cost of living, and the Left’s insistence on imposing a woke progressive agenda on their children. Moreover, lots of these suburban moms live in purple states that are highly likely to continue some access to abortion.

What of the long term?

The long-term battle over abortion remains what it has always been–a battle for the hearts and minds of the American people. As others have noted, the focus of the pro-life community should not be so much on making abortion illegal as making it unthinkable. It will take much more time, but the trends in public sentiment are certainly encouraging.

There is another important long-term opportunity that stems from the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling. The legal reasoning underpinning the Dobbs decision–that constitutional rights exist only when specifically mentioned in the text of the Constitution or readily inferred from the nation’s history and traditions–has implications for numerous other “rights” invented by activist judges. Chief among them is same-sex ‘marriage.’ Like abortion, gay ‘marriage’ is not an enumerated right in the text of the Constitution, and did not have any history or tradition when the Constitution and the various amendments were ratified. Of all the “rights” that have been created by judges over the years, gay ‘marriage’ is the most vulnerable. Distinguished law professor Helen Alvare recently said the Obergefell v Hodges case that imposed gay ‘marriage’ on the nation, “is almost entirely built on Casey’s rationale that individual rights respecting sex and identity creation are fundamental constitutional rights. And Casey is gone.”

The more than 50 million Americans who voted in dozens of state referenda and amendment campaigns to define marriage solely as the union of one man and one woman, and countless legislators who did the same by enacting state statutes, can only hope that Obergefell will be soon gone as well.

Tags: Abortionabortion legislationBIdenConstitutionconstitutional rightDobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organizationgay marriageHelen AlvareObergefellPlanned Parenthood v. CaseyRoe v. Wade
Frank Schubert

Frank Schubert

Frank Schubert is a communications consultant for the International Organization for the Family (IOF) and has twice been named America’s top public affairs professional. Schubert serves a similar role for the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). He has worked extensively on family-related issues including supporting marriage, the sanctity of human life and religious liberty, among other issues. Schubert is one of the country’s top experts in managing ballot initiative campaigns and has won over 50 such campaigns in over one-dozen states, compiling an 80% winning record. He managed the successful Proposition 8 campaign in California as well as subsequent winning campaigns on marriage in Maine and North Carolina. His views on issues have been widely reported by the national and international media and he has been interviewed by news organizations hundreds of times. He is the founder of Inspiration Strategies, a public affairs firm.

Discussion about this post

Popular News

  • Christian math teacher banned from profession over pronoun dispute

    Christian math teacher banned from profession over pronoun dispute

    0 shares 1.5k VIEWS
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • Conformist leftists and the hell they want to create

    32 shares 774 VIEWS
    Share 0 Tweet 32
  • Family wins legal battle against school district over trans controversy

    0 shares 760 VIEWS
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • New study shows that most abortions are not wanted and cause greater health problems

    32 shares 703 VIEWS
    Share 0 Tweet 32
  • From White House appointment to scandal: The Sam Brinton story

    0 shares 697 VIEWS
    Share 0 Tweet 0

Twitter iFamNewsEN

Tweets by @iFamNewsEN
IFN – International Family News Network

© 2022 IFN – International Family News - All Rights Reserved.

Quick Links

  • About iFamNews
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy

Follow Us

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Opinion
  • Life
  • Family
  • Culture
  • Politics
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Shows
  • Petitions
  • Subscribe
  • Donate

  • en English
  • it Italiano
  • es Español
  • fr Français
  • de Deutsch
  • pl Polski
  • sr српски
  • ru Русский
  • Login
  • Sign Up

© 2022 IFN – International Family News - All Rights Reserved.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
Subscribe