292
submitted 9 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

The Supreme Court’s eradication of the constitutional right to abortion in 2022’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization had an immediate and devastating impact on gender equality in the United States. With a single ruling, five justices wiped out millions of women’s access to basic health care and handed control over their medical decisions to politicians and judges. It wasn’t just the court’s judgment, though, that relegated women to a lesser place in the constitutional order; it was also the court’s reasoning, which used the centuries long oppression of women to justify an ongoing oppression of women by way of a deprivation of their rights. Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion rested largely on the views of dead white men who condoned the rape, beating, and murder of women to maintain female subjugation in every realm of life. And he dismissed his ruling’s ruinous impact on gender equality in a single conclusory paragraph asserting that abortion restrictions could not possibly discriminate against women.

This week the Pennsylvania Supreme Court responded to that conclusion: no. On Monday, the court issued a landmark opinion declaring that abortion restrictions do amount to sex-based discrimination and therefore are “presumptively unconstitutional” under the state constitution’s equal rights amendment. The majority vehemently rejected Dobbs’ history-only analysis, noting that, until recently, “those interpreting the law” saw women “as not only having fewer legal rights than men but also as lesser human beings by design.” Justice David Wecht went even further: In an extraordinary concurrence, the justice recounted the historical use of abortion bans to repress women, condemned Alito’s error-ridden analysis, and repudiated the “antiquated and misogynistic notion that a woman has no say over what happens to her own body.”

top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] MapleEngineer@lemmy.world 57 points 9 months ago

That's a great read.

[-] crazyCat@sh.itjust.works 43 points 9 months ago

I’m invigorated by this, bravo Pennsylvania.

[-] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 37 points 9 months ago

Someone shortlist that Wecht dude for when Alito drops dead because holy shit did that man throw down.

[-] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee -1 points 9 months ago

Why wait? The number of supreme court judges isn't limited. You can just appoint more. Like a 100 lol.

But first the democrats should do their duty and pass federal laws allowing access to safe abortions. What is stopping them? I don't get how the democrats aren't eating shit about this. Maybe the democrats don't want to mess with the supreme court because they are all corporatists.

[-] jennwiththesea@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

But first the democrats should do their duty and pass federal laws allowing access to safe abortions.

How, honey? Seriously, lay out for me how you think this happens with the current makeup of Congress.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 28 points 9 months ago

Proud to be from Pennsylvania today.

[-] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 25 points 9 months ago

Holy fuck - that’s amazing. That judge went off - well done!

[-] MagicShel@programming.dev 7 points 9 months ago

The majority vehemently rejected Dobbs’ history-only analysis, noting that, until recently, “those interpreting the law” saw women “as not only having fewer legal rights than men but also as lesser human beings by design.”

Recently? Pretty sure that was still the case as of lunchtime today, did the supreme court fall into the ocean and no one told me?

[-] Kushan@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

But what does this actually mean for women? I'm not clear on what the impact of this statement is, does it change anything?

[-] NegativeInf@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

Conflicting judgements usually mean appeals to the Supreme Court which in a just world this would protect abortions under anti discrimination rather than privacy law like it was before. But our supreme Court is fucked in the head twice from Sunday so it could also fall the other way and women somehow end up property again.

this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2024
292 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19138 readers
4179 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS