Bulldust meant for the US market. What American courts, and Americans in general do is no concern of ours.

Here's the thing, the court removes one right, to terminate a pregnancy while enhancing another the right to bear arms.

If all life is sacrosanct!? Why is a yet unborn life, more important than those taken in mass shooting by armed nutjobs!?

We will see unwanted unaffordable children living out lives of lifelong deprivation and abuse and children forced to give birth to children.

Rest assured the crime rate via gun crime will surely rise as will death by gunshot as those with the guns use them as protection!

Or will the fact that the intending criminal will back off the intended crime due to the fact, his/her target may shoot back? For mine the latter the most likely outcome!
Alan B.

Very amusing to watch the satanic brigade sh!tting their pants in a frenzy of hatred and double-talk as usual.

The Court did not remove a right because such a right does not exist in the US Constitution, all the Court did was remove an erroneous interpretation.
As regards guns all that the Court did was uphold the law.

Reason not emotion is what is needed in regard to the law.

Perhaps the author can explain why the USA has such a low murder rate by world standards?

I think there are three distinct issues here:

1. Should women have a right to access safe, legal abortions?
2. Was the Supreme Court correct in its initial decision in Roe v Wade that the right to abortion is implicit in the constitution?
3. If the initial decision was not correct, should the current Supreme Court have overturned it?

I think the answer to question 1 is definitely yes, but I know many legal experts, including supporters of the right to choose, who admit the answer to question 2 is probably no. If so, then most of Alon’s argument is largely irrelevant – the decision to overturn Roe v Wade is not a matter of what the people of the US actually want, or what the law should say, or even the horrible consequences this decision will have, but what was the correct thing to do in law.

That is not to say necessarily that the court should have overturned Roe v Wade even if it believed the initial judgement was wrong. In an interesting article in The Australian a few days ago, Henry Ergas ran the argument that even though conservatives might believe Roe v Wade is wrong and may oppose abortion rights, they should “lament” the reversal because it breaches stare decisis – the principle that courts stand by past decisions even if they believe them to be wrong because "In most matters, it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right," as Justice Louis Brandeis famously wrote 1932.

In three recent rulings – I’d add The Clean Power Plan decision to the two listed by Alon – the court has shown itself willing to disregard precedent and consequences in its quest to reverse the perceived errors of its predecessors in pursuit of a deeply ideological agenda. The result will be a loss of credibility of the court, loss of certainty for citizens about their legal rights, and possible see-sawing of decisions as new members join the court and feel free to reverse their predecessors’ decisions.

A bad decision.

In America, life begins at conception and ends in a mass shooting.

Here's the thing. The court has made a ruling no law enforcement agency can enforce! Illegal abortions will replace safe clinical care and the cost will rise astronomically! As will the unwanted outcomes that will most likely end in hospitals or the morturies! Ditto changes in the gun laws!
Alan B.

I read that the abortion rights up to fifteen weeks is still allowable but I'm not certain about that?

A lot of Americans dislike the fact that the extreme left want abortion freedom right up until the baby is born. I don't think at that late stage you can say a baby is not a person.

There must be quite a few states who are Democrat states in America,d so
the ball is in their court now, are they still going to allow full time abortion? maybe the Demonstrators should be asking left wing states about their view on !ate term Abortion.

I don't like the idea of abortion much, even in the early stages but I recognise circumstances happen in life that really should allow early abortions for 3 and a half months, cut off point perhaps.

Alan B you are right.
When abortions were not allowed it didn't stop women seeking out local backyard abortionists. There were many horrific bleeding to deaths by a lot of women.

Or it botched up the women inside so that they couldn't have anymore children

As I understand it abortion is still legal in the US but it is a State matter, just as it is in Australia.
Some States have already said that they will welcome women from States where abortion is difficult.
So there is no great problem, abortion has not been banned.

This just demonstrates that constitutions never represent the people upon which they are forced.

Yuyutsu
Bull

If an appointed non elected court can remove a constitutional right? Then a stacked court like the one Trump left could do the same to the fifth amendment?

If so what would change? Not too much just the illegal trade in guns as here in Oz or Japan?

I believe Biden needs to place more judges of his choosing on that bench until these recent farcical religious right outcomes are reversed!
Alan B.

Alan,
Abortion was never a Constitutional right.
It was illegal when the Constitutionn was written. Can you shew where it is a Constitutional right?

When certain groups harp about themselves all the time, and unconnected people with nothing better to do also harp about them, people with normal lives to live - most of the human race - lose interest and any empathy they might have had with those groups: anti-abortionists, pro-abortionists; homosexuals; people with gender-dysphoria; climate hysterics; Blacktivists - too many to list, and oh so bloody boring.

ttbn,
Which category are you in?

People with brains, Is Mise. I don't think you fit that particular category.

Sorry, Is Mise. But you did leave yourself wide open there.

Foetuses are now car-pooling in Texas, which is wonderful news, but they are still being denied their fundamental right to bear arms.

Probably some Christian lab is working on a helpful mutation that will enable god-fearing American foetuses to be born with a gun in each hand

But I do fit thar category, I read your insightful post and as the eyes are part of the brain I must have one.
For a bit of fun tell someone that you can see part of their brain; wonderful reactions.