FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

You Don’t Have to Overrule Roe to Overrule Roe

Photo by Supermac1961 | CC BY 2.0

A second Supreme Court nomination by President Trump does not necessarily mean Roe v. Wade will be overturned.  At least not formally.  Instead, look to see the Supreme Court continue to acknowledge the validity of Roe as precedent while effectively overruling it with judicially minimal decisions.  This has been one of the characteristics of the Roberts Court, using judicial minimalism to limit precedents, and it will continue with reproductive rights.

Anticipation of Trump’s second appointment to the Supreme Court in reference to reproductive rights has completely missed a major point.  Groups supportive of reproductive rights have talked of the importance of Roe, and pro-choice senators such as Susan Collins have said they will not support a Justice who opposes Roe.  Look to see Senate confirmation questions ask  nominees about Roe as a precedent.  Either a nominee will refuse to comment or express fidelity to precedent.  Upholding Roe formally is important but not critical to abortion rights.  Simply upholding Roe does not mean reproductive rights are secure.

Roe v. Wade is the 1973 Supreme Court decision declaring that the Constitution encompasses  a right to privacy, which  also includes a right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy.  Yet Roe never granted an absolute right to terminate a pregnancy.  Under the original decision Justice Blackmun  created a trimester system where the later in the term of pregnancy it was the more interest the government had in regulating abortions to protect the health of the mother or fetus. Abortion rights were greatest in the first trimester, receding with fetal development. Later as modified by Justice O’Connor in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which formally upheld Roe, the trimester was abandoned and replaced with the “undue burden” test.  The government could regulate abortions so long as they did not place an undue burden on the fundamental right to terminate a pregnancy.

The question under the original Roe and the subsequent undue burden test is when is a burden undue.  Over time and without formally overruling Roe, the Supreme Court has upheld third term “partial birth” abortions.  But it has also endorsed rules requiring twenty-four-hour waiting periods. The Court has upheld rules baring the use of public  funds or facilities to provide abortions or counsel about it as an option, parental notification, to perform fetal viability tests at 20 weeks, and limits on where second term abortions may occur.  Just recently this term, the Court on First Amendment grounds struck down a law that would have required sham pregnancy centers to inform clients about state abortion services.   All of these restrictions already have limited abortion rights for many , especially the poor, but they were considered constitutional.

Yes, the Supreme and lower federal courts have struck down more extreme laws, but even under Roe and Casey the Court upheld many restrictions on abortion, chipping away at a precedent that was never an absolute unqualified right to start with.  Look to see a Roberts Court with a second  Trump appointment do the same.  With Kennedy’s departure the Chief Justice will become the new  swing vote.  He has already demonstrated a willingness to swing somewhat for the sake of preserving  the image of the Supreme Court–he did that by providing the crucial fifth vote to uphold Obamacare.

But even while upholding that law formally, he struck down a key provision of it regarding the expansion of Medicaid, and also placed new constitutional limits on the powers of the federal government to regulate abortion.    While in some areas of law–such as campaign finance and union rights–the Court has explicitly rejected and overturned precedent, Chief Justice Roberts and his court have perfected the fine art of judicial minimalism to slowing limit and confine precedents.  Unwittingly, moderate legal scholars such as Cass Sunstein who advocate for judicial minimalism  have given the Court the tools to erode precedent without formally overturning it.

This is the future of where abortion rights may be headed.  Justices such as Alito and Thomas will want to formally overrule Roe but Roberts will be a break on that–endorsing the precedent and the new restriction at the same time.

More articles by:

David Schultz is a professor of political science at Hamline University. He is the author of Presidential Swing States:  Why Only Ten Matter.

Weekend Edition
September 21, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Hurricane Florence and 9.7 Million Pigs
Andrew Levine
Israel’s Anti-Semitism Smear Campaign
Paul Street
Laquan McDonald is Being Tried for His Own Racist Murder
Brad Evans
What Does It Mean to Celebrate International Peace Day?
Nick Pemberton
With or Without Kavanaugh, The United States Is Anti-Choice
Jim Kavanagh
“Taxpayer Money” Threatens Medicare-for-All (And Every Other Social Program)
Jonathan Cook
Palestine: The Testbed for Trump’s Plan to Tear up the Rules-Based International Order
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Chickenhawks Have Finally Come Back Home to Roost!
David Rosen
As the Capitalist World Turns: From Empire to Imperialism to Globalization?
Jonah Raskin
Green Capitalism Rears Its Head at Global Climate Action Summit
James Munson
On Climate, the Centrists are the Deplorables
Robert Hunziker
Is Paris 2015 Already Underwater?
Arshad Khan
Will Their Ever be Justice for Rohingya Muslims?
Jill Richardson
Why Women Don’t Report Sexual Assault
Dave Clennon
A Victory for Historical Accuracy and the Peace Movement: Not One Emmy for Ken Burns and “The Vietnam War”
W. T. Whitney
US Harasses Cuba Amid Mysterious Circumstances
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
Things That Make Sports Fans Uncomfortable
George Capaccio
Iran: “Snapping Back” Sanctions and the Threat of War
Kenneth Surin
Brexit is Coming, But Which Will It Be?
Louis Proyect
Moore’s “Fahrenheit 11/9”: Entertaining Film, Crappy Politics
Ramzy Baroud
Why Israel Demolishes: Khan Al-Ahmar as Representation of Greater Genocide
Ben Dangl
The Zapatistas’ Dignified Rage: Revolutionary Theories and Anticapitalist Dreams of Subcommandante Marcos
Ron Jacobs
Faith, Madness, or Death
Bill Glahn
Crime Comes Knocking
Terry Heaton
Pat Robertson’s Hurricane “Miracle”
Dave Lindorff
In Montgomery County PA, It’s Often a Jury of White People
Louis Yako
From Citizens to Customers: the Corporate Customer Service Culture in America 
William Boardman
The Shame of Dianne Feinstein, the Courage of Christine Blasey Ford 
Ernie Niemi
Logging and Climate Change: Oregon is Appalachia and Timber is Our Coal
Jessicah Pierre
Nike Says “Believe in Something,” But Can It Sacrifice Something, Too?
Paul Fitzgerald - Elizabeth Gould
Weaponized Dreams? The Curious Case of Robert Moss
Olivia Alperstein
An Environmental 9/11: the EPA’s Gutting of Methane Regulations
Ted Rall
Why Christine Ford vs. Brett Kavanaugh is a Train Wreck You Can’t Look Away From
Lauren Regan
The Day the Valves Turned: Defending the Pipeline Protesters
Ralph Nader
Questions, Questions Where are the Answers?
Binoy Kampmark
Deplatforming Germaine Greer
Raouf Halaby
It Should Not Be A He Said She Said Verdict
Robert Koehler
The Accusation That Wouldn’t Go Away
Jim Hightower
Amazon is Making Workers Tweet About How Great It is to Work There
Robby Sherwin
Rabbi, Rabbi, Where For Art Thou Rabbi?
Vern Loomis
Has Something Evil This Way Come?
Steve Baggarly
Disarm Trident Walk Ends in Georgia
Graham Peebles
Priorities of the Time: Peace
Michael Doliner
The Department of Demonization
David Yearsley
Bollocks to Brexit: the Plumber Sings
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail