In an interview with CBS’s Leslie Stahl on “60 Minutes,” President-elect Donald Trump said he would appoint “pro-life” judges to the Supreme Court — and that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, women would “have to go to another state” if they want an abortion.
“If [Roe v. Wade] ever were overturned, it would go back to the states,” Trump said.
Stahl followed up: “But then some women won’t be able to get an abortion?”
“Yeah, well, they’ll perhaps have to go — they’ll have to go to another state,” Trump said.
“And that’s okay?” Stahl asked.
“Well, we’ll see what happens,” Trump said. “It’s got a long way to go.”
Roe v. Wade has been Supreme Court precedent for 43 years. But when Stahl asked Trump about same-sex marriage, which the Court legalized last year, his response was very different.
“It was already settled. It’s law,” Trump said. “These cases have gone to the Supreme Court. They’ve been settled. ... I’m fine with that.”
As my colleague German Lopez has explained, a Trump-Pence administration could actually be a nightmare for LGBTQ Americans, even though Trump has made occasional (and often clumsy) efforts to reach out to that community.
But Trump has been a lot more explicit about how his administration would roll back reproductive rights. He has promised to appoint justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade. And although he quickly walked it back after massive pushback, he said that women would face “some form of punishment” if abortion were outlawed.
The real question, then, isn’t whether Trump is serious about opposing abortion. It’s how much he can actually do about it.
When it comes to Roe v. Wade specifically, it’s a little complicated. Roe probably wouldn’t be overturned in the next four years, and maybe never. But depending on how many justices Trump gets to appoint, and depending on which cases the Court decides to hear, Roe could very well be in danger in the medium- to long-term.
Why Roe v. Wade is probably (probably) safe
Julie Rikelman, litigation director at the Center for Reproductive Rights, put it plainly to Vox in an interview: “I do not believe that it is likely that Roe v. Wade would be overturned,” she said.
There are three major reasons for this, she said:
The power of precedent
“Roe v. Wade has now been the law of the land for over 40 years,” Rikelman said. “It has lasted through a number of anti-choice administrations, including those who vowed to put justices on the court that would overturn Roe v. Wade. And in those over 40 years, many cases have come up to the Supreme Court where there was a request for Roe v. Wade to be overturned, but it wasn't.”
In other words, the Court has had opportunities to overturn Roe before. But it hasn’t taken them. And a key reason why, Rikelman said, is that “the institution of the Supreme Court gives a lot of weight to precedent and to something called stare decisis. And that means that when the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution and issued an opinion, that opinion is supposed to remain in place unless there are very, very, very, very good reasons for revisiting it.”
There have been many Supreme Court justices over the years who personally oppose abortion. One of them is Anthony Kennedy, who is typically the “swing vote” between the liberal and conservative factions on the current Court.
Read more
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/13/13618556/trump-60-minutes-roe-v-wade-abortion
No comments:
Post a Comment