What to Expect in a Post-Roe World

Below is my Hill column on what to expect in a post-Roe world. That world is already taking shape with states crafting their laws reflecting the values of their citizens from Colorado passing a law protecting the right to abortion up to the moment of birth to Louisiana banning all abortions except in limited circumstances. The fact is that most Americans are in the middle in this debate with more nuanced views than many political leaders. In the months to come, we will see if that view will prevail in the majority of states.

Here is the column:

In their historic ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, six Supreme Court justices noted that the nation was grappling with this deeply divisive issue in 1973 but that “Roe abruptly ended that political process.” The court has now declared that the future of abortion will rest with 330 million Americans rather than nine justices.

As this matter returns to the states, it is striking to consider what has changed legally and socially in the past 50 years. The comparison may hold some interesting surprises for politicians who are now declaring, as did President Biden, that “this fall, Roe is on the ballot.”

How little has changed

If one looks solely at the alignment of states, surprisingly little has changed. In 1973, 30 states banned abortion at any stage of a pregnancy, with some exceptions for the health of the mother. In the Dobbs litigation of 2022, 26 states asked the court to overturn Roe and its successor, Casey.

Thus, we remain deeply divided.

Roughly 16 states are poised or expected to make abortion illegal immediately under so-called trigger laws. South Dakota, Louisiana and Kentucky have immediate prohibitions that will come into effect. Missouri claimed to be the first to declare all abortion as unlawful except for medical emergencies.

Twenty-seven states have protections for abortion that are expected to continue. States like Colorado, New Jersey, Oregon and Delaware actually protected abortion without any limit on the stage of a pregnancy — guaranteeing the right up to just before time of birth.

Internationally, only seven countries allow abortion after the 20th week. While many countries have decriminalized abortion, most are closer to Mississippi than Michigan in limiting abortion to the first or second trimester.

How much has changed

While Dobbs is a major reversal of a long-standing precedent, much has changed legally since 1973. After Roe, the Supreme Court continued to expand protections over lifestyles and intimate relations. In the parade of horribles that followed Friday’s release of the Dobbs ruling, politicians and pundits warned that the decision could undo cases protecting contraception, same-sex marriage and other rights.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Vice President Harris and other Democrats continue to claim that the court was taking the country back to the last century. The image of criminalized homosexuality, marriage bans and contraception limits is unnerving — but also untrue.

In the Dobbs decision, the court’s majority expressly, repeatedly rejects the application of this holding to these other rights. Indeed, it is relatively rare to see the court go to this extent to proactively close off the use of a new case in future cases. The court said that “intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage” are not impacted by its holding because “abortion is fundamentally different, as both Roe and Casey acknowledged.” It noted that abortion is unique in dealing with “what those decisions called ‘fetal life’ and what the law now before us describes as an ‘unborn human being.’”

The court repeatedly stressed that those claiming the country will be put into a legal Wayback Machine are simply using the opinion “to stoke unfounded fear that our decision will imperil those other rights.” It could not be more clear, as the court said, that “rights regarding contraception and same-sex relationships are inherently different from the right to abortion because the latter (as we have stressed) uniquely involves what Roe and Casey termed ‘potential life.’”

The court and Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurrence repeat, almost mantra-like: “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” Only Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that these other cases should be examined, yet even he stressed this opinion expressly rejects that application.

Putting aside the legal changes, there are major technological changes since 1973 that will impact the post-Roe world. Roughly 60 percent of abortions today are carried out at home, not in clinics, using pills with mifepristone and misoprostol to abort a pregnancy. In 2021, the Food and Drug Administration permanently removed the in-person requirement for these prescriptions and allowed women to access the drugs via telehealth appointments and online pharmacies. It will be difficult for states to interfere with such prescriptions, particularly if the federal government protects such access.

How we have changed

The greatest change may be us. As this issue returns to the states for citizens to decide, we are a different country than we were in 1973. Great strides have been made in the advancement of women and a wider acceptance of people making decisions about their own lives and values. While we remain divided on abortion, the public seems far more moderate and unified than the leaders of either party.

While some Democrats are voicing absolute views of abortion, and some Republicans are calling for total bans, most Americans hold a more nuanced view.

In 1975, polling showed 54 percent supported abortion under some circumstances, with 21 percent saying it should be entirely legal; 22 percent said it should be illegal.

According to recent polling by the Pew Research Center, only 8 percent of adults say abortion should be illegal without exception, while just 19 percent say abortion should be legal in all cases, without exception. Yet, polls also show that 65 percent of Americans would make most abortions illegal in the second trimester, and 80 percent would make most abortions illegal in the third trimester.

These polls suggest that the majority of Americans will continue to live in states protecting abortion while citizens would support limits like the one in Mississippi. In Virginia, Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) announced an effort to limit abortions to Mississippi’s 15-week standard but expressed a willingness to compromise on that cutoff date. In other words, there may be room for compromise as states work out their own approaches to abortion.

Of course, none of the political or legal realities will likely penetrate the rage and rhetoric following the decision.

Indeed, there is a tendency toward Roe revisionism. Roe supporters ignore that Roe’s constitutional rationale was always controversial, including among some liberals. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for example, called the ruling “heavy-handed judicial activism” and felt the decision went too far. The original Roe actually died years ago when it was gutted by Casey in 1992 in its logic and tests. It was later the subject of 5-4 decisions that created a confusing muddle of what constituted “undue burdens.”

Such revisionism is a natural part of grieving. In Shakespeare’s “Richard III,”the Queen Mother was asked how to deal with the hate of loss. She responds: “Think that thy babes were sweeter than they were; And he that slew them fouler than he is.” The same is true of Roe revisionism. Roe is now presented as inviolate and beyond question in its constitutional footing, while the opinion that slew it is presented as threatening every right secured since 1973.

Our post-Roe world will not be written by Congress with the proposed federalization of Roe or another 50 years of conflicting court decisions. Instead, it will rest with citizens in 50 different states in coming years. The process just might surprise us.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

333 thoughts on “What to Expect in a Post-Roe World”

  1. Woman With Multiple Medical Problems Beats Missouri’s Trigger Law

    Hours before the Supreme Court announced its decision overturning Roe v. Wade on Friday, a doctor in Missouri performed what may have been the state’s last nonemergency abortion.

    The doctor, David Eisenberg, an obstetrics and gynecology specialist in St. Louis, said in an interview on Monday that he had an operation scheduled for Friday afternoon for a patient with multiple medical problems, which resulted from a condition she has had since birth. She had become pregnant despite using contraception, he said.

    The patient, who lives in rural Missouri, was on a train to St. Louis on Thursday night when Dr. Eisenberg said he heard from various Supreme Court watchers that they believed a decision would be announced on Friday morning. Because Missouri had a “trigger” law in place that would make it a felony to perform an abortion except in the event of a medical emergency, Dr. Eisenberg decided to move up the patient’s appointment to early Friday morning.

    Edited From:



    This woman has multiple medical problems and lives in a rural area. Luckily her doctor cared enough to move up the appointment. Otherwise Missouri would have forced this woman to carry a pregnancy she will in no shape to handle.

    1. Not sure what this is supposed to mean.

      the mother had several medical issues, none of them serious enough to threaten her or her baby

  2. Jonathan: Why do you feel compelled to write two columns defending the Dobbs decision? It’s probably because you have lost the argument with the American people. They don’t trust the SC to protect their rights. For a long time the Court has expanded fundamental rights. This is the first time the Court has actually taken away a fundamental right Americans have come to rely upon for almost 50 years. But let’s discuss your defense of Dobbs in detail.

    1. Other rights are not in jeopardy? Clarence Thomas made it clear he would overturn Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell. Thomas left out the Loving decision because of self interest. If the three other decisions based on substantive due process should be overturned why not Loving based on the same legal rationale? Thomas is just one vote but he is the core of the “originalist” gang on the Court. In their dissent in Dobbs the 3 other Justices pointed out: “And no one should be confident that this majority is done with it’s work”.

    2. The availability of the abortion pill makes the landscape different in a post-Wade world? You say “[i]t will be difficult for states to interfere with such prescriptions…”. Don’t count on it! In South Dakota, GOP Gov. Kristi Noem is asking the GOP legislature to ban abortion pills. Other states, like Texas, Kentucky, Arkansas, Ohio, Tennessee and Oklahoma are considering similar laws. Noem is giving her middle finger to AG Garland and will no doubt file a lawsuit against the government if the DOJ takes action against a ban on abortion pills. Ironically, South Dakota is one of 14 states, with abortion bans, that have the worst medical outcomes in maternal and child health. Noem’s message to S. Dakota women is clear: “We can force you to bear a child but don’t expect taxpayers to pay for your pre-natal or post-natal care”. Make no mistake. The states that have banned abortion will enforce their bans with other draconian measures–banning the pill and criminalizing travel to another state to get an abortion. That’s going to end up in a lot of . litigation–even going to the SC. I suspect that at least Thomas and Alito will endorse almost any such law that they view as a “reasonable” attempt to enforce a lawful state law.

    3. We have made “great strides” in women’s rights? Really? In one bold stroke Alito has set back women’s rights–perhaps for generations. In his decision Alito relied mostly on the “great” English 17th century jurist Matthew Hale. Hale is noted because he sentenced 2 women to death because some religious bigots claimed they were “witches”. Hale advocated for a husband’s right to rape his wife. In his decision Alito even gives a nod to the anti-historical idea that abortion is akin to eugenics. Alito would be happy if women lived under the laws described in the “Handmaid’s Tale”.

    In a post-Wade world women are facing apartheid-like treatment in half the states. In an NPR interview two NY state women who have just graduated from high school discussed their college choices. They said they had planned to attend a university in Missouri. Now that Missouri has implemented its “trigger” abortion ban the two women have decided to remain in NY state and enroll at a university there. Young women should not have to make university choices based on whether they will get all their necessary medical care. That’s also bad news for Missouri universities who depend on out-of-state students for a lot of their enrollment. Now they can’t promise that female students will have access to the full panoply of medical services. Are these the “great strides” in women’s rights you are talking about?

  3. If the baby that is wanted is considered a baby, then according to Equal Protection, the baby that is unwanted should be equally considered a baby, as well.

      1. “The Equal Protection clause applies to people, not embryos.”
        Good. So fathers would now get rights under your analysis as they are part of the joint venture. That’s why Brennan didn’t use that rationale in Roe.

  4. “What to Expect in a Post-Roe World”

    – Professor Turley

    Expect Kamala Harris to be the Communist Reproductive Political Officer and Abortion Czar.

    Dumb-As-A-Horse Kamala is an ineligible, unfulfilled, barren woman who slept her way to the top and is entirely bereft of any raison d’être, other than the communist aspiration of “power for power’s sake,” who will preside over the democrat directorate of premature expiration of dissenting and non-concurring babies.

    Expect that!

    The United States of America, you’ve definitely come a long, long way, baby.

    “That dudn’t make any sense.”

    – George W. Bush

  5. Professor Turley just wrote an entire thesis on what is completely a non-issue, worthy of no more than one sentence.

    The good Professor is appeasing and mollifying those who reject the Constitution. What?

    No right to abortion is enumerated by the Constitution.

    The legality of abortion must be legislated.

    Those who reject the Constitution must, similarly, reject citizenship in the country over which the Constitution holds dominion.

    I hear countries under the “iron fist” of the Communist Manifesto are nice this time of year.

    Get up on Olde Paint and get the —- where you ain’t!

    Not to put too fine a point on it.

    1. Your neighbors don’t like you.

      It’s a fact, oh courageous Aninny-Mouse.

  6. What about Equal Protection? Should the baby that is not wanted have the same legal protection as the baby that IS wanted? Does equal protection render the concept of choice irrelevant?

    1. Embryos have no rights. Babies have rights after birth, regardless of whether they were wanted or not.

  7. War is a good thing if it destroys your enemies once and for all. That way, they can never pester you ever again.

    1. What if it results in thousands of 50 megaton thermonuclear devices being detonated in your neighborhood?

      Where do you live, by the way?

  8. In her 1919 essay “Birth Control and Racial Betterment,” Sanger couched her argument for birth control in the context and aims of the eugenics movement. “Elimination of the unfit,” Sanger argued, could not be fully achieved without widespread access to birth control. Sanger later elaborated on what she meant by “unfit,” describing the link as she saw it between birth control and progress: “If we are to develop in America a new race with a racial soul, we must keep the birth rate within the scope of our ability to understand as well as to educate. We must not encourage reproduction beyond our capacity to assimilate our numbers so as to make the coming generation into such physically fit, mentally capable, socially alert individuals as are the ideal of a democracy.”

    While Sanger and her fellow 20th-century eugenicists were not abortion advocates themselves, they no doubt would be pleased by the way in which the widespread acceptance of abortion has furthered their goal of reducing “undesirable” parts of the population.

    The eugenics movement of the early 20th century was full of elite thinkers who advocated contraception and sterilization as a means of minimizing the reproduction of unwanted minorities: non-white Americans, the poor, and those deemed mentally disabled or otherwise unfit. Clarence Little—a university president and renowned genetic researcher—served on Planned Parenthood’s founding board and believed increased availability of birth control would help protect “Yankee stock,” or what Sanger would call those of “unmixed native white parentage.” “The feebleminded are notoriously prolific in reproduction,” Sanger described the problem as she saw it in Woman and the New Race.

    Activists such as Sanger, Little, Lothrap Stoddard, and Havelock Ellis focused their crusade on widespread contraception—some supported sterilization, too—which they hoped would reduce the birth rate among populations they viewed as undesirable. These thinkers weren’t seizing eugenics as a helpful rhetorical tool for promoting birth control; it was the other way around. Birth control and sterilization—and subsequently abortion—were the means by which they wanted to achieve their eugenic goals, which were their priority. This disturbing mindset proved to be highly influential with some of our foremost institutions.

    In 1927, the Supreme Court upheld a Virginia law allowing the forced sterilization of the institutionalized, supposedly to protect the “health of the patient and the welfare of society.” Ruling that the state was within its rights to forcibly sterilize Carrie Buck—a patient at a mental hospital whom Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes referred to as a “feeble minded woman”—Holmes famously wrote that laws such as Virginia’s prevented the nation from “being swamped with incompetence.” “Three generations of imbeciles are enough,” Holmes added. In a letter to his friend Harold Laski that same year, Holmes wrote that he had “delivered an opinion upholding the constitutionality of a state law for sterilizing imbeciles the other day—and felt that I was getting near the first principle of real reform.”

    1. The American Founders denied them immigration which compelled compassionate repatriation in 1863.

      “Crazy Abe” Lincoln unconstitutionally denied secession and, ultimately, nullified and abrogated the Naturalization Act of 1802, which was in full force and effect on January 1, 1863, the date of the issuance of the unconstitutional emancipation proclamation.

      Every act of “Crazy Abe” Lincoln, up to and including Karl Marx’s “RECONSTRUCTION Amendments,” was and remains, illicit, illegal, unconstitutional, invalid, and illegitimate.

      Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802 (four iterations – they meant it).

      United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…

  9. Has anyone noticed how Norman Bates is beginning to come unhinged with the repeated use of “blog stooge” & “puppet”. I normally don’t give Norman air but I’ve been chuckling on how easy it’s been lately to upset her. Come on Norman put mommy’s wig on and respond for Ms Margot.

    1. we all chuckle at his rants, though he does it to offset his dozens of copy/paste garbage articles alien to reality, hoping to score whatever in his sick head

  10. Professor Turley,

    You note that the Court went out of its way to distinguish abortion from other privacy rights. However, the only distinguishing feature is this court-invented “unborn human being” or “potential life” concept that it borrowed from the cases it has overruled. There is no citation to the Constitution or other precedent on this issue.

    Two questions:

    (1) Without using any now-binding precedent to make such distinction (in non-binding dicta), how would stare decisis provide any limitations on a future court from ignoring it?

    (2) Where in the Constitution is this distinction made evident? Where in the deeply rooted history and traditions of our nation has a state interest in “potential life” or an “unborn human being” been evident? How can a Court justify removing the right to an abortion due a lack of a “deeply rooted history and tradition” but then rely on a court-created state interest not grounded in such a history and tradition to distinguish it from other cases?

    The only thing the Court did was give future plaintiffs a clear roadmap for how to continue the erosion of substantive due process. So, no, I do not agree that Griswold and other privacy rights (or any other substantive due process rights — the “right to travel” for example?) are safe.

    1. Where in the deeply rooted history and traditions of our nation has a state interest in “potential life” or an “unborn human being” been evident?

      All of history before Roe. It wasn’t abortion though. It was protecting the life of the baby. You must ignore the baby, to make your pathetic faux righteousness bearable to yourself

      1. “All of history before Roe.”

        None of that cherry picked history has constitutional significance.

        Contraception was historically illegal too at one point. So what’s the difference?

        1. It is the history of how the colonist, self governed themselves. Not sure exactly what you identify as contraception, in 1710. What method was illegal back then?

  11. “Missouri claimed to be the first to declare all abortion as unlawful except for medical emergencies.”

    An excellent demonstration of how they won’t allow abortions even in cases where they know that the woman’s life WILL become endangered later UNTIL it is actually endangered, putting her at unnecessary risk.

    An example of such a medical case, where the woman had an abortion with a wanted pregnancy because of a non-viable fetus’s slow death inside her, negatively impacting her own health, where today she would be forced to wait until she was at risk of dying:

    That thread starts: “Pro-lifers don’t like complexity. At 17 weeks my placenta detached and he was much too small. I thought I felt my baby’s frantic attempts to breathe. My OBGYN advised me to terminate the pregnancy, there wasn’t much time. But I couldn’t. …”

    1. The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

      Have you ever heard of a plane, train, bus or auto?

      1. Do you know any poor people with children, who have difficulty saving for travel, arranging time away from work and the loss of income, arranging for child care, …?

        Glad to know that you’re an immoral person who is OK for women in states with a sole “life of the mother” exception to have to wait til their life is actually at risk before getting a termination for medical reasons.

        1. Now Anonymous uses the social economic argument to justify abortion. We can’t afford to feed those new puppies so lets just put em in a sack and throw em in the river. Lets see. Cost of new baby or cost of morning after pill. Hmmm.

          1. You’re fond of lying, or bad at reading comprehension, or both.

            I didn’t “use the social economic argument to justify abortion,” I pointed out why “Have you ever heard of a plane, train, bus or auto?” doesn’t solve the problem of Missouri’s law for poor people.

            Again: the woman who discussed her abortion in her Twitter thread had a WANTED pregnancy that put her health at risk, but Missouri’s law would require that she wait until it was a medical emergency. You cannot bring yourself to discuss it honestly.

              1. There is only male (man, XY) and female (woman, XX).
                Apart from that there are man who would like to pretend to be a woman and would change apperences to look as much as possible as a woman.
                Same applies to woman who wants to be a man.

                All is – ofcouse – fine.
                Everybody chould be able to live like they want.

                But stating that someone is other than the sex at birth or how you would like to call it is simply ignoring hard sience.
                Gender is a non existing thing, completely made up.
                I want to be a billionair, not being able to be that really gives me a trauma.
                Does that mean that society needs to treat me that way and make it happen for me?

        2. says the TRANSGENDER Groomer is has never had carnal knowledge of a woman or womyn or femme with a diq like your gay hookup bathhouse tricks in West Hollywood, California

          Take a woman to bed and report back to us what she said about your performance. Heck, youll be the one screaming once you see her naked!


          1. In other words, you have no factual response to the actual issues, only childish insults that derive from your imagination. Unless, perhaps, you’re speaking from your own experience as a groomer.

            Either way, you’re a troll who is happy to use other people’s abuse to your own ends.

        3. “arranging time”

          They apparently had some extra time available earlier.

          Your morality favors killing the millions of babies up to the time the baby is born and maybe a little bit afterward. You don’t admit it, rather you focus on promoting leftist ideology where abortion is concerned. There are always people that benefit and others that get hurt. The hurt isn’t that great and the people of those states will have the chance to loosen abortion rules.I think many people will be better off thinking before they act and learning to prepare for such problems. Over-all I think it is a win-win for lives, morality and the individual.

          In the meantime you can continue to run around like a chicken without its head screaming, ’THE SKY IS FALLING!’

        4. Anonymous would have us believe that a women has an abortion, dusts her hands off and goes back to work. No inconvenience is incurred. Here’s what Planned parenthood has to say about it. Most of the normal side effects can be managed by resting, though most women prefer to take it easy for a day or two after an abortion until able to return to normal activity levels. Let your body be your guide.

          Despite how well you may feel, do not exercise strenuously for the first week.
          Increased activity (such as returning to work) may cause more cramping and bleeding.
          Breast tenderness and swelling may last up to 2 weeks.
          Avoid stimulation of the nipples to reduce breast discharge.
          It is normal to pass clots, especially when getting out of bed.
          The inconvenience happens when the women becomes pregnant. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

          1. TlT would have us believe that he’s a mind-reader. He is not, only a troll who pretends to read minds.

    2. Now those on the left are saying that in America more women dye of birth related deaths. As usual the devil is in the details.
      While the reasons behind the high U.S. maternal mortality rate are multifaceted, our findings suggest that an undersupply of maternity providers, especially midwives, and lack of access to comprehensive postpartum supports are contributing factors. The Missouri law would have allowed for Anonymous’s abortion due to the danger to her health. Why should we expect anything less from the coat hanger crowd. If common sense won’t work try fear.

      1. No, the Missouri law does not have an exception for the woman’s health. She’d have to wait til it’s a life-threatening risk — in the text of the law, “a medical emergency” — before she could get a legal abortion there. The devil is in the details indeed.

        1. and you know this how, TRANS Groomer troll? did you read it on a wall in a bathroom stall in West Hollywood bathhouse while taking your hormone pills? Grow a pair, dude or dudette. Balls or t/ts, just grow a pair


        2. Anonymous, lets see. Is a threat to ones health an emergency? One could reasonably confer that threat to ones health and emergency are synonymous. You have a threat to your health and you go to the hospital emergency room. Somehow your thought process always breaks down.

          1. “One could reasonably confer that threat to ones health and emergency are synonymous. ”

            No, one cannot reasonably infer that. There are many threats to health that aren’t emergencies. Some become emergencies if left untreated, and others do not.

            “You have a threat to your health and you go to the hospital emergency room. ”

            Maybe YOU do that, but I’ve never gone to the emergency room. The threats to my health have always been managed with an appointment at my doctor’s or an appointment with a specialists (e.g., for medical imaging).

            “Somehow your thought process always breaks down” … TlT says, looking in the mirror.

    3. How can you have not actually endangered, and yet endangered ?

      Things are or are not.
      Courts do not deal in hypotheticals those are for law schools.

    4. Something is very wrong with your example.

      IF the placenta detached – the fetus would last minutes at most before dying.

      Even if it partly detached – the woman’s body would abort the fetus naturally fairly quickly.

      You seem to think that someone making a claim makes that claim true.

      Regardless, if the “facts” as your tweet noted them were accurate – highly unlikely, and a spontaneous abortion was not near immediate, medical intervention would be justifiable.

  12. Coat hangers were the popular method and it wasn’t cheap to get that kind of abortion close to home but always in a bad neighborhood. I now think no man should be allowed to vote on this issue because they honestly do not have a clue. See the old movie, “Love with a Proper Stranger.” It ends on an upbeat note but you see what went on and will again.

    1. Foggy World, there may have been a time when cost hangers were used for abortions but now they have these morning after pills. Just thinking I’d bring you up to speed. I guess you haven’t noticed that science has made the coat hanger argument obsolete. I guess once it’s in your brain there it remains forever. Silly.

      1. Idiot,

        Morning after pills don’t always work.

        Morning after pills definitely don’t work for wanted pregnancies that result in a medical need for termination later.

        Morning after pills don’t work for women in the midst of a miscarriage where the doctor is worried about being prosecuted.

        1. how many womyn have you impregnated, cupcake? do you even know which hole to plug?


  13. Maternal Mortality:

    U.S. Leads Developed Countries

    America is an incredibly difficult place to be pregnant, with the highest maternal mortality rate by far of any developed country – and it’s rising sharply. For every 100,000 births, 23.8 people died from pregnancy or childbirth-related causes in 2020 – a total of 861 women – according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    A nationwide abortion ban would result in a 21% increase in pregnancy-related mortality across the country, but it would be even worse for people of color, with a 33% rise in deaths, according to a study by Amanda Jean Stevenson, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Colorado Boulder.

    Edited From:



    During the SCOTUS hearings on Dobbs, Justice Barrett casually noted that new mothers now have the option of leaving unwanted babies at fire stations! Said comment suggests that Barrett is either blind, or choosing to be blind, with regards to the physical toll pregnancies can take on women’s bodies.

  14. Not to be too facetious, but maybe Charles had clairvoyance about today’s [dilemma] (choice to be made between two equally undesirable alternatives). Mr. Darwin’s concept of natural selection may well be at work here, an individual’s superior characteristics for survival and reproduction will eventually overcome those individuals less well endowed.

    I’ll offer William Paley’s thoughts from “Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity collected from the appearances of Nature”

    “The force of the reasoning is, however, sometimes sunk by our taking up with mere names. I have… noticed the misapplication of the term ‘law’, and the mistake concerning the idea that term expresses in physics whenever such idea is made to take the place of power, and still more of an intelligent power, and thus taken to be the cause of any thing or property that exists. This is what we are secretly apt to do when we speak of organised bodies such as plants or animals as owing their production, their form, their growth, their qualities, their beauty, their use, to any laws of nature; and when we treat that as the final answer to our inquiries concerning them. I repeat that it is a perversion of language to assign any law as the operative cause of anything. A law presupposes an agent, for it is only the mode according to which an agent proceeds; it implies a power, for it is the order according to which that power acts. Without this agent and this power, the ‘law’ does nothing, is nothing.”

    To end: God granted us ‘Free Will’.

  15. Turley, you are lying when you say: “media figures calling for the Supreme Court to be abolished because it is not ruling the way that they demand.” They are criticizing the SCOTUS because: 1. the “Justices” who voted to overturn Roe and multiple subsequent opinions upholding it over the past 50 years lied to get onto the Court; 2. Alito’s reasoning is very faulty–“deeply rooted” has never been the test for rights guaranteed by the Constitution; the ancient judge he cites believed not only in witchcraft explaining bad things that happened, but that witches should be killed; 3. the “Justices” who voted in favor of reversing Roe were all appointed by a POTUS who lost the popular vote; 4. Dobbs will begin a cascade of SCOTUS opinions that will roll back other rights that rely on the same reasoning, such as marriage equality, contraception and consensual sex between adults; 5. Dobbs does not reflect the will or values of the majority of Americans, including Catholics and Republicans.

  16. Turley, you just can’t stop being a Fox spinmeister, can you? You claim that Dobbs expressly rejected the idea that its reasoning would be used to roll back marriage equality (Obergefell), sex acts between consenting adults (Lawrence) and contraception (Griswold), but Clarence Thomas says otherwise–he specifically says in his concurring opinion that these decisions should be “revisited”. These decisions rely on the SAME Constitutional principles as Roe, and Alito is a proven liar, so the likelihood that these other rights would be rolled back in the name of “states rights” is very high. Alito just said that to give pundits like you a hook to use to attack Democrats, but he also lied about his position on Roe during his confirmation hearing. The words “egregiously wrong” never came out of his mouth, nor the mouths of Barrett, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch when they were interviewed by Senators on their opinion regarding Roe. The radicals on the SCOTUS are on a reversal high, but their days of power to force others to live according to their beliefs are numbered. Americans are rightfully outraged that politicians who lied to get onto the SCOTUS are taking away rights not just previously found to be guaranteed by the Constitution, but repeatedly upheld in subsequent decisions. Adding insult to injury is the fact that Alito was nominated by Reagan, the first POTUS who lost the popular vote but finagled his way into office by taking advantage of the Electoral College. I’ve already convered the illegitimacy of Barrett, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, who were nominated not just by someone who lost the popular vote, but who actually cheated in order to get into office. Americans will turn out in record numbers in November and Democrats will take over Congress. Only then can the will of the American people have a voice.

    Seventy members of Congress represent 30% of the American citizenry. This has to change. The will of the American people is being usurped by power-hungry Republicans who will do anything for power: lie about an election they lost being “stolen”, collude with hostile foreign powers to spread lies about Democrats, gerrymander, kick Democrats off of local election boards so they can illegally invalidate votes or “find” nonexistent votes for their preferred candidate, erect as many barriers as they can come up with to make it harder for Democratic voters to cast their ballots, lie about mail ballots being unreliable (even though most of them in Congress vote by mail) create false slates of alternate electors and forge documents sent to the National Archives lying about Donald Trump winning when they know it’s not true, defend the Big Lie even though they know it’s not true, and even foment an insurrection to prevent the rightful election winner from taking office.


    1. You further prove your own hysteria and incoherence when you run communist dumbocrap political advertisements at this venue.

      Repeal the 19th and Karl Marx’s “RECONSTRUCTION Amendments” – take America BACK to its glorious future!

  17. Blog Stooge At War With Thread

    Most of you have noticed a ridiculously long, one paragraph comment by puppet ‘Adam Reffes’.

    Said post is essentially a spoiler; one intended to take up as much space as possible while providing nothing in terms of readable comment. It is gobblygoop for the sake of malice.

    The Blog Stooge has confirmed he posted said comment. He appears to be having a hissy fit because his puppets are unable to control the discussion. He is saying, in effect, “If I can’t control this thread, I’m going to blow it up”.

    1. Anonymous, you seem to miss the point of Adam refrees post. He is calling for a pox on both their houses. He says that both the religious and the non religious have lost there grip on reason. He is not agreeing with either you or me. My disagreement with his statement is where he says that a fetus is but a property of the mother. You are so possessed with the stooge hysteria that you missed the gist of his conclusion clearly stated at the end of his post. I agree that his post is much to long. He could have more easily just said, “You all are crazy”. His attempt to impress you or me with his verbosity was poorly reasoned but it doesn’t excuse your “StoogeMania”.

    2. You can report his comment to Turley for copyright infringement, and it will be deleted.

  18. SCOTUS just murdered the Lemon Test.

    This is more fun than I could anticipate.

    1. You think all of this is “fun”–well keep on laughing funny boy. The rest of America will be laughing come November when Republicans will be sent packing.

      1. Bahahahhahhahhahahha…..No they won’t. Americans are sick of the violent, hateful, baby killing left. YOU are being laughed at as we speak.

      2. Natacha, you seem to overlook that every poll is saying that a red wave is coming. If in November the Republicans lose I expect that you will gleefully rub our noses in it. However, you can rest assured that your nose will not be spared if the Republicans win in November. Just like your nose has not been spared because of your, no CRT being taught in schools. Russigate is true and the Hunter laptop was not Hunter’s laptop positions. You should keep the ointment handy to treat your already rubbed raw rose colored nose.

        1. But TIT: polls don’t mean anything–right? I mean, the fat hog you would kill for was predicted by every single poll to lose in 2020 but said that the “only way” he could lose would be if the election is rigged.

          And, the polls of which you speak were conducted BEFORE the SCOTUS reversed Roe. Did you happen to notice that the populace took to the streets over the weekend, just like they did when the pig “won” in 2016? CRT is NOT being taught in public schools, no matter how many times you hear this lie on Fox, it’s still a lie. There’s no “Russia gate”–ask Dan Coats, head of US Intelligence, and read the Mueller Report. And, despite how many times you claim I said that the nonexistent “Hunter Biden Scandal” was Russian propaganda, I never said that, and you know it. Anyway, no one cares about Hunter Biden–just a distraction away from the crimes committed by the hog you worship.

          1. take a 15 mins water color break, Svelaz. Your panties are on fire

          2. Natacha, once again you say that CRT is not being taught in schools and once again I offer the following link to the National Education Association that clearly instructs that CRT should be taught in schools. https://web.archive.org/web/20210705090534/https://ra.nea.org/business-item/2021-nbi-039/. Yet you often call Professor Turley a liar. You loudly voice your opinion but you never provide any source that confirms what you make up in your head. I guess if you won’t find it why post it. Is your nose sore now.

            1. First of all, this is an outline for discussions and doesn’t prove that CRT is actually being taught below the university level. Second, did you even read this–the NEA is advocating for defining what CRT is and is not: “Share and publicize, through existing channels, information already available on critical race theory (CRT) — what it is and what it is not; have a team of staffers for members who want to learn more and fight back against anti-CRT rhetoric; and share information with other NEA members as well as their community members.”

              1. Natacha,

                This article really puts the lie to your claim that CRT is not being taught in schools.

                “B. Provide an already-created, in-depth, study that critiques empire, white supremacy, anti-Blackness, anti-Indigeneity, racism, patriarchy, cisheteropatriarchy, capitalism, ableism, anthropocentrism, and other forms of power and oppression at the intersections of our society, and that **we oppose attempts to ban critical race theory and/or The 1619 Project**.

                C. Publicly (through existing media) convey its support for the accurate and honest teaching of social studies topics, including truthful and age-appropriate accountings of unpleasant aspects of American history, such as slavery, and the oppression and discrimination of Indigenous, Black, Brown, and other peoples of color, as well as the continued impact this history has on our current society. **The Association will further convey that in teaching these topics, it is reasonable and appropriate for curriculum to be informed by academic frameworks for understanding and interpreting the impact of the past on current society, including critical race theory**.”

      3. A political realignment is happening.

        Republican voters are fired up after seeing yet another promise made and promise kept by President Donald Trump. He delivers on his promises.

        Democrat voters are enraged and feeling betrayed. Obama promised that HE would codify abortion rights into law. Even with a super majority he didn’t do it.

        Dems would rather KEEP the issue to run on than keep their promises to their voting base. Their base is angry.

        Dems think the issue will get their base out in November. It won’t.

        The worm has turned.

Comments are closed.