Roe v. Wade overturned: Difference of draft and final opinion – Riverside, California

Riverside, California 2022-06-24 16:33:36 –

Most of the text between the two copies remains the same, but the final draft contains more powerful words that address the dissenting opinions of the liberal block.

Boston — Supreme Court Decision to overturn the Roe v. Wade case Ending constitutional protection against abortion is Leaked draft opinion It was published in May.

Important points of Judge Samuel Alito’s draft opinion Final decision What was announced on Friday is the same, including sharp accusations that Roe’s decision is “terribly wrong”, with “very weak” reasoning and “harmful consequences.”

Judge John Roberts said the main additions to the final copy would have supported the pointed out accusations of dissenting opinions from the court’s three liberal judges and the Mississippi state law at the heart of the case. It is a consent opinion from. It did not end the right to abortion.

Labeled “First Draft” of “Court Opinion”, Politico, It was leaked for an almost unprecedented protocol violation and sent a shock wave all over the country. The Supreme Court Marshal is investigating what Roberts described as “a terrible breach of trust.”

Let’s take a closer look at the similarities and differences between the draft and the final opinion.

The key passage has not changed

The central discussion of the draft and the final opinion is basically the same. Arito wrote that the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and the 1992 decision reaffirming the right to abortion used flawed reasoning to conclude that the Constitution protects the right to abortion. increase.

Arito states that the Constitution “does not mention abortion,” and that the due process provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment do not protect such rights. The provision guarantees some rights not specified in the Constitution, but those rights are “deeply rooted in the history and traditions of this country,” Arito wrote. He claims that there has been no abortion.

“It’s time to pay attention to the Constitution and return the abortion issue to elected representatives of the people,” he wrote.

Criticism of the objection

The first major addition to the final opinion is on page 35 when Arito embarked on a critique of the dissenting opinion of a liberal judge who would not have been accessible when he wrote the draft.

Arito writes that the failure of the objection to disapprove of the country’s long tradition of outlawing abortion “has a devastating impact on its position.” American history, Arito claims. He points out, among other things, the fact that by the late 1950s at least 46 states had banned abortion “but always” unless necessary to save the lives of his mother.

Arito writes that the most “impressive feature” of the objection is the lack of “a serious debate about the legitimacy of the state’s interests in protecting human life.” He says it’s an “important concern.” But they “do not give similar consideration to the state’s interest in protecting prenatal life,” he writes.

Later in his opinion, Arito condemns the liberal judge’s allegation that the court abandoned the case in overturning Law. A legal principle used by judges to make decisions based on previous case law. Arito replies: “We are not doing that.”

“Case law should be respected, but sometimes the court makes a mistake, and sometimes the court makes a seriously wrong and important decision. When that happens, the gaze decision is not a straitjacket.”

Disputation of the chief

Another difference between the draft and the final opinion is the removal of Roberts’ claim, which voted in majority to uphold Mississippi law banning most abortions after 15 weeks, but separately states that there is no need to overturn a wide range of cases. increase. Domination in favor of Mississippi.

Roberts writes that the question of whether Rho should be capsized “leaves another day” and “takes a more cautious course.” Roberts said he would abolish the “viability line” or before claiming that the Constitution protects the right to abortion until the fetus can survive outside the womb. He wrote that the right to abortion “needs to be extended to the extent sufficient to ensure a reasonable opportunity to choose, but not further. It certainly does not extend to feasibility.” I have an abortion.

Arito argues that Roberts’ approach has “serious problems.” If the courts only go to the point of supporting Mississippi law, “it is necessary to immediately take over the constitutionality of a set of laws with short or no deadlines,” Arito wrote.

“The quest for the middle road only postpones the day when we are forced to confront the issues we are currently deciding,” Arito wrote. “The turmoil caused by Roe and Casey will be protracted. It’s much better for this court and for the country to tackle the real problem without further delay.”

Roe v. Wade overturned: Difference of draft and final opinion Source link Roe v. Wade overturned: Difference of draft and final opinion

Back to top button