Article author:
Associated Press
Alanna Durkin Richer
The draft opinion of Judge Samuel Alito and the main part of the final judgment announced on Friday are the same, and Roe's sharp condemnation is " It is terribly wrong. ”And with“ very weak ”inference and“ harmful consequences ”.
The main additions to the final copy are the condemnation pointed out by three liberal judges in the court and the consensus from Judge John Roberts. It was an incident, but it would not have ended the right to abortion.
The draft Opinion, labeled "First Draft" of the "Court Opinion" and published by Politico, was a nearly unprecedented protocol violation that sent a shockwave across the country. Leaked in. .. 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 main passages have not changed
The core discussion draft and final opinion are basically the same. Arito reaffirmed the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and the planned parent-child relationship vs. Casey, the right to abortion, and the 1992 decision is flawed to conclude that the Constitution protects the right to abortion. I wrote that I used inference.
Alito states that the Constitution "does not mention abortion" and that the due process provisions of the 14th Amendment do not protect such rights. I have. 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 issue of abortion to elected representatives of the people," he wrote.
——–
Opposition Criticism
The first major addition to the final opinion was that Arito began critique of the liberal judge's opposition. It is on page 35. , Would not have been accessible when I wrote the draft.
Arito writes that not acknowledging the country's long tradition of outlawing abortion "has a devastating impact on its position." Arito argues that the right to abortion has no basis in American history, "not to mention" deeply rooted "." 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 mothers.
Arito said that the most "impressive feature" of the objection was the lack of "a serious debate about the legitimacy of the state's interests in protecting lives." I write that there is. Arito argues that liberal judges are discussing issues such as the burden of motherhood, which he says is a "significant concern." But they "do not give similar consideration to the state's interest in protecting prenatal life," he writes.
Later in the opinion, Arito condemns the liberal judge's allegation that the court abandoned the case in overturning Law. This is the legal principle that judges use to make decisions based on previous case law. Arito replies: "We are not doing that."
"Case law should be respected, but the courts made mistakes and sometimes the courts were terribly wrong. We make important decisions, "writes Arito. "When that happens, the gaze decision is not a straitjacket."
——–
Chief's discussion
Draft and final Another difference in opinion is the removal of the discussion made by Roberts. He voted in majority to uphold Mississippi law, which bans most abortions 15 weeks later, but wrote separately that it is not necessary to overturn a wide range of cases in order to make a decision in favor of Mississippi.
Roberts writes that he "leaves another day" the question of whether to overthrow Roe and "take a more careful course." Roberts said he would abolish the "viability line" 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, and certainly not to the 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.
Judge's quest for the middle road only postponed the day when we were forced to confront the issues we had just decided, "Arito wrote. "The turmoil caused by Roe and Casey will be protracted. It is much better for this court and for the country to tackle the real problem without further delay."
—— —-
For the full Supreme Court decision on abortion by AP, please visithttps://apnews.com/hub/abortion