Hacker News Reader

Comment by vinay427 | Hacker News Reader

> Pence just asked for federal legislation banning all abortions. So I think you are wrong to say the Republicans are trying to return it to the states, thy are trying to ban it.

It’s worth mentioning that the constitutionality of such a law seems highly questionable based on the current leanings of SCOTUS. States’ rights work both ways, and (not a lawyer) I would assume an incredibly broad interpretation of interstate commerce would be needed to hold up a federal ban on abortions.

View on HN

Why would you assume any precedent for behavior matters from a court that’s issued a majority opinion overturning a case where multiple of the co-signing justices had declared it settled case law?

They just overruled the NYC gun ban. They will pick and choose whatever they want

The US Federal constitution contains a right to bear arms, which supersedes the NYC law which stated ordinary citizens could not "bear arms" in public without justifying an exceptional need.

There is no analogous constitutional right for abortion. Roe v. Wade inferred it from a "right to privacy", which also does not exist in the text.

The US Federal Constitution contains the 9th amendment which guarantees that the enumeration of specific rights in the Constitution cannot be construed to deny any other right not enumerated in there, but that doesn't matter for these courts.

They have become openly partisan and will pick and choose whatever suits their political leanings. Once they got a majority on the court they no longer need to play ball with the other side

In 2007 a conservative SCOTUS majority upheld a federal ban on partial-birth abortion [0]. Thomas wrote a concurring opinion where he explicitly glossed over whether congress actually had that authority under the commerce clause. Normally he jumps at any chance to say congress has exceeded their authority under that clause. I wouldn't find it hard to believe if this court upholds a more general federal abortion ban

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Carhart#Concurrenc...

The basis of the decision wasn't ultimately in states' rights, but instead the view of a lack of constitutional protection against abortion bans.

The legal theory almost explicitly allows for a federal ban in addition to the state bans that tieggered today.

I believe that’s my point. From what I understand, an incredibly broad interpretation of something like the interstate commerce clause or another enumerated power would seem necessary for such a federal ban to supersede state laws permitting abortions.

Not quite. The ruling is specifically setup to allow a federal ban against it's challenges. The wording allows several avenues, my bet is on expanding the existing federal murder charge that has plenty of case law supporting it to fetuses at the moment of conception.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com