Can someone explain to me how Congress can codify into law the right to an abortion when the SCOTUS

[Celerity]

likely will soon rule there is no constitutional right to an abortion, plus it may likely also eviscerate the concept of a constitutional right to privacy.

Short of a Constitutional Amendment, I see no way to do this, other than a new SCOTUS, likely decades from now, reversing this Gilead wannabe Court's ruling. (and if things go truly pear shaped in 2022 and especially 2024, there may well be, decades from now, no current iteration of the Union if the States as it is currently constituted anyway)

What am I missing here?

I am so not a Constitutional lawyer, so perhaps my errors are great and grievous indeed from the start, thus leading me into a fatally flawed legal/legislative roundabout.

TIA

[W_HAMILTON]

1. Because the Constitution does not stipulate against having an abortion.

Therefore, Congress can codify the right to have an abortion into law since it does not conflict with the Constitution.

[JohnSJ]

3. and with the make-up of Congress the way it is, that is unlikely to happen anytime soon

[Celerity]

4. Well, that was simple. Thanks!

One last question.

Could a case come before the SCOTUS that would enable them to actually outlaw abortion nationwide?

[DFW]

5. That would involve some verbal acrobatics of which I don't think they are capable

The Constitution doesn't address abortion one way or the other.

The Opus Dei majority obviously doesn't mind killing. They have upheld enough death sentences and gun ownership rights to establish that with a fair degree of certainty. It's the patriarchal control-freak mentality that they seek to solidify, no matter how contrary it may run the the letter and intent of the Bill of Rights, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

Alito practically said as much in his preliminary statement. He is fine with a gradual dismemberment--i.e. State by State-of Roe until abortion rights are banned completely. The SCOTUS Catholic Mafia knows perfectly well that 80 million Americans aren't going to be able to move from red states to blue just to enjoy abortion rights. Even opponents of choice aren't going to move from Michigan, California, Massachusetts or Washington to Mississippi, Alabama, Texas or South Dakota just on this issue alone.

Choice, unfortunately, and unjustly, is always an option for the radical right. They CHOOSE not to. Fine. But they also want to choose for the rest of us, and that means forbidding OUR right to a choice. They see no problem with that. And THAT is the problem.

[Tomconroy]

6. If they defined a fetus since conception as a person abortion would

violate the 14th Amendment.

[DFW]

7. First, they would have to establish that their definition is the only one.

I don't doubt they'll try, but then that definition would have to run up against the establishment of a religion clause, and it would get complicated from there. If Alito thinks Roe was "flawed," just wait until the repealing of THIS one comes.

[Tomconroy]

9. There is a movement to do this.

Where it goes? Who knows.

[DFW]

10. I don't doubt that

Evil never sets its own limits. Those only are set when evil goes too far, and resistance is successful. Otherwise, an effort is attempted at "Peace In Our Time," which usually ends up following the traditional definition of insanity.

[In It to Win It]

12. I actually doubt SCOTUS will try. I don't think they will dabble in wordplay to define

that particular word.

If they can define that, Congress should take a hard look at defining what “good behaviour” means regarding a Supreme Court Justice’s tenure.

[Demsrule86]

15. Well we can elect Democrats in sufficient numbers to change that and I would not rule out

a constitutional amendment that could be possible. But there is no constitutional ground to rule this way.

[Demsrule86]

16. No and if they tried then the court would be done. I think we can codify behavioral

standards for the justices and that would help. SCOTUS has no standing armies. It only functions because we allow it to. Should we decide that their rulings have no merit then it is done.

[JohnSJ]

2. It is up to the individual states now, and that has some very troubling consequences.

[DFW]

8. Rents in New York and California will not be going down any time soon

Only one of my daughters lives in the USA (they are both dual citizens), and she lives in New York. I cringe for the tens of millions who live in the Inquisition States.

[Demsrule86]

14. No it can't be up to individual states...it must be done in Congress and we need to vote in

sufficient numbers to make it happen.

[JohnSJ]

17. I agree. I was referring until that happens

[doc03]

11. They can't "Joe Manchin" nt

[Demsrule86]

13. They can make a law allowing abortion because it does not violate the constitution.

Congress needs to do this. However, in order to get this done, we need to put aside our need for instant gratification about things like student debt, BBB, defunding Advantage Medicare (which is a political loser), and all the other BS issues that cause Democrats to pout and stay home or vote third party. This sort of thing is why we face this emergency...2000,2014 when we lost the Senate and of course 2016.

[jpljr77]

18. This is an actual states' rights issue. Roe didn't, by letter, "guarantee" abortion rights...

rather, it said that no state could pass a law outlawing abortion. It used the Constitution as its rationale because there was no federal law.

So if this ruling comes down as outlined in the leaked opinion, states will then have a right to pass laws outlawing abortion. Other states can pass laws to the opposite effect.

But Congress could also step in and pass a law that forbids states from passing laws that prohibit abortions. That law would surely be challenged to SCOTUS, but this time, SCOTUS would most likely defer to Congress, as it does in most other cases.