So I'm a Brit and the American political/legal system confuses me.

My understanding is Roe vs Wade said that states couldn't ban abortions due the the right to privacy part of the 14th amendment. And that's it, it was only that which protected reproductive rights. Which in hindsight seems really flimsy.

So I'm wondering why a national (is federal the right term here?) law wasn't put into place protecting abortion rights? I sort of understand that for a law to be put in place it needs to pass in the house of representatives, the Senate and by the president so I'm assuming it could only be done when the Democrats controlled all three. So in the past 50 years has there ever been a time when the Dems did have control, and if they did, why didn't they push through a bill on abortion rights? Is it because a bill would be easier for the GOP to repeal if they gained control, rather than having to wait until they had control of the supreme court?

Also, I understand that the supreme court has repealed previous rulings (such as repealling rulings regarding segregation, for example), but is this a precedent when they've repealed something to curtail rights, rather than granting or protecting rights?

Has the impartiality of the US Supreme Court ever been doubted as much as it is now? I’ve always understood it as a body that avoids taking a political stance on issues, but I’m curious if there have been other times in our history that the court has made extremely partisan decisions and how that’s been addressed.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, when Roe was decided in 1973 she was a private attorney at the time, and later in 1980 until her elevation to SCOTUS in 1993 was a judge on the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, consistently said while she agreed with the holding of Roe, but she nonetheless was a harsh critic of the reasoning behind the holding.

I have never been able to ascertain as to exactly what RBG objected to in the rationale of Roe. She nonetheless, during her tenure on the High Court consistently upheld Roe, but what were her initial objections and reasons why she at least felt the rationale behind that case was wrong?

The majority opinion goes on about how when the 14th amendment was ratified, abortion was illegal in a majority of states. For example, on page 23-24 of the Court opinion (31-32 on the overall document), they write

By 1868, the year when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, three-quarters of the States, 28 out of 37, had enacted statutes making abortion a crime even if it was performed before quickening. See ibid. Of the nine States that had not yet criminalized abortion at all stages, all but one did so by 1910.

This seems to contradict—or at least misrepresent—the history explained in the Abortion in America megathread, where they write

These early laws were primarily focused on protecting those who sought out an abortion; they did not seek to punish the pregnant person. In addition, they did not outlaw or ban particular plants or herbs themselves. Midwives and healers could still grow, harvest, and administer plants that could induce an abortion. As these plants could also help ease delivery or resolve an incomplete miscarriage, they were an essential part of maternal health. It’s also worth stating explicitly that these early laws did not seek to overrule a pregnant person’s autonomy or limit other means of completing or resolving an abortion, only those that were known to poison the pregnant person if taken in incorrectly or in the wrong dosage. This would no longer be the case by the end of the 19th century.

By 1867, every state had a law making some aspect of obtaining or providing an abortion illegal.

It seems like abortion laws at the time of the 14th were focused more on the safety of the abortion than the morality of it, and the sentiment didn't shift until later on. Did the tightening of laws toward the end of the 19th century reflect that shift, or was it still in pursuit of the pregnant person's safety?

Am I just misunderstanding the timeline here, or is the majority opinion misconstruing history?

I've had a lot of people on twitter asking me about Abortion in Roman-period Christianity, Orthodoxy, and late Rome/Byzantium, but I'm not a gender and sex historian.

I know there's various opinions on it in individual documents like Chrysostom and Augustine, but I can't find anything on "official" stances beyond the Synod of Elvira (which was heavily edited either in the Iconoclast or Reformation periods and isn't reliable, and isn't an ecumenical council anyways).

So what was the official position of the Orthodox Roman Church on Abortion in Late Antiquity, especially beyond its general compliance with Roman Law and the Emperor?

How can the Supreme Court overturn a ruling of the Supreme Court? One would think that having reached the level of the Supreme Court, something would be settled for perpetuity? Isn't that the point of the Supreme Court? Or do I completely and fundamentally misunderstand the American judicial system?

Freakonomics suggests that Roe ended up depressing the crime rate, beginning 15-20 years later - the argument being that a significant portion of "at risk" youth growing up in difficult socioeconomic/family conditions (who would otherwise have become troubled teenagers and young adults) were instead aborted. Is this historically accurate? If not, what other factors would explain the dip in the crime rate at that time? And if it is historically accurate, are there other positive cultural effects that can be traced back to Roe?

Why is it that abortion rights is highly politicized in the US, however other western countries don't have the same attention regarding it?

When John Roberts was confirmed as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Chicago Tribune noted that Earl Warren was a controversial justice in his time (particularly in the South due to his "activism" on civil rights) and that Justice Roberts, as a conservative, could "be just as activist in scaling back the law as Warren was in expanding it."

Brown vs. Board of Education was supported by 54% of Americans (per Gallup). Overturning Roe seemingly has less than majority support (example). This leads me to wonder: Which controversial Supreme Court decisions have had less than majority support? Have any in recent history departed as much from public sentiment as overturning Roe?

Can someone help correct any errors I have in my understanding of the original ruling itself?

My understanding is as follows: The original ruling was that Abortion cannot be made illegal because it falls under a person's right to (medical) privacy. This seems to me to be a very bad ruling, because we don't typically use "right to privacy" as a way a way of determining the legality of actions (does the thief have a right to privacy when stealing?) and we also don't typically legislate based on the judiciary.

|I suspect many of my preconceptions are wrong, but I have had trouble in finding information on my specific questions. I hope that I am able to get some specific and accurate info from someone knowledgeable here. Thanks!

Romania criminalized abortion as part of a broader natalist agenda beginning in 1966, with abortion being legalized again in 1990. What have been the knock-on effects directly (or at least primarily) attributable to the abortion ban, rather than the other components of natalist policy as a whole?

Up until now, in the US the gestational term limit on abortion was defined by viability and extended well into the second trimester. In Europe, most states limit abortions to the first trimester. How did this difference arise?

From what I understand, FDR threatened to pack the Supreme Court with judges, giving "his" judges a majority. Has this been repeated afterwards and if so, why did no-one go through with it?

Roe was argued based on the due process clauses. Is there precedent for what is and isn't due process? E.g. does state legislation meet that definition or does it refer specifically to like trial processes?

People say that Roe v Wade “legalized” abortion, but the details seem to be it said certain restrictions on abortion were unconstitutional. Could someone break down exactly what the court ruled in Roe v Wade and how they came to that conclusion?

Opponents to Roe v Wade say things like “where is abortion written in the constitution?” It seems like a lot of things are not explicitly written but inferred.

Many people are saying gay marriage, and even the right to gay sex will be next. I’m an LGBTQ+ woman in Texas, can any historians weigh in with a view that’s realistic about the likelihood of something like this happening?

Someone suggested I ask this over here. Why exactly Roe v Wade decided that way in the first place? It was in the 1970's which were much more conservative than they are now. Topics of sex and abortion were taboo so how could something as controversial as abortion be legalized when the political climate was so against it? Wasn't there outrage about it being legalized in the first place?

Have protests around the SCOTUS building or SCOTUS member houses ever been shown to have had an effect on future decisions?

Is their historical president for states to restrict travel to other states for any reason?

Has been always said in the USA that the only rights that the people enjoy are those written in the Constitution? Or is this a different path of thinking in the Supreme Court?

When did the idea of life beginning at conception enter into Christianity?

I listened to the npr interview about Ben Franklin incuding abortion/contraceptive advice in his book the "American Instructor". The euphemism used was "For The Suppression Of The Courses", meaning dealing with a missed period.

Were there other euphemisms used in historical documents for abortion? I would be interested in any and all eras and languages.

I guess as sort of an emotional question: Can rights and laws be regained after they’re lost? How long do they usually take? Has there been any presidence to this potential stuff? What can be done?

Hey!

U.S. resident here. One of the major claims of the pro-life movement after the overturning of Roe V. Wade is that the U.S. is one of only seven countries that allow late-term abortions. The issue comes when we consider that a number of states implemented trigger laws outright banning abortion and Missouri has unconstitutionally made it illegal to get one in another state and return. While the argument from the pro-life side of the issue seems to think that this decision is what has sided us with the rest of the world, how do other countries actually feel about and/or compare governmentally with the decision over the past couple hundred years or so?

Did the 1973 Roe v Wade decision have any ripple effects into other country's stances on abortion, either positive or negative?

What is an example of codified law in the United States and what is the process for this codification?

Also, if Roe V Wade was codified could it be de(?)codified?

It is my understanding that Lincoln ignored the Supreme Court for a good long time. Is this accurate, and what impact did this have?

What was Karl Marx's view on abortion? Did he have one?

I always wondered: how does the US Supreme Court go against the principle of stare decisis? Reading through the opinions there is no particular attention to reversing a previous decision by undermining its Constitutional basis, but a lateral attack on the inclusion, in the Constitution itself, of the abortion right.

I know that the same happened with the Dred Scott (edit: as correctly pointed in the reply below, the more appropriate case would be Plessy v. Ferguson) case being overruled by Brown v. Board of Education as well, but should not the repeal criteria be higher than "original" decisions when resolving issues that are supported not just by Roe v. Wade but many other cases?

Is there an historical precedent/procedure that allows contraddiction of previous decisions?

Lots of people are saying that this is the first time the Supreme Court has taken back a right. But didn't the SCOTUS take back voting rights from nonwhites in some instances? Like after Reconstruction failed or when citizenship was linked to whiteness (naturalization acts) even though the 15th amendment had been passed?

I don't know if this is in the scope of this thread, but I am wondering what the historians here think about the recently published Texas GOP manifesto?

Majority of Americans think Supreme Court overturning Roe was more about politics than lawhttps://maristpoll.marist.edu/polls/npr-pbs-newshour-marist-national-poll-the-overturning-of-roe-v-wade-june-2022/

Are there any examples of a country restricting rights in this way that didn't end in fascism or something similar?

Edit: not sure why the downvotes and deleting of responses, I'm just looking for historical examples of similar things happening because I can't come up with any that are encouraging