Gotta disagree here. First, I've never actually heard of one of the current justices making this argument or raising it in a court opinion. I'm sure there's a legal commentator out there who espouses that view (because there's a legal commentator to espouse every view), but I've never heard any indication that a current justice agrees with it.
Second, I think it's questionable to call it a "next step." Roe isn't an equal protection case. It's a due process case that involves an entirely different body of law, different issues, different rights or alleged rights, and different potential parties of interest. Accordingly, an equal protection case involving fetuses is not a logical extension of reversing Roe. It would be an entirely new dispute with new issues. In fact, it's technically possible (though absurd) for the equal protection case to be made without overturning Roe.
Finally, an equal protection case could potentially made of any law. If someone did bring such a case, it would likely be decided under a rational basis test that would be very deferential to the states wanting to protect abortion rights. Accordingly the odds of them losing (and therefore forcing a national ban) are highly remote.
I'm not so sure. The reason Democrats stopped arguing about abortion rights and pivoted to "women's issues" is that it was a more humane sounding to use that euphemism than talking directly about abortion. If they went back to taking directly about abortion, it would force a discussion about the specifics of abortion, and they are gruesome. If I was a pro-choice advocate, I'd want to stay away from that.
-
Like x 2
Last edited: Dec 11, 2016