newly Contributors arranged the eponymous “X-ray” regarding the widely commented decision of the US Supreme Court in this case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org – or, more precisely, its confused perception in the Romanian mass media. The X-ray contains some welcome clarifications, at least in the section dealing with legal issues. But when it comes to the US and its complex legal system, there is always room for clarification after clarification.

Therefore, I will take as an example a few statements from the mentioned article to add nuances that I think are important for understanding the current global dispute. Let’s start with the most important statement: “The Supreme Court did not ban abortion, but only determined that each state has the right to regulate the matter in its own discretion.”

Technically, the remark is correct: in the decision v Dobbs, the court rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of a Mississippi law that banned abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy (defined as the time since the first day of the last menstrual period). He did so by declaring that the fundamental law of the United States does not guarantee the right to abortion, implicitly leaving the decision to regulate the practice to the court of state legislatures. However, judging by the context, everything is more complicated. Indeed, the Supreme Court has declared itself neutral on abortion (see, in particular, section I of Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion): neither for nor against, but out. At the same time, the Supreme Court canceled the constitutional right, which has a significant history of half a century. A half-century during which the Court has repeatedly and systematically struck down as unconstitutional laws identical to or similar to Mississippi’s. However, in a justice system based on precedents, such a radical change is extremely important. Moreover, not only a controversial (and, as some specialists claim, poorly formulated) decision Roe v. Wade (1973), as well as a much more thorough two decades later, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania. against Casey (1992).

Therefore, if the neutrality claimed by the Court is evaluated in relation to the state of facts for the last fifty years, the connection of the decision Dobbs with the ban on abortion becomes more difficult.

Things look even more confusing. As the Supreme Court justices were well aware in their June 27 decision, several US states already have self-start laws (trigger laws), according to which abortions should have been automatically banned immediately or shortly after the Supreme Court’s decision was overturned roe deer. (A legally dubious construction, by the way.) Another dozen states have similar legislation that is currently being challenged in state courts, holding it back or blocking it. From this point of view, the act of withdrawing the Federal Constitution from the issue of abortion led, predictably and automatically, to the establishment of some laws in their almost “Sezite” letter – to quote the term from the mentioned X-ray commentary. (Of course, and fortunately, in a federal system so radically different from communist Romania, the consequences of said laws will not be “Ceauști”.)

Impact of the decision in the case Dobbs can be better understood if we consider what the Supreme Court’s alternatives were. It could not uphold Mississippi’s law as constitutional, thereby imposing an additional time limit on abortions without overturning precedent and nullifying an already recognized right. Chief Justice John Roberts proposed such a decision, in his opinion. This would be an example of legal minimalism (or restraint) – a decision solely on the merits of a specific case, without far-reaching consequences that would abolish the institution of abortion. Conservatives usually argue that this is how the courts would prefer to approach cases. Now the Supreme Court has chosen conservative radicalism.

And an almost surprising detail: given the above, the state law just passed by the Court won’t even go into effect. Mississippi already had a much tougher anti-abortion law in place, which itself went into effect after the repeal Roe v. Wade.

Though Dobbs while acknowledging the law, which at the same time rendered it irrelevant in favor of a maximalist one, many commentators were keen to note that the first norm was nevertheless quite generous – at least by the standards of Western European states that Americans consider liberal or progressive. As x-ray points out: “Mississippi law [privind avortul la 15 săptămâni] it is more permissive than the current one in Romania, which criminalizes abortion after the fourteenth week as a crime…” The conservative comment made a lot of money on this topic.

Strictly with regard to the time limits (fixed at 15 weeks from the first day of the last menstruation), the American legislation in this case – moreover, is representative of rules of this type in several states – is similar to the Romanian one. But our Criminal Code also provides that “it shall not be a crime to terminate a pregnancy for therapeutic purposes … before the attainment of twenty-four weeks of pregnancy or thereafter for therapeutic purposes.” , in the interests of the mother or the fetus.” The American rule, which is detailed and precise compared to the few general statements in the Penal Code, provides exceptions for medical emergencies and serious fetal abnormalities—that’s all. Nothing about rape, for example, let alone therapeutic intervention in the “mother’s interests” (admittedly an imprecise term). But even more important is that in Romania “a pregnant woman who terminates a pregnancy is not punished.” The provision implicitly refers to “Chausha” injuries, which have no response in American law, where such women would be guilty of murder.

So the idea that a law banning abortion after 15 weeks is less strict than a law restricting it to only 14 weeks in another part of the world hides more than it reveals. This is also the main problem with claims common among conservatives that the US has had so far Dobbs regulation in this area is much freer than in almost all comparable European states. Jonah Goldberg, a leading conservative – and very often – called the European Union’s position on this decision Dobbswith untranslatable humor, collective performative jackass, because abortion restrictions would be as strict in European countries as they are in Mississippi. (Although, obviously, non-recognition of the law in this state is the essence Dobbs or European critics.)

The salt of the latter. He preferred a radical decision, which greatly increased American polarization and the crisis of legitimacy of the most influential constitutional court in the world.

Read the rest on Contributors.ro