That bill is being sold as preparation for the possibility that the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that made abortion a national constitutional right and a ruling that liberals believe to be in jeopardy from the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the high court.
“We now need to codify Roe v. Wade, which will actually increase the protections in New York. God forbid they do what they intend to do. I want to get it done before the Supreme Court does that because I don’t want any gaps in a woman’s right to protection. We have a better legal case when the Supreme Court acts because I will sue when the Supreme Court acts,” Mr. Cuomo said in a statement, according to Rochester TV station WHEC.
The statement caused much head-scratching among conservatives, for a number of reasons, not the least being … how does one sue the Supreme Court? And where?
“Did he really say that? Whom would he sue, and where would he find a court able to overrule the Supreme Court?” wondered Fox News Channel political analyst Brit Hume.
— Brit Hume (@brithume) July 11, 2018
Added veteran blogger “Allahpundit” at the conservative Hot Air site: “He’ll sue? Who does he think he’s going to sue, Brett Kavanaugh? Somehow, some way, this guy is a law-school graduate.”
And sue over what? The overturn of Roe v. Wade wouldn’t ban abortion nationwide, merely leave the states free to make whatever abortion laws they wished, as had been the case before 1973. New York would have no legal cause of action against anyone, much less the Supreme Court that had just given it the right to make whatever laws it wished.
“It’s too bad [Mr. Cuomo is] not the Governor of a State or something, given that after Roe the legality of abortion will become a matter of State law. The stupid is strong with this one,” wrote “Satirical Gangsta.”
It’s too bad he’s not the Governor of a State or something, given that after Roe the legality of abortion will become a matter of State law. The stupid is strong with this one.
— Satirical Gangsta (@satiricalgngsta) July 11, 2018
Even pro-life legal scholars acknowledge that, at least in the short term after an reversal of Roe, a significant number of states, New York almost certainly among them, would keep the procedure legal with few regulations, and even serve as magnets for women in states that restricted or banned the procedure.
“Is there any doubt that New York Republicans would be steamrolled if Roe really were overturned and the state’s liberal voters demanded full legalization?
Cuomo’s scaremongering is an ironic reminder to blue-staters that not only would nothing change in their backyards if Roe were dumped, the new legal regime that replaces it in the state legislature might be more liberal than what Roe has provided them. If that’s possible,” “Allahpundit” wrote.
The Washington Times Comment Policy
The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.