Thread by @EinsteinsAttic

Appalling bit of subediting(?) but the article itself lays out both the history and US context of #RoeVsWade and the consequences of overturning it with rather more nuance:

thetimes.co.uk/article/the-ti…

The "right approach" the writer appears to support 👇 is the codification of the #RightToChoose into federal #law - which should have happened decades ago. The major issue being the parlous state of US politics...

For the avoidance of doubt, I absolutely support women's #RightToChoose - it is not for ANY authority to tell people what they can or can't do with their bodies. Anger is justified, but not enough; this is an issue around which people must #mobilise and begin taking back #agency.

On the subtler point about #SeparationOfPowers and '#democratic #sovereignty', NO-ONE - not even #lawmakers - should be above the #law.

An independent #judiciary is there to #interpret and #arbitrate on the #application of those laws - including #constitutional principles...

...#HumanRights frameworks, and even between and within #legislation itself.

"#Sovereign" does not mean 'infallible', and it is #populist simplifications and outright #politicisation of these core principles (and institutions) that pave the road to hell.

C'mon, #WeThePeople!

For reference, here's a copy of the draft US #SupremeCourt majority opinion on #RoeVsWade, as leaked to @politico:

politico.com/news/2022/05/0…

And the original 1973 #RoeVsWade decision - noting it was grounded in the Due Process clause of the #FourteenthAmendment to the #USConstitution, which provides a "#RightToPrivacy", protecting a pregnant woman's #RightToChoose whether to have an abortion:

supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/…

What an utterly appalling state of affairs that @swodinsky should need to post this guide. But she did:

https://twitter.com/swodinsky/status/1521521119630610432

(The pieces to which this is an update are also well worth a read.)