Actually, Roe -with its trimester scheme for abortion: abortion on demand in 1st trimester; only regulations to protect mother’s health in 2nd trimester; restrictions/prohibitions on abortion with exceptions for “health of mother” in 3rd trimester- was replaced in 1992 by Planned Parenthood vs. Casey’s “undue burden” standard. But I digress.
The thing to keep in mind is that with Brett Kavanaugh replacing Anthony Kennedy the United States Supreme Court MAY -and I emphasize MAY (no telling if Roberts will do an encore of his Obamacare farce)- begin incrementally dismantling its abortion jurisprudence, which in the case of Roe involved writing a national code for abortion (and grafting it onto the constitution) and in Casey substituting a non-legal test (“undue burden” unlike, let’s say, due process, is a totally subjective test) for that code.
Abortion supporters, if “Roe” is overturned or restricted, will look to the State courts to fill the role formerly filled by federal courts. Hence, Surdukowski’s #3.
There is no general “right to privacy” in the New Hampshire Constitution. What Surdukowski is referring to is an insane doctrine developed by Chuck Douglas, when he was on the New Hampshire Supreme Court, that in the name of federalism State courts should invent constitutional rights. From a New Hampshire Bar News Article by Eugene Van Loan that unfortunately is no longer available to the general public:
“Without question, the member of the Court leading the new judicial federalism charge in New Hampshire was then Justice Charles G. Douglas III, the author of many of its decisions recognizing rights under our constitution unknown at the federal level. This is not surprising because Douglas, writing only months after he had been appointed to the high bench, was one of the first in the nation to jump on Brennan’s bandwagon. See Charles G. Douglas III, State Judicial Activism – The New Role for State Bills of Rights, 12 Suffolk L. Rev. 123 (1978). See also, Charles G. Douglas III, The Unique Role of State Constitutions: Raising State Issues in New Hampshire, 28 N.H.B.J. 309 (Summer, 1987).”
So what Surdukowski is saying to the Democrats on the Executive Council is this: don’t worry about Roe being overturned or circumscribed by the United Sttes Supreme Court, Gordon is one of us and will go along with “finding” a “right to an abortion” in the New Hampshire Constitution.
Perhaps this explains why so many on the Left are so enthusiastically supporting MacDonald’s nomination: