201–210 of 1001 posts
How is this seen like it's the end of the world? Just vote with the people that won't ban abortion.
Looking at this ruling and the one a few days ago on arms - could someone explain to me why they're wrong legally? FYI I'm not American and personally am in favour of legalised abortion + severe gun restrictions. My understanding is these rulings are both based on the constitution. The one on guns seems really straightforward: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of th…
The Roe case hinged on abortion being a right under privacy right. It was a very weak argument and even Ruth Bader Ginsberg (a very left leaning justice who died recently) didnt like that reasoning and thought it was weak: https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/06/ruth-bader...
Everyone is acting like this banned abortion, which it didn't. It is up to the state you live in. If you don't like the state's laws, then move. If you don't want to move, then when you get pregnant, go to a state where it is legal. American's cannot be inconvenienced. These 1st world problems are terrible.
And there's nothing stopping states from criminalizing traveling out of state for an abortion.
I also hate that the pro-bodily freedom Americans have spent 50 years ignoring the shaky constitutional ground upon which this fundamental right lies.
The right wing ghouls are ultimately responsible, but I also heap scorn on the Democrats who failed to solidify the right to abortion in law.
Looking at this ruling and the one a few days ago on arms - could someone explain to me why they're wrong legally? FYI I'm not American and personally am in favour of legalised abortion + severe gun restrictions. My understanding is these rulings are both based on the constitution. The one on guns seems really straightforward: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of th…
I think was this was meant to mean was: Any citizen has the right to join their local/state militia, and keep their service rifle and uniform with them at home.
"In a solo concurring opinion, Thomas says the court should reconsider rulings that protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage." https://twitter.com/fordm/status/1540338064324698112
These are next up on the chopping block and the same logic used to overturn Roe v Wade can be used to overturn those. Thomas is merely voicing that reality instead of playing coy like other reactionary justices.
This is the final chapter of a decade-long saga which basically boils down to the Republicans obtaining votes from Evangelicals and other Christian denominations in order to give them what they wanted. In exchange for that, they would use their power to cut taxes, regulations and let the riches become richer and richer at the expense of everyone else. I hope that whomever supported this ruling is happy right now, and…
My understanding is that abortion is a major social justice issue for Christians. So you would want to engage with them on their social justice priorities and strategies, finding overlap, and so forth. At least that’s how I approach these dialogues regarding policies of lower levels of government.
Rights do not necessitate dialogue.
Roe vs. Wade is a classical example of judicial activism. The right to privacy clearly doesn't have anything to do with abortion.
I'm tired of having the minority religious and bigoted views dominate politics and starve us of progress. Regardless of what the "right" ruling is on the law, or the roles of the different branches of government, the practical impact of this ruling is millions of Americans denied the right to healthcare while simultaneously being denied free access to any democratic process to secure it.
Is it minority views? Surely, when it comes down to states legislating this, people can make their opinion heard at the ballet box. And if a majority of people in a state vote conservative and abortion is restricted then we are legislating based on the wants of the majority. It will be interesting to see if this is an important enough issue for some conservative voters to swing them (and states) to the democrats.
Looking at this ruling and the one a few days ago on arms - could someone explain to me why they're wrong legally? FYI I'm not American and personally am in favour of legalised abortion + severe gun restrictions. My understanding is these rulings are both based on the constitution. The one on guns seems really straightforward: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of th…
> I know this can be interpreted differently but to me it reads that nobody should be restricted from arming themselves.
Sure was interpreted differently when black people started carrying in public! [0].