Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade • Hacker News Board

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#221

Post by Fauntleroy » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 3:14 PM UTC

ben7799 wrote: post #189

qalmakka wrote: post #64

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…

I would be curious if this decision hurts the Republicans going forward. Religious Americans essentially held their noses to vote for Republicans just to get this issue rammed in. Now that they have gotten what they wanted, are they still going to vote for Republicans with the same transactional decision process? Or are they now going to say the Republicans can no longer offer them anything additional and now the pro…

It likely won't affect things much, or they wouldn't have let it go through. They will now be focusing on protecting this new status quo; "don't let liberals re-instate abortion and kill children!!!" etc

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#222

Post by zht » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 3:14 PM UTC

typeofhuman wrote: post #72

lawn wrote: post #52

There's this belief that society always moves in a "forward/upward" directory, where we become more advanced, more enlightened and more moral. But this is not the case and sometimes we regress.

A contrarian argument would say that protecting life - especially young life - is a more enlightened and moral direction.

in cases of rape too?

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#223

Post by motive » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 3:14 PM UTC

lesstyzing wrote: post #154

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…

Regarding guns, the dissent argues that “well-regulated” and “militia” are key components of the text. The applicants for concealed carry were not part of a militia, and the current court doesn’t seem to acknowledge the “well-regulated” piece exists at all.

With regard to abortion, the constitution guarantees us a right to privacy, which is closely linked to bodily autonomy. The argument being that there is constitutionally no legal way for the government to involve itself in your personal health decisions. There is an interesting ideological reversal here with regard to the recent vaccine debate with liberals arguing the government should be able to compel vaccination, and the conservatives against.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#224

Post by lesstyzing » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 3:14 PM UTC

invokestatic wrote: post #96

major505 wrote: post #75

I`m not american, but lets be honest. Is not a constitution right because is not in the constitution. States can now do their onw diligence about the subject. So it`s not the end of the word for pro-choise people.

It's actually written in the Constitution that we as Americans enjoy many rights that aren't explicitly written in the text. It's in the 9th amendment and 14th amendment due process clause. The 14th, to me, encompasses everything that it means to be American: self-autonomy. The right to marry outside our race, the right to choose our sexual partner, the right to birth control are established in the due process clause…

If the constitution is so vague that different judges will interpret it completely differently (and it "encompasses everything that it means to be American"), you need to fix the constitution. Having judges interpret vague things the way the people of the day want is a recipe for...exactly what's happening now.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#225

Post by InTheArena » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 3:15 PM UTC

lesstyzing wrote: post #154

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…

This is exactly the point for me. Roe V Wade embraced a court that decided that judges could/should legislate (that is, make new laws) rather then enforce the text of existing laws. This is not new from the court - separate but equal, Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, Dredd Scott - all basically where examples of the court taking matters into their own hands.

This simply says "Abortion is a legislative matter - the constitution does not say that abortion must be legal until the moment of delivery".

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#226

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 3:15 PM UTC

Vvector wrote: post #84

uptown wrote: post #19

"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

Thomas - "...in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. ... we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents" Griswold - contraceptives Lawrence - same-sex sexual relations Obergefell - same-sex marriage

[deleted]

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#227

Post by dogman144 » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 3:15 PM UTC

All those red states that courted tech employees the last two years are about to get a challenging political period from that new donor base.

Alabama has Huntsville, Texas has Austin, TN has chatt and Nashville, NC has Charlotte and Raleigh-Durham, Florida has Miami/Tampa, AZ has Phoenix, CO has Denver (CO isn’t super red but it’s somewhere). This will get more interested and remote workers go deeper into small towns.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#228

Post by Aunche » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 3:16 PM UTC

echelon wrote: post #60

uptown wrote: post #19

"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

The Supreme Court positions to be elected positions. None of this is the will of the people.

Roe v. Wade wasn't the will of the people. If the will of the people is to make abortion legal, they would vote for politicians that make abortion legal. In Mississippi, they clearly voted for the opposite.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#229

Post by InTheArena » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 3:16 PM UTC

indymike wrote: post #185

lesstyzing wrote: post #154

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…

> Regarding abortion, what aspect of the constitution would cover it? The US Constitution does not contain the word abortion, and so decisions by the Court on abortion either way are only indirectly guided by applying other parts of the Constitution.

Except this is not the way the consitution is actually written:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

To the people == legislative branch. to the states means the states legislative branch.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#230

Post by dahfizz » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 3:16 PM UTC

areoform wrote: post #120

Scientists have shirked their responsibility around abortion. The vacuum and silence around this topic helped push towards this day. The "viability" debate, or the re-branded "when does this ball of cells become a person" debate, has been monopolized by philosophers and religious people. And as a result many women will die due to botched abortions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerri_Santoro or the inability to get on…

> For what is the moral difference (from a consequentialist, utilitarian standpoint) between taking previously conscious humans with minimal brain function off of life support and an abortion of a non-sentient and non-conscious fetus? There is non, except for the fact that in the latter, a human being is forced to act as life support.

There is one obvious difference: in one case, the person's consciousness has been irreversibly destroyed. In the other case, the person's consciousness is imminent.

From a utilitarian standpoint, the fetus has a considerable upside while the brain dead patient does not.

Utilitarianism is largely unconvincing anyway, IMO. A much more convincing pro-abortion argument is how the unwanted fetus infringes on the rights of the mother.