Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 42 posts

Re: Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade

#31

Post by car_analogy »

shankr wrote: post #4

What's next on the agenda? gay marriage being overturned? interracial marriage?

It's time for the US to start changing laws if they want the law to, you know, change, instead of relying on courts to re-interpret old laws to comply with the zeitgeist. Does no-one find it bizarre how after almost a century, laws which were previously considered constitutional are found to violate the constitution?

The writers of the 14th Amendment, which was the basis of prohibiting interracial marriage bans, were alive when those marriage bans were in effect. One would think they would have spoken out about how they have just been made unconstitutional.

You do not have a democracy if there is no limit to the creativity with which laws are interpreted. Of course empirically, you don't have a democracy anyway [1], but for the sake of argument...

[1] Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. - https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

Re: Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade

#32

Post by ryanmarsh »

spacemanmatt wrote: post #9
ryanmarsh wrote: post #6

Can a lawyer please explain what the word "overturned" means in this context? This wasn't an appeal in Roe v Wade was it? I'm super confused.

It means superseding law renders Roe v Wade ineffective. (IANAL, etc)

I thought law is written by the legislature not the courts. This is a decision in a case no?

Re: Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade

#33

Post by mmmmmbop »

mythopedia wrote: post #10
shankr wrote: post #4

What's next on the agenda? gay marriage being overturned? interracial marriage?

Literally yes, by the Court's own admission: > For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” est…

Wow.

In case other readers are also not as familiar with those rulings:

Griswold: protects the liberty of married couples to buy and use contraceptives

Lawrence: protects the right to consensual, adult homosexual intercourse

Obergefell: legalizes gay marriage

Re: Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade

#34

Post by evan_ »

kaesar14 wrote: post #2

For the first time in my life, it seems conceivable that in the next 10-20 years abortion will be fully outlawed in the United States.

The next time republicans get a trifecta- or house, presidency, and enough of the senate to drop the filibuster charade- they will pass a nationwide ban. Bank on it.

Re: Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade

#35

Post by wahnfrieden »

Clubber wrote: post #18
yakubin wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How economically accessible is interstate travel in US for average citizens?

You can take a Greyhound bus from Dallas to California for under $200. https://www.greyhound.com/en-us/bus-from-dallas-to-los-angel...

you're forgetting: - what's the expected cost of leaving work for the trip and recovery (no sick days guaranteed available), and given they work in a state where the reason of their trip would be illegal - what share of women in these states have free access to their finances / have their finances controlled by their partner

indeed this will mainly impact the poor and powerless

Re: Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade

#36

Post by spacemanmatt »

ryanmarsh wrote: post #32
spacemanmatt wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means superseding law renders Roe v Wade ineffective. (IANAL, etc)

I thought law is written by the legislature not the courts. This is a decision in a case no?

When courts step outside their traditional role of interpreting and judging legislation we often refer to it as judicial activism.

Otherwise you'd be correct.

Re: Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade

#37

Post by pmdulaney »

h2odragon wrote: post #21

"The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion" But Congress can .

That is an interesting question, though you are probably right. The Court has not asserted that abortions per se are a violation of the Constitution, but that Roe incorrectly affirmed that there was a right to abortion. Presumably there are laws that could be passed (e.g., red-haired persons may be shot on sight) that would certainly be found to be unconstitutional. In the case of abortion, the Court could find a right to life for the unborn and invalidate any law Congress might pass that guaranteed the right to an abortion.

Bottom line, I don't think one can assert without fear of being proven wrong either that Congress can confer a right to abortion or that it can't.

Re: Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade

#38

Post by jeremyashort »

voakbasda wrote: post #24
rychco wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh you're from Texas? Better pray nobody finds out you went to California for that abortion & reports you to the morality police for the $10,000 bounty

Simple solution: don't go back to Texas. Let the exodus from such regressive states begin. Emigration is the ultimate way to vote with your wallet.

That's one strategy, yes. How about joining the migration of blue going IN TO the state to actually change the backward laws?

Re: Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade

#39

Post by yucky »

shankr wrote: post #4

What's next on the agenda? gay marriage being overturned? interracial marriage?

There is no constitutional argument to be made for banning either of those things.

Meanwhile abortion involves another life, yet the constitutional ground it stood on what was "the right to privacy". Even RBG acknowledged for years that Roe was on shaky ground at best and Legislatures should work under the assumption it would be overturned.

Re: Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade

#40

Post by yucky »

Imnimo wrote: post #20
gruez wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems unlikely that Democratic strongholds like california or new york would ban it.

But a future SCOTUS ruling could simply ban it at the national level.

Are there other medical procedures banned federally?
Post reply on HN