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

Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#241

Post by _dain_ »

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…

No post body was provided.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#242

Post by mgfist »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #25

I'm pro-choice but I still believe that this is the right move. > “My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.…

And my criticism on RBG is she should've stepped down when Obama was in office instead of dying and giving Trump an appointee.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#244

Post by jimbob45 »

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…

I heavily recommend that you read the gun ruling for yourself. It's a very fun run through history. How often do you get to read about the 1328 Statute of Northampton, launcegays, and the Black Death in modern legal analysis?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#245

Post by rootusrootus »

lesstyzing wrote: post #197
fhkatari wrote: post #59

I work for a company, headquartered in the Mid West, that has been very public in their support of LGBTQ rights, among other things. Do you think corporations should take a public stance in support of abortion rights? Will tech companies continue to flock to Texas, in what will become a very difficult environment for abortion?

While I am pro-legalised abortion I think this is a separate kind of issue to LGBT rights, racial equality etc. LGBT rights/racial equality is about treating everybody equally. Almost no 'good' people are opposed to those things. There are plenty of good people who literally believe abortion is the murder of a baby. I disagree but I don't agree that it's an unreasonable opinion. Given that, I think companies taking a…

> Almost no 'good' people are opposed to those things.

That is an interesting perspective. You just called something like 100M or more Americans not good people. I am not being hyperbolic. Talk to them. On the surface they are friendly, easygoing, etc, but switch the topic to LGBT rights and listen. The very fact that they believe there is such a thing as "gay rights" tells you a lot. Good luck trying to educate them on how "cannot discriminate based on sexual preference" is not the same thing as giving gay people special rights.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#246

Post by ceilingcorner »

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…

It isn’t wrong legally and if anything, had the constitution been followed correctly, this decision is how it should have played out in the first place. It is only controversial because some people think their personal opinions on controversial issues should override democratic mechanisms.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#247

Post by tomjen3 »

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.

I don't disagree with you in this case, but there are a lot of people who would say this is one such example.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#249

Post by kennywinker »

InTheArena wrote: post #225
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 cons…

Weird because the courts striking down laws as unconstitutional is literally their job description.

Equal protection under the law would be my first pick for constitutional protection of abortion. There are very few life threatening things that the law compels men to do. Yet the law can compel a women to carry a fetus to term against her will?

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#250

Post by thehappypm »

coliveira wrote: post #215

Supreme Court has shoot itself in the foot. It they can overturn their own decisions based on political schemes, then we can overturn EVERYTHING they do, including this decision itself.

Overturning isn’t some new thing. And sometimes it’s hugely beneficial. Overturning precedent is how we got rid of separate-but-equal!
Post reply on HN