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

261–270 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#261

Post by ceejayoz »

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…

> Now that they have gotten what they wanted, are they still going to vote for Republicans with the same transactional decision process?

Yes; that's why Thomas's concurring decision openly threatens the gay marriage, contraception, etc. decisions. (He left Loving v. Virginia off the list, though. For some reason.) There's plenty more red meat to throw to the Republican base as far as SCOTUS is concerned.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#262

Post by GekkePrutser »

So this raises some interesting questions.

What if an American person wishing to have an abortion just travels to another country where it's legal to get it done? Can they be arrested upon return?

If so, does that mean that all Europeans that had an abortion could be liable to prosecution in the US if they choose to visit?

Not that I expect a huge impact to tourism etc. I've seen gay football fans willing to go to Qatar to watch their matches. Visiting a country that thinks they should die didn't seem to bother them :/

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#264

Post by AlexandrB »

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…

Obligatory Tim Kreider comic on this point: https://i.redd.it/u9c8patjifb51.jpg

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#265

Post by nabla9 »

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…

There is a legal principle that once the court bedsides something and it becomes established law, you don't overturn the previous decision lightly.

Roe & Wade is based on the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Roe vs Wade did not happen in vacuum, it's part of a larger understanding of the Constitution that recognizes a right to privacy and recognizes that there are unwritten rights.

This decision overturns this whole 50-year old framework. Decisions based on 14th Amendment’s Due Process clause are now open for banning contraception, banning interracial relationships, family relationships, right to intimacy (sodomy laws), the right to personal control of medical treatment. It will even have data collection limit consequences.

How Dismantling Roe Puts Interracial Marriage at Risk https://www.aclu.org/podcast/how-dismantling-roe-puts-interr...

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#266

Post by joshstrange »

lesstyzing wrote: post #209
duped wrote: post #99

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.

>> I'm tired of having the minority religious and bigoted views dominate politics and starve us of progress. 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 th…

> Is it minority views?

Yes, unquestionably, the vast majority of Americans support the right to abortion. That said you can do a lot with gerrymandering, suppressing voters, and our archaic electoral college that gives people more/less voting power based on the state they live in.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#267

Post by thomastjeffery »

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…

Abortion isn't the only issue Republicans use. We still have gun rights, "small government", "socialism", healthcare, drugs, human trafficking, etc.

Next on the list are LGBTQ+ rights, especially hormone therapy for teenagers, and contraceptives that may destroy or discard a zygote or blastocyst. Overturning Roe means allowing government to invade every healthcare decision and apply any arbitrary religious dogma to it.

The fear of abortion was used as a very effective tool for engagement. The more people sit and listen to people "argue" about an "issue" on Fox News or at church, etc., the more politically active they become.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#268

Post by jawns »

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…

> while Jesus Christ never gave to abortion the slightest mention

Did the U.S. Constitution give abortion the slightest mention?

No, the right to abortion was inferred from a right to privacy, which was inferred from several amendments that did not explicitly mention abortion or privacy. The Ninth Amendment does makes allowance for rights that aren't explicitly enumerated, but it doesn't really give any guidance on how to know what those are.

Similarly, many Christian denominations recognize that Jesus didn't need to explicitly mention every single moral issue for the Church to develop doctrine around them. Heck, even the doctrine of the Trinity, a core doctrine of mainstream Christianity, requires some level of inference from Scripture.

So if your argument is that Jesus needed to explicitly mention abortion for there to be any justifiable Christian doctrine about it, you're applying a different standard than the standard that was used to define a constitutional right to abortion in the first place.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#269

Post by slg »

RHSeeger wrote: post #196
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…

> Jesus Christ never gave to abortion the slightest mention That is misrepresenting the argument. There's a lot of people that believe that abortion is the killing of a human being. And killing another human being is, most definitely, on the list of "bad things" for every flavor of Christianity. For a lot of them, killing one human being (not in self defense) to save another is still on that list; because only God is…

Then how do you explain them supporting the removal of gun laws like the court did yesterday? Why does the idea that abortion extinguishes life and therefore supersedes all other rights not apply in other situations in which someone’s rights will lead to death? Either life is sacrosanct or it isn’t. Why are rights to guns more important than life but rights to bodily autonomy aren’t?

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#270

Post by tcj_phx »

I think the real issue is that states often make horrible health decisions for individuals. People's right to make decisions for themselves needs to be acknowledged and protected.

I have a case pending in the United States Supreme Court that's fundamentally about Medical Freedom: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/do... (original PDF is readable: https://teslabox.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/220503-Petit... )

tl/dr: my friend is forced by the State of Arizona to take prescription medications that do not help with her genetic condition of requiring methylated forms of Vitamin B-9 (she is harmed by foods with the shelf-stable food fortification folic acid). Her tendency to self-treat malnutrition-caused depression with substances (alcohol, mainly) is worsened by the psychiatric drugs forced on her. The FDA black box warning on one of them is for 'compulsive behavior'. Last January she was 'stabilized' with the medication that the Soviets used to re-educate their dissidents, when all she really needs is sobriety and an adequate diet.

On May 8 2022 she escaped from her guardian's custody, choosing to live on the street instead of a care home. After my petition appeared on the SCOTUS docket I agreed to help her. She got a housekeeping job at that motel. Her manager had no idea her forced treatment with anti-psychotic medications had lapsed.

While my petition is fundamentally about whether the States may perpetrate fraud on the United States Court, the core issue I presented is about medical freedom. From Page 21 [1]:

> While it may not be this court’s place to tell doctors that they don’t always know what they’re doing, it is the requirement of Constitutional governance that doctors be required to respect bodily autonomy. If a citizen of the United States does not consent to being injected with the Soviets’ preferred medication for dissident re-education, doctors should not able to use the courts to force this, or any other drug, approved or experimental, on any person.

> The principle of health freedom requires that people be allowed to make decisions for themselves, without coercion from others. If a person doesn’t want to have their brain electrocuted by their doctor, they shouldn’t be forced to endure this treatment. If a person is concerned they’ll have an adverse reaction to a medication or condition that the experts think is good for everyone, there can be no coercion against people making decisions for themselves, no matter their perceived competency

[1] https://teslabox.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/220503-Petit...

I'm now trying to whip up outrage on the internet about Arizona's use of the Soviet techniques of torture on our most vulnerable. But maybe Medicine is a sacred cow? How do I convince people that doctors and politicians should not be able to make medical decisions for anyone?

Post reply on HN