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

351–360 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#351

Post by aaaaaaaaata »

voisin wrote: post #147
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

So doesn’t this simply create two Americas, those with regressive laws and those with progressive laws, and people can choose between them and the market will show which laws attract people that create economic value? I see half of the US becoming economically fallow as a result of this decline into dystopia.

I see both.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#352

Post by overrun11 »

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.

Different people have different sets of principles by which they measure progress and sometimes those principles run in opposition to one another.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#353

Post by ghostoftiber »

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 know this can be interpreted differently but to me it reads that nobody should be restricted from arming themselves.

If you followed the absolute letter of the law in the current US legal code, females should be disqualified from owning guns: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/sub...

George Mason, coauthor of the second amendment, was asked "Who is the militia?" He's been asked this several times and at one point said it was everyone except our politicians. He typically responds: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426) - https://www.madisonbrigade.com/g_mason.htm

The scope of the second amendment is the same scope as all other amendments which is to say it's an unlimited, and natural right. Anything else is just playing stupid games with lawyers.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#354

Post by hotpotamus »

Hermitian909 wrote: post #114
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?

> Will tech companies continue to flock to Texas, in what will become a very difficult environment for abortion? Recruiting for tech in Texas has already taken a hit due fear around abortion (getting employees to move down there can be quite difficult). More broadly, I think this is likely to put a big damper on high-end knowledge work in conservative states. Educated people are overwhelmingly liberal. While you coul…

"Knowledge" worker in Texas here (native; didn't move here). I don't feel this affects me for a few reasons, but I will say that I'm also aware that 1. I can travel out of state, and 2. drugs are available online and there are drugs that can provide medical abortions - perhaps those can be put together.

That said, in talking with a colleague this morning, we agreed that if the state does go completely crazy and manages to secede, we just want enough notice to sell our property so we can leave.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#355

Post by ProjectArcturis »

voisin wrote: post #147
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

So doesn’t this simply create two Americas, those with regressive laws and those with progressive laws, and people can choose between them and the market will show which laws attract people that create economic value? I see half of the US becoming economically fallow as a result of this decline into dystopia.

Yes, which will make the red areas redder and blue areas bluer and further perpetuate the national political division.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#357

Post by mirceal »

cato_the_elder wrote: post #208

This is a great first step towards protecting human dignity and sanctity of innocent lives in the US. Roe vs. Wade is a classical example of judicial activism. The right to privacy clearly doesn't have anything to do with abortion.

No post body was provided.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#358

Post by joshstrange »

vitruvian_man wrote: post #341
InTheArena wrote: post #188

Separate abortion from Roe v. Wade. The big challenge has been that Roe v. Wade was horribly decided. Even RBG thought so. Roe v wade gave the Supreme Court the right to make law without reference to any text in the constitution. Casey tried to change the justification but it still was a disaster. Sadly it is far from the only time the Supreme Court has made things up out of whole cloth that has had massive societal…

While I'm a strong supporter of abortion rights, I agree with this logic. If anything, this will force conservatives to solidify and clarify their views on abortion which will allow voters to decide where they land on the spectrum of abortion rights. Whereas before, conservatives just deferred to "abortion bad. look at supreme court decision". Also, is it not the case that most Americans support some abortion rights?…

As if any of the "abortion bad" people rail against it only because it was a supreme court decision. We'd see the same fervor if it was a law. I've never hear someone say "I'd be fine with abortion if it was a law instead of a supreme court decision". I'm sure you can find someone making that argument but the vast majority (90%+) don't care. In fact I bet you could say "The Roe v Wade law" and most people wouldn't bat an eyelash because they just consider it "established precedent" and law vs court decision is irrelevant for them.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#359

Post by andsoitis »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #108
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 In his defense, Jesus came to fulfill the old law and not abolish it, as directly stated by himself. The old law has the 5th commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," which in the times of Jesus was unanimously interpreted to cover abortion (Psalm 139 being one reason why) and Jesus, by not speaking against this interpretation (unlike other interpretations),…

> "Thou shalt not kill," which in the times of Jesus was unanimously interpreted to cover abortion

Then how do you explain this:

- When the Bible commands abortion: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2018/02/03/bible-c...

- How to perform an abortion, according to the Bible: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/allsetfree/2021/11/how-to-perf...

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#360

Post by notch656a »

tomschlick wrote: post #202
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 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...

They decided abortion was a right and worked backward until they found a round hole in which to fit the square peg. Frankly I think it fits much better into the 13th amendment, but then that would also lead to the uncomfortable conclusion that parents may be compelled to involuntarily serve both unborn and born offspring, and I'm guessing they didn't like the implications that would have on child neglect laws.
Post reply on HN