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

401–410 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#401

Post by chiefalchemist »

screye wrote: post #330

I'll be the begrudging devils advocate for a decision that is sure to have devastating consequences for poor women in red states. It is good for unelected bodies like the Supreme Court to allow such dividing issues be figured out democratically. The US house has bled power to the other 3 institutions and of them, the judiciary is the least democratic. Ofc, my support for this change assumes that this Supreme Court wi…

> But, the Supreme Court should not be responsible for managing dysfunction in other branches of govt.

And it's not. The underlying problem is most of voting public doesn't understand how the system works, and why.

Repeated the language has been "The SC is making abortion illegal." That simply is not true. But with that falsely dumbed down "fact" ppl judge, form opinions, make noise, etc.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#402

Post by darth_avocado »

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #337

The Supreme Court neither banned abortion nor prohibited the legislature from protecting the right to abortion. It merely decided that it is not currently protected by constitution, which to me seems completely correct. If most people agree that it should be a constitutional right, no one stops the legislature from adding the required amendment. And if most people can't agree on that, well, adding that wouldn't be de…

63% of Americans support Roe v Wade and 80% support abortions in some cases.

People agree on that. Adding it to the constitution hasn’t happened because politics.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#403

Post by ausbah »

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #337

The Supreme Court neither banned abortion nor prohibited the legislature from protecting the right to abortion. It merely decided that it is not currently protected by constitution, which to me seems completely correct. If most people agree that it should be a constitutional right, no one stops the legislature from adding the required amendment. And if most people can't agree on that, well, adding that wouldn't be de…

most people do think that abortion should be law in some form, but since the US doesn't have a democratic basis in 5/6 of the federal government - "leaving jit to the legislature" is just as bad as letting SCOTUS decide the law. that doesn't even touch upon how constitutional amendments aren't even on the table with how hard they are to pass

and no matter what, you're dealing with laws regarding the bodily autonomy of 50% of the populace. if that can't be considered a fundamental right, what really can?

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#404

Post by wilsonnb3 »

mirceal wrote: post #386
LudwigNagasena wrote: post #337

The Supreme Court neither banned abortion nor prohibited the legislature from protecting the right to abortion. It merely decided that it is not currently protected by constitution, which to me seems completely correct. If most people agree that it should be a constitutional right, no one stops the legislature from adding the required amendment. And if most people can't agree on that, well, adding that wouldn't be de…

Cute take but I'm going to ask the question: why did something that was in place for 50 years needs to be revisited? Is it maybe needed for the nutjobs that do want to ban abortion to do their thing? Also, you need to ask yourself: is this about abortion? Or is it really about literally keeping the people poor, stupid and uneducated? Think about it: if you're not poor this is not an issue. If you have 5 kids instead…

> why did something that was in place for 50 years needs to be revisited?

Because it was poorly reasoned judicial activism and always has been. The amount of time that a decision stands should have no bearing on how good of a decision it is.

One of the dissents in Casey v Planned Parenthood in 92 also wanted to overturn Roe, for the same reasons that the current court did.

Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg thought that Roe v Wade was poorly reasoned.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#405

Post by randyrand »

AlexandrB wrote: post #331
karl11 wrote: post #275

The thing about abortion that most people seem not to understand is that the debate is fundamentally about answering "when does human life start?". One side believes it starts at conception, which equates any abortion with murder. The other side believes it starts at some point after that, which makes abortion up to that point a women's health / rights issue. Irreconcilable, but also toxic when the two sides never ta…

I don't think this is the right question. The better question is one of bodily autonomy: whether someone should be compelled to keep another human being alive at the cost of their own health and safety. This avoids the whole "when does life start" debate, which has been a moving goalpost for the history of abortion related law.

Seems like a side issue to me. If I forcibly put someone under my control, it should be my responsibility not to kill them. Airplane pilots have the same responsibility. Imagine if pilots forced us to fly with them, and then decided they didn’t want to carry our weight anymore! There’s good reason that is illegal.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#407

Post by notch656a »

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #337

The Supreme Court neither banned abortion nor prohibited the legislature from protecting the right to abortion. It merely decided that it is not currently protected by constitution, which to me seems completely correct. If most people agree that it should be a constitutional right, no one stops the legislature from adding the required amendment. And if most people can't agree on that, well, adding that wouldn't be de…

What's perplexing is why they don't apply this to the rest of the federal powers. Overturn Wickard v Filburn and cut it at the root. The federal government has no legitimacy to regulate intrastate trade, most gun laws, most of the civil rights act, the controlled substance act, etc. The fact that they picked abortion but not the root of anti-constitutional federal expansionism is truly baffling.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#408

Post by incomplete »

mmaunder wrote: post #372

I strongly recommend reading Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s thoughts on Roe v Wade in 1992 - expressed about a year before she became a Supreme Court justice. She describes Roe as a “breathtaking” decision and as interrupting a process already underway. Her discussion starts on page 1198 in this PDF which is a rewarding read if you have the time. I’m not advocating either way - I merely hope to present Justice Ginsbergs eloqu…

yeah, thanks for the link and i recall (from years ago) reading about her thoughts on the subject. roe v wade was a sweeping judgement that (depending on how you looked at it) guaranteed women's rights at the expense of state autonomy WRT laws.

because of the states' rights issue, plus moral "conservatism", roe V wade was an easy target and i'm not surprised it was reversed.

fwiw, i'm a lefty and think that this is a terrible decision w/consequences that won't take long to be felt around the country

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#409

Post by aftbit »

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

Note though that the majority opinion itself specifically calls out these cases several times as different from abortion because they do not result in the termination of a potential life. Here is one specific quote:

Unable to show concrete reliance on Roe and Casey them- selves, the Solicitor General suggests that overruling those decisions would “threaten the Court’s precedents holding that the Due Process Clause protects other rights.” Brief for United States 26 (citing Obergefell, 576 U. S. 644; Law- rence, 539 U. S. 558; Griswold, 381 U. S. 479). That is not correct for reasons we have already discussed. As even the Casey plurality recognized, “[a]bortion is a unique act” be- cause it terminates “life or potential life.” 505 U. S., at 852; see also Roe, 410 U. S., at 159 (abortion is “inherently dif- ferent from marital intimacy,” “marriage,” or “procrea- tion”). And to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision con- cerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/supreme-court-abortio...

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#410

Post by TameAntelope »

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #337

The Supreme Court neither banned abortion nor prohibited the legislature from protecting the right to abortion. It merely decided that it is not currently protected by constitution, which to me seems completely correct. If most people agree that it should be a constitutional right, no one stops the legislature from adding the required amendment. And if most people can't agree on that, well, adding that wouldn't be de…

The problem with this legal OCD is that in the meantime, people suffer.

This isn't a codebase refactor, this is people's lives. Pulling this ruling before you have "what the people want" in place is like deleting a feature you plan on rebuilding later before you actually rebuild it.

Nobody in their right mind thinks that's a good idea in any other context, so why would it make sense here?

Post reply on HN