Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade • Hacker News Board

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#411

Post by goosedragons » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 4:14 PM UTC

synergy20 wrote: post #364

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…

Yes I agree the legal system should be apolitical, they should be elected instead of appointed, and there should be an age limit, plus it's just odd those judges never retires, congress is 4-years, senate is 6, what about a 8-year-term for supreme court just like everybody else(longer term for 'stability', life long term is ridiculous to me).

Them being elected would only guarantee they are political. If judge appointment was not decided by politicians and instead an independent body there would be a better chance of them actually being apolitical.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#412

Post by delecti » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 4:14 PM UTC

pclmulqdq wrote: post #379

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…

From 2008-2010, the Democratic party had the chance to enshrine abortion into the law of the land. They even had a perfect vehicle, the ACA, in which to do it, since it already dealt with healthcare rules. They declined.

Both parties benefited from abortion being a wedge issue that wasn't under legislative control. The dems knew that if they enshrined it in law, then the GOP could campaign on undoing that legislative imposition.

The GOP just plays politics better though, so now they're a dog who caught the car they were chasing. The dems have a chance to make that backfire on the GOP in the midterms, but they're awful at getting or wielding power, so I'm skeptical they will.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#413

Post by wilsonnb3 » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 4:14 PM UTC

lanstin wrote: post #397

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…

Pence just asked for federal legislation banning all abortions. So I think you are wrong to say the Republicans are trying to return it to the states, thy are trying to ban it. Note that a man is not required to donate blood to save an adult human, even if there is no risk to him. The equal protection clause extends that right to your own body to women, and that is fairly sound constitutional reasoning. The constitut…

> Note that a man is not required to donate blood to save an adult human, even if there is no risk to him. The equal protection clause extends that right to your own body to women, and that is fairly sound constitutional reasoning.

Why did Roe v Wade rely on an unwritten right to privacy rather than the equal protection clause then?

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#414

Post by adamrezich » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 4:14 PM UTC

has anyone done a comparison chart of the various "trigger laws" in different states? I ask because the other day someone on twitter accused my state of being "anti-semetic" for not allowing abortions when the pregnant woman's life is at risk, and a quick google search revealed that this is actually false:

    22-17-5.1. (Section effective on the date states are recognized by the United States Supreme Court to have the authority to prohibit abortion at all stages of pregnancy) Procurement of abortion prohibited--Exception to preserve life of pregnant female--Felony.
    
    Any person who administers to any pregnant female or who prescribes or procures for any pregnant female any medicine, drug, or substance or uses or employs any instrument or other means with intent thereby to procure an abortion, unless there is appropriate and reasonable medical judgment that performance of an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant female, is guilty of a Class 6 felony. (Section 7 of SL 2005, ch 187, as amended by SL 2005, ch 188, § 1, provides: "This Act is effective on the date that the states are recognized by the United States Supreme Court to have the authority to prohibit abortion at all stages of pregnancy.")
    
    Source:  SL 2005, ch 187, § 6.

https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/Codified_Laws/2047216

are there any states where this is NOT the case?

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#415

Post by cryptonector » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 4:14 PM UTC

ncallaway wrote: post #377

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 9th amendment of the United States reads: > The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. This was added as an Amendment, because many founders were deeply concerned that the introduction of a bill of rights would create the impression that if they enumerated s…

It would be nice if 9th and 10th Amendment jurisprudence were stronger.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#416

Post by causi » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 4:15 PM UTC

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…

This fight is not going to be over until the legislature formally defines what is and is not a person. I doubt that's going to happen because nobody wants to have that discussion.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#417

Post by FpUser » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 4:15 PM UTC

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…

>"If most people agree that it should be a constitutional right, no one stops the legislature from adding the required amendment. "

Meanwhile bunch of states will make abortions illegal. I think Texas already has with some technicalities but correct me if I am wrong.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#418

Post by lanstin » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 4:15 PM UTC

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?…

Or to solidify their dedication to minority tule, specifically minority rule of one particular anti-science religious sect over the majority in a formerly pluralistic, science and education and hard work based society.

Stop educating people on biology (and in the post genome sequencing world), stop women from having reproductive control, stop LGBTQ folks from participating without fear, stop the free thinking people, stop it all in the name of that olde time religion (which itself is mostly a modern nostalgic reconstruction).

Very harmful to our ability to focus and succeed on technological transformation.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#419

Post by dane-pgp » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 4:15 PM UTC

pclmulqdq wrote: post #379

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…

From 2008-2010, the Democratic party had the chance to enshrine abortion into the law of the land. They even had a perfect vehicle, the ACA, in which to do it, since it already dealt with healthcare rules. They declined.

Do you think the ACA would have been more or less likely to pass if it had mentioned a federal right to abortion (which would have benefited zero people for the next decade)?

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#420

Post by coryfklein » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 4:15 PM UTC

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?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg made it her career to overturn precedents around women's rights that had been around far longer than 50 years.