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

421–430 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#421

Post by bombcar »

cupofpython wrote: post #348

the supreme court did not ban abortion. It removed abortion as a legal right. It means people cannot use the power of the federal government to overrule their own state legislature on the topic of abortion. If you understand how the US Government works, then you understand that the Supreme Court cannot establish ANYTHING by removing laws. (ie overturning previous decisions). What the Supreme court did was allow for t…

> If you understand how the US Government works, then you understand that the Supreme Court cannot establish ANYTHING by removing laws. (ie overturning previous decisions).

This was actually part of the issue:

> After cataloging a wealth of other information having no bearing on the meaning of the Constitution, the opinion concluded with a numbered set of rules much like those that might be found in a statute enacted by a legislature.

For way too long the entire political argument in the US on way too many things has been punted to the Supremes to let the elected officials get out of any responsibility whatsoever.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#423

Post by bushbaba »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #401
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.

It’s been known for decades that roe v wade was a weak basis for abortion rights. The constitution does not have any law on abortion, and it’s Congress’s job to create federal laws.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#424

Post by colinmhayes »

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…

> If the voting majority truly cares about access to abortion then we will hopefully see enough democratic traction to give them the mandate needed

The problem is we have an electoral system that forces us into a two party system. One of those parties is beholden to religious ideologies. If any republican votes for abortion protection they will get primaried. So we end up in a situation where a healthy majority of the country wants some level of abortion rights, but because we need 60 senate votes it's impossible to implement.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#425

Post by tenpies »

andsoitis wrote: post #395
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…

It is worth considering the larger shape of things. Do you imagine, if the Republicans control all three branches of government, that they would not create a federal law that bans abortions everywhere? All signals point to that, and the overturning of Roe vs. Wade is there to remove friction to get there.

No post body was provided.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#426

Post by kdtsh »

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…

> I'll be the begrudging devils advocate

There are plenty of devils out there, they can advocate for themselves. This ruling can be as technically correct as anyone likes, but it is disastrous in every conceivable way. All this ultimately demonstrates is how feeble rights - real, natural rights - are under the American conception of federal constitutional rights.

Edit: there are a lot of people who are clearly very clever advocating for the devil. The devils have the best lawyers money can buy; all I can really suggest, as someone who is not American and not a woman, is that you advocate for human beings for a change.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#427

Post by MrDresden »

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…

No post body was provided.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#428

Post by wilsonnb3 »

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…

> 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.

The rights to choose your sexual partner and marry outside your race are also established in the Equal Protection clause, which gives them a stronger basis in the constitution than birth control and abortion which solely rely on substantive due process.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#429

Post by noasaservice »

There's some really ugly things now opened up - now there are no more protections for states to force an abortion or sterilization. A lot of 'undesirables' were sterilized in the early 20th century America, to the point that even Hitler in his Mein Kamph wrote highly about the US program of mass sterilization. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/feb/06/race.usa . This reversal re-allows this possibility.

In fact, according to what ICE was/is doing, is already happening to non-citizens at our borders https://forward.com/culture/454663/ice-hysterectomies-eugeni...

But next up is attacking Obergefell... So, if that's deemed unconstitutional, what happens to the gay and lesbian people who are married to same-sex partners? Are their marriages nullified? What of the legal issues in unwinding a marriage of X years?

And people who are trans - will they then have to "marry in line with respect to their listed gender"? Can their gender be changed legally? Will this pathway be available for gay and lesbian same-sex partners so they can "legally become opposite of their gender" to then re-marry their partners?

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#430

Post by rg111 »

YurgenJurgensen wrote: post #40
anonu wrote: post #8

Interestingly: The NYT link was written 4 hours ago (~6AM EST) - but the decision seems to have been released around ~10AM EST. I suppose everyone expected this post the leak. Without taking any side on this issue: this is a tough day in America, when a 50-year precedent is overturned.

I believe that pre-writing articles for both sides of major binary decisions and only releasing the one that turns out to be correct is standard practice at large news organisations, where the value of being first to publish is far higher than the cost of writing two articles.

Unrelated: A journalist friend told me that their (very big) media firm started writing obituaries of the public figures as soon as they landed in hospital and were old.

There were many (tens) obituaries written for the people who went to live on for more years or are are still living.

Post reply on HN