Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade • Hacker News Board

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#431

Post by andrew_ » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 4:19 PM UTC

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.

It's just as feasible that Democrats control all three, and it's happened before. The Democratic party had complete control over both Houses and the presidency from 1933 to 1947, 1949–1953, and 1961–1969; 26 years of full control of the legislative and executive branches thanks to the New Deal Coalition. By 1939, FDR had formed a more liberal court through his appointments, and that lasted a while through this Democratic control of the branches into the 1950s.

As the pendulum swings, so does policy. It would be more difficult IMHO if there were more than two parties.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#432

Post by coryfklein » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 4:19 PM UTC

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.

> if the Republicans control all three branches of government, that they would not create a federal law that bans abortions everywhere?

If the voting public of the US shifts to where it adopts a view you disagree with then of course the democratic institution would continue to reflect the public.

But we have good reason to believe this will never happen. Polling shows that most individuals support a woman's right to abortion. And even if the Republican party gained control of all 3 branches, they aren't a monolithic and unified block when it comes to policy. "States rights" is a HUGE motivation for most Republicans, and a federal policy banning abortion would be a big stumbling block for getting the votes to pass such legislation even with a Republican majority.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#433

Post by zeroonetwothree » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 4:19 PM UTC

katabasis wrote: post #183

If Republicans take back congress and the presidency in the next election cycles, a national abortion ban becomes a serious possibility. This is not just a "red states" issue. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/11/us/anti-abortion-movement...

They would have to get rid of the filibuster, which seems unlikely.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#434

Post by zackees » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 4:19 PM UTC

nus07 wrote: post #391

I fail to see what moderates can do in a two party system where gerrymandering is so heavily done that often Democrats have to win 3-1 to control any majority. At this point I see it as a fight between rich landowners+business owners+religion vs all the rest of the people . For a country where political lobbying and donations to effect legal decisions is common , I do not expect judgements to ever be fair. The battle…

No post body was provided.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#435

Post by bushbaba » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 4:20 PM UTC

TameAntelope wrote: post #410

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?

You’re assuming the rest of the country shares your views. A large portion of America views abortion as murder.

I do NOT share that viewpoint. But we are a republic. And the Supreme Court doesn’t issue law, that’s Congress’s responsibility.

What this represents is not a code refactor but a Change to a comment in the code base on what a function does.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#436

Post by Slow_Hand » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 4:20 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.

The ACA was already getting a lot of challenges and multiple attempts to repeal it from day one. I imagine that throwing abortion protections into the mix was deemed to be a poor tactical choice at that moment because it would enflame many of the ACA’s political opponents further and perhaps bring new adversaries into the fold.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#437

Post by cryptonector » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 4:20 PM UTC

colinmhayes wrote: post #253

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…

The US has a common law system, which means supreme court precedent is binding. Once a case is decided courts aren't supposed to decide the same case in the other direction. The supreme court has decided many cases showing that Americans have the right to abortion until viability. Undoing that precedent is a largely unprecedented move. The New York carry case seems like it was probably decided correctly, what's inter…

Brown vs. Board of Education undid a ~60 year precedent. This case undoes a 50 year precedent.

The court has to be allowed to undo precedents once in a while. Otherwise we'd have to fight a civil war over every Dred Scott case.

I'm NOT saying this case, or yesterday's, was rightly decided. I'm only pointing out that the court has changed its mind a number of times in the past, and will again in the future.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#438

Post by car_analogy » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 4:20 PM UTC

causi wrote: post #416

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.

There's a much better argument to legalizing abortion, that holds even if one considers fetuses as persons. In that just as one may not be forced to donate organs or even just blood to save someone else's life, by the same logic, one cannot be forced to bear a child.

Of course this is an ethical, not legal argument, so I don't know how it would translate to US law.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#439

Post by fassssst » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 4:20 PM UTC

bambax wrote: post #155

The fact that the same institution (SCOTUS), reading the same text (US Constitution) could conclude that abortion is a right, then isn't, tells us much of what we need to know about said institution, text... and certainly "historicism" as well. It's all arbitrary; clever and well-read people spending a lot of time justifying and rationalizing their predjudice.

It's about power over women and always was.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#440

Post by tantalor » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 4:20 PM UTC

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.

I think that's the right lens. Suppose you had a rare blood type that can prevent the death of somebody else; could the state compel you to donate blood? Or suppose we are at war and badly in need of blood donors of all types; same question.