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

471–480 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#471

Post by splitstud »

juve1996 wrote: post #393
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…

Roe V. Wade has decades of precedent. Even if the ruling was "horribly decided," this is not a good look for the legitimacy of the court. Especially at a time when the country is more polarized than ever. This is just horribly timed and will further split this country apart. This will be our century's dredd scott - the court "thought" this would settle the issue. But it won't: "Although Taney and several other justic…

No post body was provided.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#472

Post by l33t2328 »

GekkePrutser wrote: post #252
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…

I think the system is broken if the personal affiliations of supreme court judges plays such a big part in the outcome of cases. It should be about the law, not about politics. They're supposed to put that stuff aside when they take a legal office. Trias politica and all.

Laws are the result of politics. I think it doesn’t make sense to say you can interpret/reason about laws in a non political way.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#473

Post by api »

noslenwerdna wrote: post #447
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…

Where is gerrymandering so bad that Democrats have to win 3-1? This doesn't represent the experience of the median voter.

Gerrymandering needs to be tackled possibly at the level of a constitutional amendment, but like the filibuster it's a nonsense loophole power that neither side wants to give up.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#474

Post by legutierr »

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.

I wouldn’t say nobody. Certain schools of Islam explicitly teach that “ensoulment” of the fetus occurs after 120 days, as per my limited understanding. This timeframe largely coincides with the beliefs of a significant majority of Americans (per recent surveys) that abortion should be legal until the first few weeks of the second trimester.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensoulment#Islam

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#475

Post by thebooktocome »

noslenwerdna wrote: post #447
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…

Where is gerrymandering so bad that Democrats have to win 3-1? This doesn't represent the experience of the median voter.

Some of the maps proposed by the Ohio GOP this year (and rejected as unconstitutional by the Ohio Supreme Court) are close to this. I believe I read an estimate that the dems would need to average 70-30 statewide to control half the seats.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#476

Post by jandrese »

What I find interesting is how for many many years people thought Roe would be safe because it was mostly useful as a political tool. A wedge to drive into voting blocks to make sure they stay Republican despite everything else they are doing. It was in nobody's interest to actually repeal it. What nobody expected was for decades of indoctrination to produce true believers that would actually be elected to the Supreme Court.

So now we are in a situation where the dog has caught the car and it's not sure what happens now.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#477

Post by MandieD »

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.

And please remember that even a “normal” pregnancy can exact a heavy toll on the mother, physical and financial.

My back hurts constantly, but even worse when I pick up my much-desired child. He’s over 25 lbs now, and I dread what the next years until he’s able to climb up into an acceptable car seat on his own are going to be like.

I work part-time, and thank heavens Germany made my pre-pregnancy employer give me that option. One of the major factors in MLM prevalence in the US are the absolutely abysmal job prospects for anyone who can’t work full time - that is, many mothers of young children. My friends with preschool age kids who work full time only manage it because they have expensive daycare open from 7am - 6pm, pay nannies, and/or have spouses with less-intense (or no) jobs. This, of course, is only realistic for women with well-paid jobs.

And if one of you wants to respond, “adoption,” please remember the aforementioned physical wreckage, plus work-related difficulties. Germany encouraged my employer to let me stay home the six weeks before my due date and insisted I do so the right weeks after the birth, all at just about my previous net pay.

I don’t think that “slavery” is too strong a word for forcing someone to go through with an unwanted pregnancy, but others can call it “indentured servitude” if that makes them feel better.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#478

Post by coryfklein »

lghh wrote: post #118
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #25

I'm pro-choice but I still believe that this is the right move. > “My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.…

So you believe that doing the wrong thing for the right reason is better than doing the right thing for the wrong reason? That intent matters more than outcome? And that laws being structured in a way you specifically find compelling matters more than the morality of a law?

The Roe vs. Wade decision was the wrong way to solve the problem because it specifically set the stage for decades where the legislature didn't enshrine abortion as a right, and thus left it up for grabs to be taken back away only decades later. Ruth Bader Ginsburg argues that if Roe vs. Wade had been less sweeping, that the existing cultural movement in favor of women's rights would have naturally led to the protection of this right on a more fundamental and long lasting level.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#479

Post by qorrect »

voisin wrote: post #88
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…

> I hope that whomever supported this ruling is happy right now, and I'd like to remind them that, while Jesus Christ never gave to abortion the slightest mention, he was quite vocal about the fact that greed was not compatible with salvation. I'd like to see Evangelicals and other Christians being as vocal for social justice as they were for abortions and same sex marriage, but I guess they do care more about puttin…

What possible argument against abortion exists besides "religion" ?
Post reply on HN