Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade • Hacker News Board

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#501

Post by germinalphrase » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 4:33 PM UTC

zackees wrote: post #434

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…

Quoted post unavailable.

Gerrymandering is an explicitly anti-democratic mechanism to allow for persistent minority rule. Both parties are engaging in this process and benefit in a localized way - but the US population a whole loses.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#502

Post by cryptonector » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 4:33 PM UTC

LatteLazy wrote: post #294

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…

People hate to admit it but the court is just another political entity and always has been. The basis for Roe was weak (bodily autonomy, privacy). So is the basis for literally all gun control: >> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." So anyone, including children, the insane, felons etc has a right to bear "…

Ah, an excellent comment.

Yes, the courts generally lag public opinion, but eventually side with it. Whether regarding interracial marriage, birth control, gun control, and many other things. If anything, Roe was an outlier because in 1972 the public was probably mostly unconcerned about abortion and, if pressed, probably not broadly for it to be legal.

If, indeed, more than half the States were to legalize civilian possession of heavy weapons, then the courts might rule that to be covered by the second amendment. And since none do, the court will feel safe ending the second amendment's shade at small-caliber firearms.

One might wish for the courts to act very differently than this, but then we'd probably see large majorities in favor of reforming them to be as they are.

It's a problem, though, that we have such disparities in public opinion between various States.

By the way, this decision may well cause the end of Republican rule in many Republican States if their legislatures get too excited about banning more abortion options than the people of those States want them to. It might well usher a multi-decadal Democrat majority in the State legislatures and in the Federal government. It could very well be a Pyrrhic victory for pro-life activists.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#503

Post by rg111 » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 4:33 PM UTC

thriftwy wrote: post #26

(edited) It's not like you had any more urgent issues than this? That move greatly reinforces Galkovsky's position that USA is now a Latin American country not unlike Brazil; and indeed, Latin American countries also deeply care about this (non)issue and have abortion laws inappropriate to their general level of economical and human development. The problem being, at least Brazil recognizes that it is Brazil and know…

Religious issues are how you get votes. And that is how you can be in power to help your crony capitalist friends.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#504

Post by uniqueuid » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 4:33 PM UTC

rich_sasha wrote: post #484

I'm asking in good faith, and ask for answers in the same: in a pro-choice framework, why do in-womb Homo Sapiens Sapiens have no rights to be considered, vis a vis the rights of the mother? In this context, I'm not implying that an unborn human's rights override those of its mother, nor imply what the right balance should be (50:50? 20:80? 80:20?). But pro-choice arguments tend to assume that the in-womb human has n…

Why should you first put on your own oxygen mask on a plane in the event of decompressing, before helping others?

Because the damage is much greater otherwise. A child brought into this world under duress, to an unprepared mother and/or unprepared parents will have all the odds against him/her. There's a greater risk of dying. Of poverty. Of sickness. Of crime.

It's not that the unborn has no rights. It's rather that these rights cannot be realized partially. It's either the full package or none.

So just like the US electoral system, some people are in favor of abortion even if they are 49% in favor of the embryo.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#505

Post by charwalker » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 4:34 PM UTC

lesstyzing wrote: post #209

duped wrote: post #99

I'm tired of having the minority religious and bigoted views dominate politics and starve us of progress. Regardless of what the "right" ruling is on the law, or the roles of the different branches of government, the practical impact of this ruling is millions of Americans denied the right to healthcare while simultaneously being denied free access to any democratic process to secure it.

>> I'm tired of having the minority religious and bigoted views dominate politics and starve us of progress. Is it minority views? Surely, when it comes down to states legislating this, people can make their opinion heard at the ballet box. And if a majority of people in a state vote conservative and abortion is restricted then we are legislating based on the wants of the majority. It will be interesting to see if th…

It's hugely minority. 60-73% support abortion access the question is where the limits/timelines should be and that number is only growing especially now that there is a spotlight on the issue. You will now see some 18 mostly small population red states pass extreme laws restricting abortion access while a majority of voters even in those states are against such laws.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#506

Post by snoopy_telex » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 4:34 PM UTC

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…

Roe was also a basis for many other ruling and this opens for them to be overturned as well.

THOMAS, J., concurring

“For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#507

Post by thomastjeffery » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 4:34 PM UTC

jawns wrote: post #268

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…

> while Jesus Christ never gave to abortion the slightest mention Did the U.S. Constitution give abortion the slightest mention? No, the right to abortion was inferred from a right to privacy, which was inferred from several amendments that did not explicitly mention abortion or privacy. The Ninth Amendment does makes allowance for rights that aren't explicitly enumerated, but it doesn't really give any guidance on h…

As far as Christianity goes, equating Abortion to murder has only recently become the popular interpretation. Not only is it written multiple times in The Bible that life begins at breath, The Bible even contains instructions on how and when to perform abortion.

As far as the constitution goes, amendments are treated as part of the text, not gotchas. The constitution protects your right to keep the contents of your pockets and your home private. Why not the contents of your uterus?

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#508

Post by rt4mn » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 4:34 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…

> It merely decided that it is not currently protected by constitution, which to me seems completely correct.

First off, It was a momentous decision. It did not "merely" decide anything.

Second, a right does not need to be explicitly spelled out in the constitution to be a constitutionally protected right. The right to an abortion is a clear and rational outgrowth of the constitutional protections of privacy and bodily autonomy (IE, the right to not have the government mess with our shit for no good reason).

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#509

Post by timbit42 » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 4:34 PM UTC

matthewfelgate wrote: post #400

Sorry but the USA is mental. Why have a unelected supreme court making political decisions?

If it were elected it would be more political. Perhaps a better way would be to allow each party to prioritize a list of potential judges and appoint the one closest to the middle of each list.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#510

Post by Jason_Protell » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 4:35 PM UTC

For those who say this is the logically correct decision, how exactly did you conclude that?

-

USA Constitution

14th Amendment

Section 1

...no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws...

-

The constitution clearly says that states cannot enforce laws that deprive citizens of their lives and liberties.

Now, states have renewed authority to deprive at-risk women their right to life-saving medical procedures. Please explain to me how this doesn't violate 14A.