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

721–730 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#721

Post by Ekaros »

vbtemp wrote: post #205
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…

> ""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." I think was this was meant to mean was: Any citizen has the right to join their local/state militia, and keep their service rifle and uniform with them at home.

So if a group of people form a militia, do they then as militia have right to produce let's say nuclear weapons? As those are "arms" and thus shall not be infringed. Can federal government or state control what type of weapons these militias manufacture, import and hold?

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#722

Post by chasd00 »

fulvioterzapi wrote: post #686
cmollis wrote: post #525

When I was a child in the Catholic Church (70s and 80s) there was NEVER any political discussion that entered into the service (“..render unto caesar what is caesar’s..” or ‘separation of church and state’. Or, more probable, perhaps it was felt that it simply was not the forum for present-day politics. I don’t know). Since lapsed, A few years ago I was encouraged by a priest, as he enjoyed his fourth old fashioned,…

> What I witnessed was no less than a 45 minute diatribe on the dangers of abortion, casting various aspersions (ad hominem) on any political leader not on board with new political agenda of the Catholic Church. A typical Catholic Mass lasts less than one hour. Most of the Mass follows a fixed, prescribed set of prayers and readings, that have nothing to do with politics. In the middle there's a sermon, that usually…

Not sure why you’re downvoted, my wife is catholic and you’re right on every point. I would even go further and say deviating from the standard ritual of catholic mass is probably a big no-no in the church and could land a priest in hot water.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#723

Post by DesiLurker »

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…

thats the thing, we dont even know what sentient life means. we arbitrarily define it as human and nothing else (hence we are okay with killing billions of animals for food yearly, not debating that just making a point). so if we are not sure when the life begins indeed we should be more considerate of other factors/right that we may be impacting like womens right to bodily autonomy or even just safety.

None of that matters to these zealots. taking a step back, if you look at it with your real world glasses (i.e.. not lawyer ones) you'll realize this is just a bunch of religious crowd trying to backdoor their religion into law. I mean realistically how much of self doubt and introspection Trump crowd you think has had about this issue? How many of them do you think would even be participating in these debates except to 'trigger the libs'?

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#724

Post by noelsusman »

gonehome wrote: post #516
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…

While I personally have strong pro-choice views I think this was correctly decided for the reasons you state. Abortion is a case where there is genuine disagreement among the public and at its core exists a genuine moral question. Most partisans talk past each other, but the core of it is about the rights of the unborn and at which point that becomes relevant. It's different because of this from gay rights and contra…

Roe and Casey recognized and dealt with the competing interests involved in abortion. That's why it allowed some restrictions on abortion while declining to do so for similar issues like contraception, interracial marriage, and gay marriage. The status quo did not ignore the interests of the unborn child, while the new status quo completely ignores the interests of the woman.

Reproductive rights are fundamental to women's liberty and equality. They should be protected by the courts like many other fundamental rights, not subject to the whims of political majorities.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#725

Post by lovich »

cryptonector wrote: post #519
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…

Yes. In fact, this ruling might well lead to an end of Republican majorities in red States, and to multi-decadal Democrat rule. Certainly that is likely if: a) public opinion is strongly in favor of some legal abortion, and b) Republicans ignore that and move to ban all abortions. In 1992 Republicans ran on abortion and lost badly. In 1994 they ran on everything-but-abortion and won big. So there is precedent for the…

In 1992 they had to win the majority of the vote in elections to win seats, but they have innovated around that restriction in the past 30 years, so no, there isn’t a good expectation that this will make them lose

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#726

Post by Dracophoenix »

dragonwriter wrote: post #495
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…

> States rights has always been a double edged sword No, “states rights”, in the US, has only ever been invoked for state-sanctioned repression. There is no other edge. (Both sides of the tighter/looser federalism argument can be viewed as double-edged, but “states rights” has a very particular history.)

There was the Nullification crisis, wherein South Carolina attempted to secede as a consequence of Jackson's government applying heavy tariffs on Southern states.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#727

Post by TylerE »

bko wrote: post #647
cmollis wrote: post #525

When I was a child in the Catholic Church (70s and 80s) there was NEVER any political discussion that entered into the service (“..render unto caesar what is caesar’s..” or ‘separation of church and state’. Or, more probable, perhaps it was felt that it simply was not the forum for present-day politics. I don’t know). Since lapsed, A few years ago I was encouraged by a priest, as he enjoyed his fourth old fashioned,…

The framing of this debate is often religious, but it doesn't have to be. The fact is that at some point between inception and time of delivery, the fetus becomes a person and has some rights. Most people agree that it's probably not inception and it's probably not the moment before birth. So the question is when does this happen? In that way, the pro-life crowd has at least a closer framing of the issue. The pro-cho…

I would take the pro-lifers arguments a lot more seriously if 98% of them weren't pro-military and pro-death penalty.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#728

Post by chimprich »

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…

> It is good for unelected bodies like the Supreme Court to allow such dividing issues be figured out democratically.

Speaking as an outsider on American politics, it seems to me that it won't be figured out democratically. If it was done democratically, on a nationwide vote, abortion would easily stay legal.

What will actually happen is that the decision will be referred to states, where government is elected on small turnouts, in gerrymandered divisions, heavily influenced by untrue TV propaganda funded by billionaires, and in many cases elected based on supposed economic reasons, not any moral ones.

The effective result is that vulnerable young women will be forced to carry unwanted babies to term at the cost of great suffering to themselves and the resultant children.

> with all political sides to blame.

I can only see one side to blame here.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#729

Post by Zigurd »

There is a reason this decision is so backward-looking and out of touch with the general trend in favor of the rights of women globally. This is the fulfillment of a religious fundamentalist, dominionist agenda. That's invisible to most people in the tech industry because tech is mostly irreligious. The nation as a whole is increasingly irreligious.

Don't argue the case. Marginalize the dominionists. Neutralize their effectiveness. Exclude them from institutions and communities. Dominionism is a movement closely related to white supremacism and the American flavor of fascism. It is as fundamentally dangerous as those related movements. Debating dominionists is just as useless as debating neonazis, and for the same reasons.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#730

Post by aaplok »

I remember reading an article back in 2015-16 where the author argued that Trump's election was exactly about Ros vs Wade. Specifically they explained that a number of SCOTUS judges were expected to be appointed during the term. Once enough conservative judges were in place, one of the conservative States was going to pass a law with the express goal that it be challenged in front of the SCOTUS,so that they could overturn Roe vs Wade.

That is precisely what happened. I wish I had kept that article, given how impressively prescient it was. Sadly I don't even know where to start looking.

There is a lot that blows my mind with this. The level of planning involved, and the willingness by the American right to set the country on fire to be able to control women's right is just amazing.

Post reply on HN