791–800 of 1001 posts
I almost lost my wife due to the Catholic Hospital's policy against D&C procedures. Had the OBGYN not put his career on the line, and over-riding the prohibition on the procedure, she would have died. Now that same hurdle can become risking prison. A few years later, we were blessed with a child who is doing well. I would have neither if not for Roe v. Wade. This isn't about abortion, it's about denying healthcare!
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…
Next up on the chopping block will be voting rights. SCOTUS will act to ensure that disenfranchisement is perfectly legal and that attempts to help disenfranchised people vote are illegal.
We are currently in a recession that will likely turn into a depression of epic proportions. Republicans are going to walk away with the midterms and next presidency. They will use the food/stability crisis we are as justification for further attacking blue states and attempting to bend them.
That's assuming they don't just impeach Biden then throw him and his staff in prison once they have control of the Senate and House.
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,…
Me when Catholicism incorporates local facist evangelicalism: Well this fucking sucks. What the fuck.
> The sad part of democracy is that it aims to represent the views of the voting majority. That's warped by the fact that rural votes count more than urban votes thanks to the electoral college.
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…
So it's bad law for 3 reasons: (1) Stare Decisis and Reliance: two legal standards that had restrained even right-wing courts for years. It's legal, but "bad", for the Court to overturn a long-standing law that people organize their lives around (as they did post sexual-revolution). So the standard isn't "is it wrong," it's "is it egregiously wrong." And the court has found multiple times that Roe is fine. (2) The de…
(2) Roe vs Wade is not premised on the 9th amendment (as much as I would have liked that) or cases involving substantive due process (Lochner vs New York), but on Griswold vs Connecticut, which relied an unsubstantiated argument of "penumbras" and "emanations", as though rights can be "found" in the same way that one summons Captain Planet. Roe vs Wade does not make a protestation to the defense of bodily autonomy as a fundamental right. In fact, Roe explicitly rejects such arguments.
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.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31862258&p=2
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31862258&p=3 [etc.]
If you're adding comments or intending to, please make sure you're up on the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
I almost lost my wife due to the Catholic Hospital's policy against D&C procedures. Had the OBGYN not put his career on the line, and over-riding the prohibition on the procedure, she would have died. Now that same hurdle can become risking prison. A few years later, we were blessed with a child who is doing well. I would have neither if not for Roe v. Wade. This isn't about abortion, it's about denying healthcare!
i m very happy for you but this is about abortion, a right that every civilized person should enjoy. i m not even american but this is bad
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…
The problem with this reasoning is that the democratic process has been successfully gerrymandered in many states to a point where "the voting majority " is longer in a position to truly decide.
I get the foundational point you're trying to make (about states' rights having value), at least as a concept. But if you're of the belief that "if the voting majority truly cares" then over time the situation will mostly right itself -- and millions of women of all income levels (not just the poor) will not have to suffer the direst of consequences, while you sit back and wait for your prediction to come true -- you are very tragically mistaken.
But, the Supreme Court should not be responsible for managing dysfunction in other branches of govt.
Simply put, you are imputing a motive to the 1973 Court that wasn't there. The 1973 decision was made on foundational grounds (having to do with a certain constitutional amendment which, something tells me, you also believe very strongly in the value of), and in view of competing interests.
You can question the wisdom of the decision all you like, but the idea that it was handed down to "manage the dysfunction of other branches of govt" is supported neither by the factual history of the case -- nor by the Court's own writings at the time the decision was made.
https://www.yellowhammerfund.org/
In their words: "The Yellowhammer Fund is a 501(c)3 abortion fund and reproductive justice organization serving Alabama, Mississippi, and the Deep South. We envision a society in which reproductive decisions are made free from coercion, shame, or state interference, a society in which individuals and communities have autonomy in making healthy choices regarding their bodies and their futures. We commit ourselves to community education and empowerment, policy advocacy, and the development of systems of mutual aid to ensure that our friends, families, and neighbors never go without the things they need."