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

821–830 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#821

Post by fassssst »

vitruvian_man wrote: post #341
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…

While I'm a strong supporter of abortion rights, I agree with this logic. If anything, this will force conservatives to solidify and clarify their views on abortion which will allow voters to decide where they land on the spectrum of abortion rights. Whereas before, conservatives just deferred to "abortion bad. look at supreme court decision". Also, is it not the case that most Americans support some abortion rights?…

Which is why they’re simultaneously trying to make it harder to vote.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#822

Post by bobthechef »

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,…

No post body was provided.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#824

Post by jonwithoutanh »

permo-w wrote: post #685
mmaunder wrote: post #372

I strongly recommend reading Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s thoughts on Roe v Wade in 1992 - expressed about a year before she became a Supreme Court justice. She describes Roe as a “breathtaking” decision and as interrupting a process already underway. Her discussion starts on page 1198 in this PDF which is a rewarding read if you have the time. I’m not advocating either way - I merely hope to present Justice Ginsbergs eloqu…

this may come across as emotional, and I suspect it is, so feel free to downvote me. but that person, dead or alive, is completely non-grata to me. she is a big part to blame for allowing the court to become so heavily conservative. if she had stood down in Obama's early years, when she was asked to, it would be a 5-4 split, and a good chance that they wouldn't have had the balls to follow through with this

No post body was provided.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#825

Post by jmyeet »

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…

Nothing that happened today has anything to do with democracy.

The Republicans have successfully infiltrated state legislatures, gerrymandered and some states now are effectively under one-party rule. Take Wisconsin [1] as an example:

> Back in 2018, Republicans lost the popular vote in the state Senate races by 52.3 percent to 46.9 percent, yet gained two seats for a 19-14 majority. In the state Assembly, they lost the popular vote 53.0 to 44.8, yet lost only one seat to retain a 63-36 supermajority

This gerymandering also affects Congressional maps. And the Senate [2]?

> ... the Senate will be split 50-50, but the Democratic half will represent 41,549,808 more people than the Republican half.

In the wake of 2020, red states have passed laws like Arizona [3] that will allow the legislature or appointed officgials to overturn election results.

And on top of all that one side conspired to "steal" the Supreme Court by sitting on Obama's nomination for almost a year and then later rushing their own replacement in the last month before an election.

And every Supreme Court justice appointed in the last 10 years has said on the record that Roe v. Wade was a super-precedent. And today they voted to overturn. They lied. They all lied.

This isn't a "both sides" issue. This is the rise of white Christian fascism vs the feckless controlled opposition party. "Bothsidesing" is both a logical fallacy and intellectually lazy (if not outright dishonest). It's like looking at Kristallnacht and saying "well both sides are at fault".

There is no "both sides" here. The myth of the "far left" just shows how normalized right-wing propaganda has become. There are lilke maybe 4 progressive members of Congress while on the other side Nazi propaganda is openly pushed [4] and QAnon conspiracies are rampant in the Republican party, which may go as far as including Clarence Thomas and his wife who may well have conspired to overthrow the government.

When people say "far left" or "hyperprogressive" they really means "trans rights". Not wanting to murder trans people doesn't make you a radical leftist.

Please open your eyes and stop this nonsense about bothsidesing and polarization.

[1]: https://theweek.com/republicans/1008820/wisconsins-1-party-r...

[2]: https://www.vox.com/2020/11/6/21550979/senate-malapportionme...

[3]: https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/591597-arizona-bill...

[4]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/30/us/tucker-carlson-gop-rep...

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#826

Post by lr4444lr »

mattnewton wrote: post #457
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…

Where you see delegating to the states, I see a minority (less than 30% of Americans agree with this) enforcing social views on the majority- and it will not stop here. Other things the Supreme Court has blocked state law using the same logic as roe v Wade (due process of the 14th amendment[0]) on are blocking contraception bans (grisewald), overturning anti-sodomy laws (lawrence), and giving equal protection to gay…

So, aren't you reinforcing his point, that the court is not a reliable place to make law? Today's decision is exactly that: the court acknowledging that its prior decision was an overstep in its power.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#827

Post by fredgrott »

A lot of people are missing a very important core issue

What Alito and others did by over turning a previous supreme court ruling is open the bad box in that any time a majority changes on the supreme court there will be an attempt to over turn past rulings not based upon law but based on feelings of the court.

the only sliver lining is that there is growing evidence that at least 3 supreme court justice might be impeached by year-end.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#828

Post by dragonwriter »

mattnewton wrote: post #457
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…

Where you see delegating to the states, I see a minority (less than 30% of Americans agree with this) enforcing social views on the majority- and it will not stop here. Other things the Supreme Court has blocked state law using the same logic as roe v Wade (due process of the 14th amendment[0]) on are blocking contraception bans (grisewald), overturning anti-sodomy laws (lawrence), and giving equal protection to gay…

> Other things the Supreme Court has blocked state law using the same logic as roe v Wade (due process of the 14th amendment[0]) on are blocking contraception bans (grisewald), overturning anti-sodomy laws (lawrence), and giving equal protection to gay marriage (obergafel).

Also, non-discrimination in public schooling, with mandatory integration (Brown) but even before integration was understood to be essential (Plessy, permitting “separate but equal” education.) Without substantive due process, state public education which is separate by race and makes no pretense of equality would be fine. Also, the incorporation of much of the Bill of Rights as applicable against the states, as a whole.

Substantive due process is enormous, and Thomas has explicitly stated that the entire jurisprudence in that domain should be uprooted in his concurrence on Dobbs.

(Ironically, this includes the applicability of the 2nd Amendment to the State.)

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#829

Post by abvdasker »

bloomingeek wrote: post #818

Now let's see if far right leaning adults start lining up in droves for foster/adoption care classes. This will let them put their time/money where their mouths are. Cause and affect: you don't want abortion, you now have to take care of those who are not wanted.

They obviously won't. The Republican Party is explicitly opposed to expansion of the social safety net which would support the children from unwanted pregnancies. Outlawing abortion has nothing to do with protecting children. It's about exerting religious control over women and that's it.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#830

Post by jsmith45 »

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…

My view has always been that it does not even matter if the fetus has full rights.

People do not have the right to physically attach themselves to another person, and leach blood, oxygen, nutrients, etc off the other person. Period. Fetuses would not be an exception. This is not a rights balancing issue. A woman has the complete and absolute right to stop another person from parasitically draining her of resources.

I feel that a person who wakes up with another person surgically attached to them by some sort of mad-scientist doctor could have surgery to have the second person removed, even if this means certain death for the second person. I don't view abortion as any different.

I could support a ban on abortion methods that directly kill the fetus, but as long as the method is primarily about severing the connection to the mother and removing it from the body, I see nothing wrong with that, even if removal means certain death for the fetus.

If people feel fetuses have human rights, I could also support laws or medical ethics requiring doctors to attempt to save the fetus after it is expelled (if the condition was such that saving them might be possible) just like they would try to save any other person.

Post reply on HN