Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

Yes, HN skews male.

I'm a woman and extremely poor. I've been a member for nearly thirteen years.

It's possible but challenging to present a female point of view here. Reproductive issues and what I generally think of as human sexual morality are always hard to talk about anywhere.

I think for a lot of women, this is a very threatening turn of events. That's going to make it challenging to discuss it in the rational style required by HN guidelines even before accounting for the gender ratio here.

I'm quite fond of HN and have come to see a lot of the practices here as not male per se but as best practices for public discourse and I have come to believe that women tend to be raised to engage in a fashion more appropriate for private discourse.

So I think there's a somewhat steep learning curve involved for most women that gets conflated with sexism and complicates attempts by women to give voice to a female point of view here.

If you can express yourself in accordance with best practices for public discourse, you can be heard here. Trying to figure out how to do that while not spazzing about sexism ...well, it's challenging and I think most women lack sufficient reason to keep at it, so they tend not to.

>I also think it’s pretty clear that, when one side believes abortion to be a totally unrestricted right despite never appearing in the constitution

The Supreme Court ruling on the Constitutionality of laws isn’t in the Constitution.

You’re describing a judicial philosophy (textualism) as if it were law, or some sacred edict from above. It’s not.

You’re pretending the “democratic process” isn’t broken. It is.

Remember: the legislature could have banned abortion outright, at any time. We didn’t need the courts to do that. It would just take an amendment to the Constitution.

Remember: a majority of people in the US want abortion to be legal. The court overruled that based on its own fetish for textualism.

It’s great that you want people to talk to each other. In the mean time, women will die.

> The Supreme Court returned the question to the legislative branch. That’s it.

What new legislation is required beyond the 4th and 9th amendments? Along with decades of legal precedent, these ALREADY protect US citizen's medical rights sufficiently. Yet the court saw fit to ignore them, effectively saying that a) we are no longer secure in our persons from unreasonable search if the state says so and b) rights retained by the people (but not explicitly in the constitution) can be denied by any legislature. This is a radical departure from our current legal structure, a complete re-interpretation of the constitution undertaken by activist judges behind closed doors in direct opposition to precedent and their public oaths - "That's it" doesn't begin to cover it.

“...Start with my record, my respect for precedent, my belief that it is rooted in the Constitution, and my commitment and its importance to the rule of law...” “...I understand precedent and I understand the importance of overturning it...”

“...Roe is 45 years old, it has been reaffirmed many times, lots of people care about it a great deal, and I’ve tried to demonstrate I understand real-world consequences...”

“...I am a don’t-rock-the-boat kind of judge. I believe in stability and in the Team of Nine...”

Brett M. Kavanaugh