Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 217 posts

Re: South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion

#91

Post by tyleo »

buscoquadnary wrote: post #74
powerhour wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, the bounty hunter law is reprehensible, but not as much as the motivation behind it. Those with that motivation can be treated as a single group. And to be frank, I don't care if they're unhappy to be lumped together. Lie with dogs and all that.

Should every movement be painted with the same brush as the worst people in the movement?

Frankly I don’t think that the problem is that individuals who are part of the pro life movement are lumped in with the worst in the group. Rather, many who hold even less extreme pro life positions are still across the line of what others deem acceptable.

Re: South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion

#92

Post by lurquer »

AlexandrB wrote: post #13

> For the NRLC, which wrote the model legislation, limiting communication is a key part of the strategy to aggressively enforce laws restricting abortion. “The whole criminal enterprise needs to be dealt with to effectively prevent criminal activity,” Jim Bopp, the group’s general counsel, wrote in a July 4 memo, comparing the group’s efforts to fighting organized crime. This basically tells you everything you need t…

> The reversal or Roe was not about "kicking it back to the states", it was the first step in trying to make abortion access illegal nationwide.

Was this motive ever hidden?

Abortion should be illegal. I hope each state passes laws criminalizing it. That has always been the goal.

The ‘judicial philosophy’ crap emerged due TO roe V. wade. The decision made a mockery of the constitution.

The millions upon millions of people working and praying and picketing and voting on this issue for the past 40 years we’re doing it to save babies… not to defend some abstract philosophy.

Re: South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion

#93

Post by gmadsen »

softcactus wrote: post #50
32163704 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The reversal or Roe was not about "kicking it back to the states", it was the first step in trying to make abortion access illegal nationwide. Yes, and it makes me angry that so many commenters on this and other forums said, "Well, they have a point. It should be left to the states." As if women whose lives are at risk can wait for their judicial philosophy to cleanly play out; as if the raped 10 year old being forc…

Yep. It's frustrating to see the threads on HN of people talking about this as if it's only hypothetical. Like it's a change to the Linux kernel and not something that impacts thousands of people every day. I don't care about the technical mechanisms of implementation, I care about how it affects the people around me dammit.

i get your point, but a bad change to the linux kernel could impact billions of people

Re: South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion

#94

Post by andsoitis »

smoldesu wrote: post #66
andsoitis wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But opposing abortion and not caring about the consequences for women and families IS appalling.

Edit: I misread the parent quote.

> largely pulled back because it's constitutional basis was too weak to defend in the Supreme Court

"large pulled back" belies the fact that the motives are ulterior.

> consequences are largely left up to the people who choose to use those things

In the case of banning abortion, you're denying choice and autonomy. You're saying a woman HAS to give birth even if it wasn't her choice. Even if she was raped. Even if she's 10 years old.

If you don't find that stance appalling, I don't know what to say.

Re: South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion

#95

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

FredPret wrote: post #64

Quoted post unavailable.

> What with the Democrats being further left than ever

I'm not sure where you're getting that idea. The democrats have been moving towards "the center" so hard that it has pushed the republicans to the extreme right such that many of them now simply refuse to recognize the results of elections that don't go their way.

About the only thing in the platform that's gotten more progressive is the stuff about LGBTQ+.

Re: South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion

#96

Post by plorg »

jasonshaev wrote: post #16

Not a lawyer but doesn't this have serious 1st amendment problems? Article gets into this a bit: "Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, said the First Amendment and Section 230, a bill that shields internet providers and tech companies from liability for the posts, photos and videos people share on their sites, provide a strong defense in many instances for websites and providers facing l…

It only has 1st amendment problems if the courts care. Making abortion illegal is an ideological project that the majority of the current SCOTUS and their acolytes has been working towards for at least 40 years. If you think they're going to let the plain text of the constitution, federal law, or its interpreted tradition get in the way of that you have not been paying attention.

Re: South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion

#97

Post by lotsofpulp »

radford-neal wrote: post #89
meepmorp wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bill is a proposed law, by definition. You're assuming bad faith where there isn't any.

The headlines says "South Carolina bill outlaws websites...". That is dishonest, because of the verb tense. The honest phrasing would be "South Carolina bill would outlaw websites..." Nobody would say "Terrorist bombed subway" when they meant "Terrorist would have bombed subway" (except that they were stopped, and didn't get the chance).

It seems meepmorp is correct, because in this context, bill already means “proposed law”, so “bill would outlaw” is redundant.

Re: South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion

#98

Post by MisterBastahrd »

dontcare007 wrote: post #4
jaskyle wrote: post #2

Quoted post unavailable.

Depends almost wholly on how the state Constitution was written. As long as it doesn't fall afoul of the US Constitution. And it's hardly trying to be North Korea. Hysterics don't help, and actually hurt any rational discussion.

Unironically using the term "hysterics" to talk about the outrage regarding an abolition of women's healthcare...

Re: South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion

#100

Post by MisterBastahrd »

user3939382 wrote: post #29

Quoted post unavailable.

None of these states passing these laws can even pay for their own infrastructure.

So much for that whole "taking responsibility for our decisions" nonsense.

Also, if you're gonna discuss religion, then you should know that there's a fairly plausible non-supernatural explanation for how Mary became pregnant with Jesus without having sexual relations with Joseph. It's not even particularly interesting when you think about it.

Post reply on HN