South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by runako » Fri, Jul 22, 2022, 3:16 PM UTC

linuxftw wrote: post #86

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…

> 10 year old being forced to travel out of state People in the US are able to freely travel between states, this isn't the case elsewhere in the world. Some things are crimes in some jurisdictions and not others, this is normal. If you think it's inadequate, pass an amendment to the constitution, that's what the amendment process if for. If you think the process to too burdensome, encourage your state to secede.

> People in the US are able to freely travel between states

This is not a right that is specifically enumerated by the Constitution. The current Supreme Court has indicated that rights that are not specifically enumerated by the Constitution are subject to evaluation and curtailment.

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

#102

Post by SamoyedFurFluff » Fri, Jul 22, 2022, 3:16 PM UTC

linuxftw wrote: post #86

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…

> 10 year old being forced to travel out of state People in the US are able to freely travel between states, this isn't the case elsewhere in the world. Some things are crimes in some jurisdictions and not others, this is normal. If you think it's inadequate, pass an amendment to the constitution, that's what the amendment process if for. If you think the process to too burdensome, encourage your state to secede.

This comment isn’t acknowledging that long-term solutions are necessary but not sufficient to make whole the continued injustice of trauma and death that will result from laws that deprive reproduce rights. It’s important to keep in mind there is a current and ongoing number of people who are dying, who have died, who are being deprived medical care (some who aren’t even pregnant!) and that an amendment to the constitution will not right the wrongs made to them.

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

#103

Post by lotsofpulp » Fri, Jul 22, 2022, 3:16 PM UTC

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #76

EddieDante wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> If you oppose abortion, you're the enemy. I don't know about that; I think it is possible to oppose abortion, but not seek to do so via legal remedies. Like opposing drinking or smoking, or game microtransactions, or IoT devices.

In the context of this discussion, I think they meant “oppose access to abortion for those who want/need it”.

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

#104

Post by zuminator » Fri, Jul 22, 2022, 3:16 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #27

kop316 wrote: post #11

From the article: "South Carolina state senators introduced legislation that would make it illegal to “aid, abet or conspire with someone” to obtain an abortion." This bill isn't law, which is what I thought based on the headline.

Phrasing a proposed bill as if it has taken effect is a standard tactic to evoke extra emotion resulting in extra clicks. Edit: seems I was wrong because bill means proposed law, so the clarification would have been redundant

It's not a "proposed bill," it's a bill. A bill by definition is a proposed law. If someone reads the word "bill" in a headline and confuses it for a law that has been passed, that says more about that person's lack of engagement in the basic workings of government (or more charitably, just momentarily inattentive reading) than it does about some supposed tactics. Anybody can fool themselves once by eliding the difference between "bill" and "law," but if it keeps happening, blaming the writers for being tricky seems a bit misplaced.

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

#105

Post by radford-neal » Fri, Jul 22, 2022, 3:17 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #97

radford-neal wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Really? You can't see how the present tense is clearly intended to mislead the reader into believing that these websites are right now outlawed? Sure, it may fail to mislead some readers who are alert to the technical distinction between "bill" and "law". But they will succeed in misleading many readers.

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

#106

Post by lotsofpulp » Fri, Jul 22, 2022, 3:18 PM UTC

buscoquadnary wrote: post #90

EddieDante wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

See here's the problem that is plaguaging the discourse right now, instead of having a rational discussion the argument has devolved to people's emotions overruling everything. I understand this is an emotional issue but until everyone can agree to at least have a discussion about this without getting overemotional we can't have any discussion or compromise only polarization and that eventually leads to shooting and…

> we can't have any discussion or compromise only polarization and that eventually leads to shooting and a civil war.

Some things are not compromise-able.

> I mean my own sister told me she hopes my 2 year old daughter gets raped because of my position on this issue. Doesn't that strike anyone else as something that would deplorable under other circumstances but we excuse it right now because we believe the cause is righteous?

Source that “we” excuse wishing harm on another person for no reason, and an innocent toddler at that? It is so deplorable that I would need considerable proof to believe it even occurred, especially from an aunt to a niece.

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

#107

Post by rayiner » Fri, Jul 22, 2022, 3:18 PM UTC

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…

> These people want to put women in jail and they don't care about niceties.... 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

Which "these people" are you referring to? Roe was remarkable in its ability to unify disparate groups: evangelicals and Catholics who oppose abortion categorically, right-leaning independents who support some level of abortion but want more restrictions than Roe allows, and Constitutionalists who find Roe incomprehensible as an assertion of Constitutional law.

Now that Roe is gone, some of those folks will indeed try to "make abortion access illegal nationwide." But hardly everyone who opposed Roe to begin with: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/05/06/wide-partis.... Just 13% of Republicans are true believers who think abortion should be categorically illegal. The vast majority, 38% think it should be "legal in all or most cases." Most fall in the mushy middle.

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

#108

Post by tyleo » Fri, Jul 22, 2022, 3:18 PM UTC

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #95

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+.

My armchair theory is that most folks are still in the middle but people on the extreme edges of each party have gotten really big internet megaphones.

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

#109

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jul 22, 2022, 3:19 PM UTC

lurquer wrote: post #92

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 p…

[deleted]

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

#110

Post by jjulius » Fri, Jul 22, 2022, 3:20 PM UTC

linuxftw wrote: post #86

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…

> 10 year old being forced to travel out of state People in the US are able to freely travel between states, this isn't the case elsewhere in the world. Some things are crimes in some jurisdictions and not others, this is normal. If you think it's inadequate, pass an amendment to the constitution, that's what the amendment process if for. If you think the process to too burdensome, encourage your state to secede.

>People in the US are able to freely travel between states...

Easier said than done, for many.