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

141–150 of 217 posts

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

#141

Post by fipar »

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 isn't the case elsewhere in the world.

Do you know of countries with a federal government and where people can't travel freely between the member states? The ones I know don't have this problem so I'm not sure how that's something unique to the US.

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

#142

Post by hotpotamus »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #135
hotpotamus wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To listen to conservatives, we spent most of the 20th century creating violation after violation of the constitution. If they're correct, then to me that means that the constitution hasn't worked in about a century.

> to me that means that the constitution hasn't worked in about a century The century that saw America exit WWII and the Cold War victorious while navigating a civil rights revolution? All amidst a series of peaceful transitions of powers, including the removal of a corrupt executive?

I believe a conservative would say those ends don't justify the constitutional defying means that we used to achieve them. I mean, they wouldn't say that because it sounds crazy, but if you piece together what they say about the constitution, that's the message that comes through to me.

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

#143

Post by salawat »

Hello First Amendment challenge/overturn in the making.

Hosting a website:Free Speech/Freedom of the Press(You are the Press when you're hosting a website)

If they try to go the interstate commerce route, they'll be punting up to Federal jurisdiction which will be DoA.

Also hello, new incentive to creatively communicate in code if they even try to effectively enforce this.

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

#144

Post by radford-neal »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #131
radford-neal wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is my fault for not knowing a definition of a word.

So you're fine with the media trying to exploit common misconceptions to mislead their readers? Maybe they could get you to believe something false if you have the common misconception regarding the meanings of "infer" and "imply". Or how about "flaunt" versus "flout" - getting readers to believe falsehoods with clever use of those words it totally fair game, I guess?

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

#145

Post by JumpCrisscross »

hotpotamus wrote: post #142
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> to me that means that the constitution hasn't worked in about a century The century that saw America exit WWII and the Cold War victorious while navigating a civil rights revolution? All amidst a series of peaceful transitions of powers, including the removal of a corrupt executive?

I believe a conservative would say those ends don't justify the constitutional defying means that we used to achieve them. I mean, they wouldn't say that because it sounds crazy, but if you piece together what they say about the constitution, that's the message that comes through to me.

> believe a conservative would say those ends don't justify the constitutional defying means that we used to achieve them

One can say many things. At the end of the day, the track record stands for itself.

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

#146

Post by dragonwriter »

32163704 wrote: post #136
dragonwriter wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The first amendment doesn't have anything to say about the Internet, so it doesn't apply. Moreover, when taking that mode of interpretation, it doesn't say anything about the States, nor does the 14th Amendment say anything about some of the rights protected against federal intrusion by the Bill of Rights.

I believe the process you’re talking about is called incorporation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of... The Court will rely on this precedent where convenient, I suspect.

What I am talking about is that the particular mode of originalism that seems to have been adopted in Dobbs (and especially the extension specifically naming the broader doctrine of substantive due process as needing reconsideration in Thomas’ concurrence) is one which it is hard to see incorporation under the due process clause surviving if applied in any intellectually consistent, coherent manner.

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

#147

Post by jasonshaev »

plorg wrote: post #96
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.

I have been paying attention :). For what it's worth, a handful of recent state laws restricting speech have been struck down by the courts (Florida social media bill) or are blocked from being enforced (Texas social media bill blocked by Supreme Court) or are in the process of being litigated (Florida stop WOKE act).

While none of those bills related to abortion, I'm still skeptical the courts would let this bill stand

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

#148

Post by rayiner »

32163704 wrote: post #23
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. 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…

You've got it precisely backwards. It is because the abortion issue is so weighty that it should be resolved according to the legal processes set out in the Constitution. Federalism, separation of powers, etc., aren't for the easy stuff. They exist to allow a large and diverse nation--full of people who have different values and often actively hate each other--to cohere as a single unit.

No other developed country has approached the abortion issue by saying "pfft the rules don't matter." The EU Court of Human Rights just last year refused to recognize a universal right to elective abortions. In every European country where abortion is legal, advocates of abortion made their case to the people, and the people decided whether to allow it and under what circumstances. In some cases it took a long time--Ireland legalized it just in 2018. But that's how civilized societies operate.

Your thinking is how third world countries operate. They say "lives are at stake" (or something similarly weighty) and use that to justify ignoring the legal process. As someone from one of those countries let me tell you that you do not want to go down that road. The rules are more important than anything else. They are more important than any individual lives. Because the rules are what make civilization possible. If you disregard the rules on issues that you deem sufficiently important to you, that frees the other side to ignore the rules on issues they deem sufficiently important to them, and it goes quickly downhill from there.

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

#149

Post by xnx »

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…

> in their mind they're fighting Al Capone.

In their mind they think they're fighting Satan.

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

#150

Post by rayiner »

softcactus wrote: post #112
linuxftw wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Quoted post unavailable.

> Since you have shown you have limited capacity for empathy, try imagining that this 10 year old girl was someone related to you. Maybe even your own daughter. Would you still be aloofly invoking the legalist stance, as if it's ridiculous to demand that laws be just? No, you would be kicking and screaming and crying because of how unfair it is.

The rule of law exists precisely because of the temptation to think with our "empathy" instead of our brains.

Post reply on HN