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

171–180 of 217 posts

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

#171

Post by JumpCrisscross »

hotpotamus wrote: post #165
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> many do not like that track record This is separate from the question of whether the Constitution worked. It did. It produced a stable, powerful society. That some people are dissatisfied doesn’t refute that track record. It just points out there are dimensions on which it failed some.

My understanding is that conservative do not believe the constitution worked; they believe that the original intent is no longer honored and they have set about a legal project to correct that wrong which is now well in control of the court system and get back to the original intent of the constitution (the original intent being what they derive it to be from their readings of history and the text itself). That those…

> it does suggest that we are probably on a different track now, no?

Possibly. Let’s see what happens. The limited claim was that the Constitution worked over the past century. Saying some people are unhappy about the particular way it worked doesn’t detract from the fact itself.

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

#173

Post by dragonwriter »

willcipriano wrote: post #164
dragonwriter wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It explicitly says Congress however it is currently interpreted that it applies to all governmental organizations. Federal, state and local. No, it isn't. States are limited by the 14th Amendment. Now, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to apply a whole lot of substantive rights against the states, including rights exactly identical to those protected against federal inte…

> that states can regulate purely intrastate Commerce is not subject to serious dispute. > The argument is that the interstate commerce clause itself prohibits many state regulations of interstate commerce If you argue that states have the right to regulate interstate commerce AND the congress can pass a bill in regards to abortion because doing so is in the interest of interstate commerce. Then why can't a state pas…

> If you argue that states have the right to regulate interstate commerce

States have the power to regulate intrastate commerce within their own state. They have very limited power with regard to interstate commerce (limited, very roughly, to nondiscriminatory regulation of transactions within the state which impact interstate commerce and where such regulation also is not in conflict with federal regulation of interstate commerce), because interstate commerce is expressly Constitutionally a federal function, and state action in that domain otherwise interferes with that federal function. A more expansive view of the federal power here narrows, rather than expands, the state power.

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

#174

Post by 32163704 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #146
32163704 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Agreed. If it does stand, it will be in order to maintain ideological consistency, not judicial consistency. What a mess.

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

#176

Post by EddieDante »

loudmax wrote: post #113
EddieDante wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

I'm pro-choice but I disagree with your comment. There is an enormous moral gulf between an abortion early into pregnancy and abortion late into pregnancy. There absolutely are misogynists and hypocrites among the pro-life/anti-choice movement, but not everyone in that movement is at the extreme. Those of us who want abortion to be legal nationwide must acknowledge the ethical complexity of terminating an unwanted pr…

> There is an enormous moral gulf between an abortion early into pregnancy and abortion late into pregnancy.

According to your morals, perhaps. But I don't share your morals. As far as I'm concerned, if it can't breathe on its own it's not a baby. Likewise if it hasn't been gestated long enough that it can be cared for in the NICU.

We tried to be reasonable and limit abortion access to the end of the second trimester, but that wasn't good enough for some people. No, some of these assholes want to ban abortion after six weeks when some women can go that long before even realizing they're pregnant.

I'm sick of "acknowledging the ethical complexity". Our opposition doesn't, and that's why they keep kicking our fucking asses.

https://www.marchofdimes.org/complications/premature-babies....

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

#177

Post by 32163704 »

rayiner wrote: post #148
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…

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 ha…

> that frees the other side to ignore the rules on issues they deem sufficiently important to them, and it goes quickly downhill from there.

We’re already there. That’s already happened. Stare decisis — remember when all the justices who just ruled to overturn Roe called it “settled law”? Remember when the Republican Senate refused to consider Obama’s Supreme Court nominee? Remember when the courts gutted the voting rights act? Remember when the courts determined the outcome of Bush v Gore? The side that “won” this argument didn’t do it by playing by the rules. Because the court doesn’t have rules. The constitution doesn’t outline any of the philosophy that you are calling “rules.” So sitting back and saying “let’s just play by the rules” is handing a victory to a side that doesn’t care for them.

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

#178

Post by 32163704 »

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 free to not get raped, too, but unfortunately there are circumstances where that freedom is severely abridged.

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

#179

Post by EddieDante »

buscoquadnary wrote: post #115
lotsofpulp wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think that want/need is doing a lot of work here. One can be in favor of abortions for medical necessity or when the choice to get pregnant was not consensual while still being wildly opposed to abortions for convenience reasons.

I've known women who have had miscarriages, and I've known women who for various reasons have had to terminate their pregnancies. Abortion is only "convenient" compared to being stuck raising a kid you aren't ready and willing to raise, giving birth to a kid that's going to have special needs because of genetic defects, or trying to carry a pregnancy to term that's likely to kill you.

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

#180

Post by edmundsauto »

ChrisLomont wrote: post #70
carbadtraingood wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amendment that was ratified in 1992 was proposed in the 1700s. The amendment prior to that was from 1971, over fifty years ago. We're rapidly approaching the point where we can say the constitution hasn't been updated with new ideas in generations. The world today is wildly different from the world of the 1970s, and yet we've made no changes to the constitution. We used to update it every decade (at least). Somet…

>The world today is wildly different from the world of the 1970s, and yet we've made no changes to the constitution. No, it isn't. I'm pretty sure the Bill of Rights is still a pretty good set of basic rights. Would you be willing to roll the dice on throwing a random out to get a new one? That is what can easily happen when you make changing it easy enough to be done quickly. Also, why would you want to change the r…

Didn’t Thomas Jefferson advocate to throw out the constituion every 20 years and rewrite it to reflect the current generation? How do you think about his position, seems like at least one person thought it would be good to re randomize…
Post reply on HN