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

#181

Post by willcipriano » Fri, Jul 22, 2022, 6:01 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #173

willcipriano wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 inter…

Just weird that we apparently got it wrong for 150+ years before Roosevelt came along to set everyone straight.

The law isn't determined on a factual, textual or even a logical basis. Gitmo, civil asset forfeiture, mass surveillance, dread scott, alien and sedition, japanese american internment camps, executive order 6102, roe. It's a political system and it reflects the political thinking at the time. The consensus you outline here is a bad idea, full of logical leaps, and it will lead to ruin, but I guess it will take the other guys getting into power to prove that to some people.

You are talking about how things are, I'm trying to say that they could be something else.

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

#182

Post by edmundsauto » Fri, Jul 22, 2022, 6:03 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #161

hotpotamus wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and many do not like that track record. For instance, allowing women to have abortions, and they now have the ability to alter that track.

> 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.

How do you separate out the confounders in this argument, like ww2 destroying Europe, or the natural resources available in N America?

Other countries have been very successful with other forms on basic documents. The American success may have been more successful with a document written to reflect a society without slaves, where you can travel across multiple state borders within a day, etc.

I mean, it’s a fine document and all, but can we please stop asserting without strong evidence that it’s the best ever or that it is the driving force of American success? That’s what I mean by fetishizing.

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

#183

Post by danaris » Fri, Jul 22, 2022, 6:29 PM UTC

EddieDante wrote: post #176

loudmax wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Given the way "start of pregnancy" is calculated in this country, my understanding is that most women would struggle to be able to get an abortion before six weeks.

When you miss your period, and take a pregnancy test, the "start of pregnancy" is apparently considered to have been the start of your last period. That means that at the earliest time you could be generally expected to find out you're pregnant, you are considered to have been pregnant for 4-5 weeks.

Then, of course, you'll need to make a decision about what to do about it, contact a doctor, and have a procedure scheduled...and in states with restrictive abortion laws, you can bet that that's going to be more difficult and time-consuming than it needs to be.

The cruelty of it all is the point.

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

#184

Post by JamesBarney » Fri, Jul 22, 2022, 6:35 PM UTC

32163704 wrote: post #177

rayiner wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The principle of Stare decisis does not mean the supreme court can't overturn any decision it's ever made. It's routinely overturned previous decisions, many times overturning previous conservative rulings to put in place liberal ones.

If you watch this youtube video of Kavanaugh answering questions I never get the idea that he says he won't overturn Roe v Wage, or that it is a binding or super precedent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bjs-qO0N2ZI

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

#185

Post by swayvil » Fri, Jul 22, 2022, 6:47 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #122

swayvil wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a distraction. There have always been antiabortion crazies lurking in the woodwork. The state just chose to pull the trigger on this particular shitshow at this particular moment because it suits their agenda. Don't get me wrong. There is definitely an abortion rights disaster in progress. It's just that this disaster was manufactured only to distract from a larger, more powerful, disaster. Have you noticed h…

> Have you noticed how expensive everything is lately? Have you noticed that supply and demand can change prices? Such as supply of young people performing labor in an aging country demanding ever more labor, or international conflicts and responses to infectious diseases disrupting supply chains. And of course, the government’s monetary response, but the point is that unless you have a source for a conspiracy, I do…

I didn't even touch the cause of the inflation. It's beside my point. The cause of the abortion rights disaster is my point.

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

#186

Post by 32163704 » Fri, Jul 22, 2022, 6:50 PM UTC

buscoquadnary wrote: post #69

32163704 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I am assuming the Supreme Court will defer to whatever the appellate court decided because it is so open and shut. Out of curiosity, what about the current makeup of appellate courts in this region + the Supreme Court makes you think this is going to get shut down quickly?

I can't predict the future, but I also will point out if it gets to the SC it won't be now, it will be the SC 10 years from now. That being said I would hope this is an open and shut enoght case under the 1st Amendment and the Interstate Commerce clause to justify this. Which I would hope overrules personal agendas in the court. I know a lot of people are upset with the overturn of Roe v Wade, but even the initial ju…

> Now decades of an activist judiciary have distorted that concept as the legislative branch has chosen to abdicate their responsibility for their own gain, but the fact still stands, congress should be making the laws and the courts deciding if they are constitutional.

The Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality the first time. If it’s up to Congress to make the laws, then why did the Supreme Court intervene this time? They could have kicked this back to congress and said: “We already ruled on this. If you want a different outcome, do your job.” But they didn’t.

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

#187

Post by meepmorp » Fri, Jul 22, 2022, 7:04 PM UTC

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).

Why are you trying to make them presume bad faith where none exists?

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

#188

Post by EddieDante » Fri, Jul 22, 2022, 7:04 PM UTC

danaris wrote: post #183

EddieDante wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Given the way "start of pregnancy" is calculated in this country, my understanding is that most women would struggle to be able to get an abortion before six weeks. When you miss your period, and take a pregnancy test, the "start of pregnancy" is apparently considered to have been the start of your last period. That means that at the earliest time you could be generally expected to find out you're pregnant, you are c…

[flagged]

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

#189

Post by tablespoon » Fri, Jul 22, 2022, 7:19 PM UTC

meepmorp wrote: post #44

lotsofpulp wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

>> Phrasing a proposed bill as if it has taken effect is a standard tactic to evoke extra emotion resulting in extra clicks.

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

All kinds of crazy bills gets proposed that are DOA, especially at the state level. Evaluating some outrage-inducing one for clicks is still bad faith. The real question is "does it have a realistic chance of going anywhere?" If it doesn't, why is it being covered?

However, I can't really judge in this particular case, because the article is paywalled.

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

#190

Post by ChrisLomont » Fri, Jul 22, 2022, 7:24 PM UTC

edmundsauto wrote: post #180

ChrisLomont wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

It sounds like an absolutely terrible idea. How could you possibly plan for any future with that much constant upheaval? Businesses couldn't function, since contracts across complete rewrites would not work. You may not own any of your property across a rewrite. Maybe things you did today become felonies tomorrow, and you get jailed, buy then maybe get freed in the next rewrite....

Having stable long term laws is a pre-requisite for any modern economy to function.