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

Google says US employees can relocate to states with abortion rights

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 448 posts

Re: Google says US employees can relocate to states with abortion rights

#161

Post by bcrosby95 »

imgabe wrote: post #133
mch82 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you have any examples These rights and others are directly questioned in the text of the SCOTUS concurrence today: "For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.” Neal Katyal: “That's right to privacy, contraception, marriage equality,etc” https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1540341236803977216

I mean examples of laws . Like is there any state that has passed or even proposed a law saying "contraception is illegal". To my knowledge, there's not.

I dunno, the comstock act?

The way SCOTUS works is they render it impossible to enforce a law. It doesn't actually remove the law from the books.

It's a legal hack - the government can't enforce it when its made unconstitutional, but it still exists unless they explicitly remove it. Hence Texas' legal hack of allowing citizens to enforce a law.

Re: Google says US employees can relocate to states with abortion rights

#162

Post by belltaco »

imgabe wrote: post #88
diob wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about making it illegal, it's that IVF typically results in more fertilized embryos than are kept. So like you said, the pro-life folks would force every single one to be kept.

Do you have an example of any pro-life lawmaker, pundit, anyone demanding that all embryos from IVF be kept?

Yes.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-politics-of-the...

Re: Google says US employees can relocate to states with abortion rights

#163

Post by jimbob45 »

Dracophoenix wrote: post #152
hedora wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at national opinion polls. The US is incredibly united right now. 70% want medicare for all (53% want single payer health care). Strong majorities object to overturning Roe v Wade and rolling back gun control laws. The issue is that the senate can be filibustered with 5% of the US population's backing. A majority vote requires 8%. A fillibuster-proof majority requires 12%. This implies that it would not take man…

Which polls are you looking at? Do they have the sampling data or provide limiting factors for their assessment?

Yeah, I’ve seen a lot of poll numbers today without citation. To be fair, every existing poll can be safely defenestrated anyway since the SCOTUS ruling will have changed a high fraction of minds.

Re: Google says US employees can relocate to states with abortion rights

#164

Post by mch82 »

imgabe wrote: post #133
mch82 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you have any examples These rights and others are directly questioned in the text of the SCOTUS concurrence today: "For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.” Neal Katyal: “That's right to privacy, contraception, marriage equality,etc” https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1540341236803977216

I mean examples of laws . Like is there any state that has passed or even proposed a law saying "contraception is illegal". To my knowledge, there's not.

Here you go: https://www.findlaw.com/family/reproductive-rights/griswold-...

> At the time, a Connecticut law prohibited the use of "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception" and punished anyone who "assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another" to do so (in other words, it wasn't a crime to sell birth control devices, but it was a crime to use birth control or any drug or medical instrument for the purposes of preventing conception).

> Griswold and Buxton sued the State of Connecticut claiming the law violated their constitutional rights. The issue at stake was whether a married couple had a constitutional "right of privacy" to be counseled in the use of contraceptives.

Three other major cases are cited in that FindLaw article, the most recent in 2014 which took away rights to healthcare coverage.

Re: Google says US employees can relocate to states with abortion rights

#165

Post by kibwen »

carrionpigeon wrote: post #156
kibwen wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> their campus is close to a few good stem universities From Scott Aaronson's blog today: https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=6518 "Most obviously for me, the continued viability of Texas as a place for science, for research, for technology companies, is now in severe doubt. Already this year, our 50-member CS department at UT Austin has had faculty members leave, and faculty candidates turn us down, with abortion being th…

This strikes me as wildly implausible. The US broadly has very permissive abortion laws compared to most of Europe, but I have never once heard of anyone migrating to the US over greater abortion access. It's always economic/opportunity concerns. Going further back, during the Soviet era when abortion was widespread (i.e. 2-3 abortions per live birth in the 60s-70s), did anyone want to migrate to the Eastern bloc for…

> The US broadly has very permissive abortion laws compared to most of Europe

According to Wikipedia: "Most countries in the European Union allow abortion on demand during the first trimester, with Sweden and the Netherlands having more extended time limits." That's the same as what was once guaranteed in the US under Roe.

Re: Google says US employees can relocate to states with abortion rights

#166

Post by ch4s3 »

hedora wrote: post #121
UkrainianJew wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the whole reason why this situation took place is because people in red states are fed up with the influx of blue voters, that end up bringing in the exact problems that made them relocate. This is how empires fall. As people with different political views no longer depend on each other economically, they drift more and more into opposite directions, until they do not want to share the same government anymore.

Look at national opinion polls. The US is incredibly united right now. 70% want medicare for all (53% want single payer health care). Strong majorities object to overturning Roe v Wade and rolling back gun control laws. The issue is that the senate can be filibustered with 5% of the US population's backing. A majority vote requires 8%. A fillibuster-proof majority requires 12%. This implies that it would not take man…

Not to overly pick a nit, but if you dig into that Medicare for all poll, only a single digit percentage of Americans support it when you get into the actual details of the plan as presented at the time of the poll.

Re: Google says US employees can relocate to states with abortion rights

#167

Post by mullingitover »

This is a good PR move to get out ahead of the investigative journalists who will absolutely start digging into public campaign contribution data and pointing out how much they’ve donated to the politicians who drove this decision.

Re: Google says US employees can relocate to states with abortion rights

#168

Post by mbg721 »

jimbob45 wrote: post #163
Dracophoenix wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which polls are you looking at? Do they have the sampling data or provide limiting factors for their assessment?

Yeah, I’ve seen a lot of poll numbers today without citation. To be fair, every existing poll can be safely defenestrated anyway since the SCOTUS ruling will have changed a high fraction of minds.

Even if it was taken in the last two weeks? This ruling was the worst-kept secret in SCOTUS history.

Re: Google says US employees can relocate to states with abortion rights

#170

Post by trhway »

nyolfen wrote: post #154
trhway wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wrt. business decision. I think that in-vitro fertilization would soon become not an option in the "life at conception" states. Probably eggs freezing too. Even may be some forms of contraception. That will have more and more negative impact on that group of employees who would need such services. Also family planning becomes very dented at the "planning" part as getting pregnant one would have to accept the much hig…

> I think that in-vitro fertilization would soon become not an option in the "life at conception" states. Probably eggs freezing too. do you have an actual reason for thinking this will happen? this is detached from reality, both of these procedures are meant to create babies which are carried to term, which is the fundamental goal of pro-life policies

At everyday level - dismissing extra fertilized eggs is killing new life according to the "life-at-conception". And IVF, contraception, eggs freezing, etc. gives more power/freedom to women which is abomination to the conservative forces. And it isn't some utility level power/freedom like guns or speech, it is the most fundamental power domain for any biological life - the power to determine the genetic makeup of the next generation of the species.

At the deep biological level - the fundamental goal of pro-life policies is to enforce r-selection, ie. more random based, whereis pro-choice is K-selection, ie. more managed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory), and like the abortion the IVF, egg freezing, contraception, etc. are all enemies of r-selection while they are tools of K-selection.

Post reply on HN