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

311–320 of 448 posts

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

#311

Post by lamontcg »

bogota wrote: post #298
rybosome wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s happening. I think it’s going to get way worse than most people believe.

Yep. They have already started talking about reversing marriage rights and contraception as well. It’s funny that an unelected body is now going to destroy the US and revert things that are clearly the majority opinion of the population. Im glad I have dual citizenship because It does feel like the next 4 years is going to be a very sharp downturn (socially) in the US.

Probably kiss the Affordable Care Act goodbye and head back to the dark ages of losing your insurance and having a preexisting condition means that you get denied treatment.

People keep focusing on what this all means to minorities, but if you're just an old white male and sick they'll let you die, too.

Cue the old Niemoller poem.

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

#312

Post by diob »

imgabe wrote: post #302
diob wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, I will make a note to reply to you again when these things come to pass. At some point, you have to admit that the "hysterical speculation" is really just foresight given current events. Will you admit it then? I honestly am happy waiting to reply till then.

It seems like you want these things to happen so you can gloat and say "I told you so" If instead you were interested in the opposite result - making women's reproductive rights explicitly legal - what you would need to do in a democracy is convince enough people to vote for the laws you want. To do that you need to understand what the people you disagree with are actually saying and what the actual words are in the…

No post body was provided.

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

#313

Post by na85 »

alfor wrote: post #278
na85 wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Do you care if a random woman kill her newborn? I honestly don't care. 20 murders happened on the other side of the planet while I typed this comment. I think it's sad, but it doesn't affect my life in any material way.

But you care about laws against abortions?

Yes because it directly affects both my wife and my daughter. If either one chose to get an abortion I'd be very sad, but that's not a good reason to make something illegal.

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

#314

Post by imgabe »

seamusthecrab wrote: post #306
imgabe wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "at the time" was 1965. Contraception was new and controversial 50 years ago. It's not anymore and is widely supported. Is there any current law or proposal to outlaw contraception? Such a law would be wildly unpopular, even among most pro-life people.

Quoted post unavailable.

I never claimed I was a lawyer. All that law does is revise the definition of "unborn person" in this law: https://www.legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=78337

which lists specific crimes, none of which are contraception or IVF. The words "contraception" or "IVF" are not mentioned anywhere in either law.

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

#315

Post by dillondoyle »

betwixthewires wrote: post #259
gadflyinyoureye wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly. Now the fun will begin if when the Feds stake a claim via the Commerce Clause to make inter-state abortion travel a right. This could end run Roe's overturn because the Feds could say that a State not allowing abortions will affect the price of abortions much like the Feds said you can't hold back corn grown on your farm to feed your livestock because that would prevent the corn from going to market at a ma…

I hope to see that happen particularly because I'd love to see the supreme court overturn that commerce clause ruling (I forget the case but I'm familiar with it) because it is clearly nonsense. But any state law restricting travel to another state for abortion would be unconstitutional, yes, no state can pass a law criminalizing behavior in another state, thankfully.

What about 'aid and abet' the person to get there? Or allowing crazy civil lawsuits that evidently are a constitutional 'gotcha'?

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

#316

Post by dillondoyle »

ed25519FUUU wrote: post #26
gadflyinyoureye wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly. Now the fun will begin if when the Feds stake a claim via the Commerce Clause to make inter-state abortion travel a right. This could end run Roe's overturn because the Feds could say that a State not allowing abortions will affect the price of abortions much like the Feds said you can't hold back corn grown on your farm to feed your livestock because that would prevent the corn from going to market at a ma…

Or Congress could just pass a law.

Won't happen unless we somehow get 10 new Dems probably with 2 to spare (or primary centrist Dems)

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

#317

Post by dillondoyle »

notacoward wrote: post #202

But will Google - or any of the others - pledge not to support record keeping or data mining aimed at the prosecution of those who seek abortions? Any changes to their privacy rules or app store policies? While it's nice that they offer travel/relocation benefits, the cost to them is down in the noise relative to their total budgets. Turning away or alienating government (and shadow-government) customers by refusing…

Such a scary thing this is even a concern.

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

#318

Post by mynameisash »

betwixthewires wrote: post #246
stjohnswarts wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's 70/30 and you know it. Americans support abortion in some form or another at 70%. The MAGA base do not, and they want other things like gay marriage, gay sex, and birth control also declared illegal.

I've never met a person who thinks birth control should be illegal. I am sure they're out there, but this "they're coming for your morning after pill next" is scaremongering. Gay sex is probably the same. Gay marriage I think you're probably right.

> this "they're coming for your morning after pill next" is scaremongering. Gay sex is probably the same.

Justice Thomas's concurring opinion literally calls for reconsidering (ie, overturning) Griswold (contraception), Lawrence (same sex relationships), and Obergefell (same sex marriage).

It's perfectly clear that this is exactly what a not insignificant number of conservatives want to do. How is this scaremongering ?

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

#319

Post by karmasimida »

narrator wrote: post #176

The migration pattern in the nation seems to be: 1. Going to your super cool tech job in California when you get out of college. 2. After that, you get older and want to buy a house and settle down, and not pay state income tax, and so you move out to a red state to work remote and turn it blue with all the love of diversity picked up in California. Strict abortion laws might serve as somewhat of a barrier to this so…

Clearly some of the red states residents have fundamentally different idea on many things from mine. And the divide is huge.

I joked about how woke CA and hate high taxes, but I don't want my life managed by head elected by religious believers/idealogues.

The answer is NO

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

#320

Post by dillondoyle »

Dracophoenix wrote: post #142
spywaregorilla wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fun work perk: we're moving you to a location with a local culture you find abhorrent

It's not unprecedented. That was basically the premise of mandatory bussing: Force children to go schools they may not like simply to even out the racial proportion. Obviously, it didn't work.

What are you trying to say? What specifically didn't work.

It wasn't simply to even out the racial proportion for the sake of it.

Segregated schools were incredibly worse in virtually every way. Funding. Buildings themselves. Availability of teachers. The (lack of any) kind of out of classroom support that creates great adults. Active discrimination and policing. On and on.

But you're right that it did not completely fix these disparities. Though improved, they still linger on.

--

I just spent 15 minutes trying to find it but I'm sorry I can't maybe someone else can?

There is a great long form article that deep dives this exact topic.

I want to say a small carve out city/district in Dallas, googling it might be Southlake?

Because of Brown, this white community created their own legal District/city enclave and did not sell houses to POC and thus no POC students. I think the article even said something shocking like first black student was in the 80s or something like that.

Since schools get lots of funding from local taxes it not only gives lots of funding to create an amazing school system, but takes funding away from the larger city that literally surrounds this mini-district.

School is still overwhelmingly white and affluent. That school constantly gets in the press for their dress ghetto day (black face) and more.

Not an outlier. Happens everywhere, not just the south though the south is particularly egregious.

Schools should be federally funded to at least remedy just one of the many inequalities.

Post reply on HN