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

391–400 of 448 posts

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

#391

Post by betwixthewires »

mynameisash wrote: post #318
betwixthewires wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

His opinion talks about considering whether the court overstepped it's bounds on those rulings, not whether those behaviors should or shouldn't be illegal.

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

#392

Post by ch4s3 »

dillondoyle wrote: post #327
ch4s3 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure but I think the thrust of OP is correct. single payer alone is close to 70% now. medicare itself is very very popular in that age group. People are easily scared and those that already have good care are afraid of losing it. Look at death panels. but the general idea of healthcare as a fundamental right and a national system of health are very popular.

> single payer alone is close to 70% now.

Thats only when you don't get into the details of the implementation, and things like the need to pay for it with something like a European style VAT tax. When you dig in to the details in the polls, support plummets.

This isn't a critique of the idea, just noting the on the details almost no Americans actually support doing what it would take to implement.

> Look at death panels.

All healthcare systems have some kind of rationing, in America generally people who don't have employer provided healthcare and are neither especially poor or old get care rationed. This isn't ideal, I agree.

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

#393

Post by ch4s3 »

UkrainianJew wrote: post #273
ch4s3 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, yeah. The root of the problem isn't single-payer vs. out-of-pocket. The real problem is too many people competing for too little doctors and hospital beds. Making it centrally-funded won't magically warp new doctors from hyperspace. It will simply shift the pressure from prices to waiting times. The working solution would be to reduce the bureaucracy and make it easier to open new practices, ban anticompetitive…

> The real problem is too many people competing for too little doctors and hospital beds.

Well, that one of the problems and the AMA is very effective as a labor organization.

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

#394

Post by betwixthewires »

dillondoyle wrote: post #315
betwixthewires wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'?

Assisting someone in crossing state lines would be pretty well covered by the constitution, the federal government is the only authority capable of regulating cross state movement and interstate commerce, period.

Do you have any examples or possibilities for a constitutional gotcha under these circumstances?

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

#395

Post by betwixthewires »

hamburglar wrote: post #361
alfor wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not 100% anti abortion, but I think it’s a bad thing. The law said that at one day after birth if you kill a baby it’s murder but one day before it’s fine, do as you please it’s ’her choice’. I think we are too far gone in that direction, a fetus still something, a human life in formation, damn you would face legal consequence if you mistreated a dog.

It doesn't seem like you've considered the possibility that a fetus with no consciousness being terminated may be more humane than forcing it into the hell of being raised by parents that don't want it or can't provide for it. More people should accept that what's going on inside someone else's body is none of their business.

The person you're responding to specifically said "one day before birth", I don't think you can find someone who credibly argues that a fetus at that stage is not a conscious human being. Whoever you're disagreeing with you're not responding to them.

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

#397

Post by stonewareslord »

anon9001 wrote: post #130

This is the n'th tech company today that's made an announcement similar to this. Even Disney is going to transport workers to abortion-legal states as needed as "health benefit". It's certainly a perk and good on Google for this one, but we're headed to a dark place if your best shot at human rights is to retain employment by a big tech company.

> we're headed to a dark place if your best shot at human rights is to retain employment by a big tech company

But we're already here. We are in that dark place now. It's reality that if you work for big tech you get a perk this perk, and if not, you don't.

Edit: point being that we aren't heading to a bad place. Maybe we are heading to a worse place, but this has put a ton of people in a very bad place already.

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

#398

Post by divided »

betwixthewires wrote: post #391
mynameisash wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

His opinion talks about considering whether the court overstepped it's bounds on those rulings, not whether those behaviors should or shouldn't be illegal.

That feels like a distinction without a difference. If he and 4 others rule that the court overstepped its bounds, states will determine those behaviors to be illegal.

So if you admit he's willing to overthrow the precedent, and you agree that some states would then make those behaviors illegal, then how can you square that circle in your brain to claim it's scaremongering?

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

#399

Post by divided »

jollybean wrote: post #213
kibwen wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"As of March 2022, a broad majority of Americans oppose overturning Roe v. Wade (61%) and just over one-third (36%) support it. Opposition is highest among Democrats (74%), including a majority (56%) who strongly oppose overturning Roe. Most independents (61%) also oppose a Roe overturn." https://www.prri.org/spotlight/most-oppose-overturning-roe-v...

That's making my point though. Those numbers are far closer to 50/50 than one would imagine in the bubble, but that's also reference to specifically overturning Roe v. Wade, not whether or not abortion should be legal, which is closer to 50/50. Have a look at the second chart[1] It's been 'mostly, roughly, steadily ~50/50 'ish' for about 20 years. I think most self described progressives would be surprised by those n…

The "bubble" tends to claim the numbers are 60-70% (and higher in tech companies). Polling shows the numbers between 60-70%.

No, most self described progressives would not be surprised that the numbers are where they say they are.

Literally all throughout this thread people are using these same numbers. I'm curious how far off your perception of progressives is from reality. What numbers do you think we believe are accurate?

Further, _you_ should reference the first chart you linked. It should clearly indicate to you that many who identify as pro-life do indeed support at least partial abortion rights.

85% believe abortions should be allowed in all or some circumstances. 13% believe illegal in all circumstances. Many states under conservative control will go to illegal in all circumstances, so that's the opinion of 13% controlling the freedoms of the other 85%. Not so close to 50/50, huh?

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

#400

Post by rsynnott »

blindmute wrote: post #378
bogota wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If it's the majority opinion it should have no problem being passed in federal or state legislature

It would need to go through the house of reps, senate and president. The senate in particular is not representative of the majority.
Post reply on HN