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

411–420 of 448 posts

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

#411

Post by dillondoyle »

ch4s3 wrote: post #392
dillondoyle wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pa…

American's just don't like taxes. When explained that the system is cheaper, their net costs would be the same or lower, it still has solid support.

the problem again is the 'haves' (who also tend to vote a lot more) are the ones who see themselves as losing and gaining a tax.

if it's employer paid for and you don't even know the true value it's hard to see it as comp

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

#412

Post by dillondoyle »

immigrantheart wrote: post #379
dillondoyle wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Factually wrong: "Of the 22 states with abortion bans that will instantly take effect if the landmark Supreme Court ruling is overturned, 10 have passed laws that make no exceptions for rape or incest: Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas." https://news.yahoo.com/some-republican-states-set-to-ban-abo... --- Nazi is a loaded term for sure but I don't know w…

There are so many problems with your statement I don’t even know where to start. It is pointless to debate.

name 2

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

#413

Post by dillondoyle »

betwixthewires wrote: post #394
dillondoyle wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Some texas-style rigmarole.

I'm genuinely asking as I'm not an attorney.

My guess would be something like give each citizens in __ state the power to sue __ for assisting someone to commit a "murder" or "crime of life," whatever insane definition they put into law.

Making "civil suits by private citizens the exclusive avenue of enforcement."

And grants a bounty to encourage this.

Further placing 100% of the burden on the person being sued to prove their innocence (and pay legal fees); doesn't matter the uber driver was just dropping someone off at the airport. Whereas the state would have to prove the crime.

it's the threat, the time, the money, and the inconvenience which creates the deterrence & fear that they want.

No matter how baseless it might be, this whole 'gotcha' is that the Supreme Court won't intervene because - and this is where legal understanding could have nuances - each victim is unique (person being sued civily), and that the relief would be from unique individuals and not the state. SCOTUS "ruling that the providers could not bring suit against the classes of state judges and clerks or the state Attorney General"

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

#414

Post by divided »

betwixthewires wrote: post #409
divided wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Well if we look at everything we do in this way there's no way to make a decision on principle, we must always consider outcomes only. I don't think there's a state that would outlaw regular birth control. Maybe 40 years ago, but today, probably not. And really, why is it that we can vote at the federal government based on the policies we want, but saying that you should do that for certain issues in your state is un…

Yes, Justice Thomas mentions some of the most major 14th amendment rulings and says they were ruled wrongly. One conspicuously missing ruling was Loving v Virginia. The one that prevented states from banning interracial marriage. Does this sound like someone standing on principle? Or perhaps more like someone who doesn’t care about others’ rights but don’t touch his own?

Several states have already had debates in their state houses about outlawing some forms of birth control (Louisiana and Missouri off the top of my head). This was prior to the decision, now they will be more emboldened.

The Texas governor when asked if he could go further and outlaw birth control simply responded “I don’t know.” You wildly underestimate how extreme these people are and how little they care about what the majority want.

To answer your final paragraph, there is a very long history of _certain_ particular states in a _certain_ region in America with a _certain_ evangelical Christian makeup who has been trampling rights for centuries. These people argued states should decide slavery and Jim Crow laws as well. Being blunt, history has proven over and over you’re on the wrong side of this.

And, for what it’s worth, until gerrymandering is fixed there is a tremendous problem with letting the minority political party in the state govern.

For instance, in Wisconsin over the last 3 elections, Democrats have been +4%, +8%, -3%. One would expect their state house to slightly favor Democrats. Republicans have held a +29%, +27%, and +23% edge.

Almost every red state is like this. This is how you have relatively purple states like North Carolina, Texas, and Florida take absurdly hard right positions that in no way represents their populations.

The Texas GOP just days ago released their platform calling for a state-level electoral college for all state-wide positions so they can maintain control of governor, secretary of state, attorney general, etc. without coming remotely close to winning the popular vote.

Hope that helps explain how it is very much the DEFINITION of undemocratic and what’s wrong with it.

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

#415

Post by trhway »

trhway wrote: post #410
nyolfen wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you should try talking to somebody who believes these things instead of projecting darwinian strategy fantasies onto them

it would be pointless. Most people don't recognize their deep internal biological drivers, and by its nature the >darwinian strategy fantasies are effects emerging at biological species [sub]population levels, not at an individual level. For example, you may have noticed that statistically speaking prochoice people and their children are more educated while having less children than the prolifers. That is a typical m…

Also one can notice that the slight birth rate increase in the developed countries in the recent 2-3 decades came with the slight decrease in IQ while one the child policy in China resulted in the IQ increase - classic K/r.

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

#416

Post by woodruffw »

refurb wrote: post #404
woodruffw wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fetal death in those cases corresponds (or ought to correspond) to a projection of the actual victim’s wishes: harm to the fetus is exactly coextensive with harm to the pregnant person’s future plans for it.

So a fetus only deserves protection if someone wants it?

That’s one of many sufficient conditions. Another is fetal viability, which is exactly why Roe allowed states to enact restrictions on late-term abortions.

Overall, we’re only having these conversations because a fetus has two simultaneous qualities: it bears visual resemblance to a human being, and it has the future potential to be a human being. We don’t concern ourselves nearly as much with sperm (no visual resemblance) or cakes shaped like babies (no future potential). Together, they deserve concern, but not overriding concern; that is reserved for the sole person in the equation.

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

#417

Post by nyolfen »

trhway wrote: post #410
nyolfen wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you should try talking to somebody who believes these things instead of projecting darwinian strategy fantasies onto them

it would be pointless. Most people don't recognize their deep internal biological drivers, and by its nature the >darwinian strategy fantasies are effects emerging at biological species [sub]population levels, not at an individual level. For example, you may have noticed that statistically speaking prochoice people and their children are more educated while having less children than the prolifers. That is a typical m…

k-selection doesn't vote, and this entire event is the outcome of judicial review. this is like talking to an animist about the forest, you are mistaking the result for the agent. the direct corollary of your argument is that free will doesn't exist, so i don't know why you even bother with presenting an argument.

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

#418

Post by ch4s3 »

dillondoyle wrote: post #411
ch4s3 wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 pa…

American's just don't like taxes. When explained that the system is cheaper, their net costs would be the same or lower, it still has solid support. the problem again is the 'haves' (who also tend to vote a lot more) are the ones who see themselves as losing and gaining a tax. if it's employer paid for and you don't even know the true value it's hard to see it as comp

> When explained that the system is cheaper, their net costs would be the same or lower, it still has solid support.

I haven’t seen polling that shows that.

Well older people tend to vote more, but there are a lot of lower income folks who vote reliably.

I think part of the issue is that proponents of single payer in the US present it as something that can be paid for by further taxing “the rich” alone, and that’s clearly not true. No other country pays for social welfare that way, and it’s trivial to find that out. Being dishonest about how it might be funded undermines the project politically. No one is trying to sell the idea that VAT + healthcare is a better overall deal. Which it may or may not be, depending on the implementation. Nevertheless proponents are lying about how it can be paid for.

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

#419

Post by blindmute »

rsynnott wrote: post #400
blindmute wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hmmm, if it wouldn't pass the Senate then I guess a lot of states' constituents don't want this. Sounds like it's better left to a state by state basis.

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

#420

Post by trhway »

nyolfen wrote: post #417
trhway wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it would be pointless. Most people don't recognize their deep internal biological drivers, and by its nature the >darwinian strategy fantasies are effects emerging at biological species [sub]population levels, not at an individual level. For example, you may have noticed that statistically speaking prochoice people and their children are more educated while having less children than the prolifers. That is a typical m…

k-selection doesn't vote, and this entire event is the outcome of judicial review. this is like talking to an animist about the forest, you are mistaking the result for the agent. the direct corollary of your argument is that free will doesn't exist, so i don't know why you even bother with presenting an argument.

>k-selection doesn't vote, and this entire event is the outcome of judicial review.

that event is just a wrinkle in the history of our and other species. The natural selection laws didn't start with humans and hopefully wouldn't end with us.

>you are mistaking the result for the agent

in evolution there is no difference between the result and the agent - every agent is a result of previous evolution, and every result of evolution, ie. an individual with specific traits, strategies, preferences, is an agent of shaping of the further evolution. For example the tendency of elephants to have one baby at a time is a result of their evolution and it shapes their future evolution.

>the direct corollary of your argument is that free will doesn't exist

classic anti-Darwinian argument. It is a fallacious argument in its nature as free will is a trait of an individual while Darwinian laws are of large group level.

Post reply on HN