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

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

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 217 posts

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

#51

Post by powerhour »

AlexandrB wrote: post #13

> For the NRLC, which wrote the model legislation, limiting communication is a key part of the strategy to aggressively enforce laws restricting abortion. “The whole criminal enterprise needs to be dealt with to effectively prevent criminal activity,” Jim Bopp, the group’s general counsel, wrote in a July 4 memo, comparing the group’s efforts to fighting organized crime. This basically tells you everything you need t…

I remember when folks were telling us we were being hysterical because of our concern a right-leaning SC would overturn Roe. Of course that is exactly what happened. Are these same people now telling us not to worry, they won't imprison women for getting abortions?

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

#52

Post by guipsp »

willcipriano wrote: post #19
jasonjayr wrote: post #7

How is this allowed in light of the interstate commerce clause? SC would have no recourse for web hosts that have no nexus within it's borders? Are they going to start to force local ISP's to block out of state hosts?

The interstate commerce clause was hollowed out and left undefended[0]. Go on Reddit/Twitter a you can find a bunch of people crying about abortion who were previously making fun of "StAteS RiGhtS". We tried to warn them but nobody wanted to listen. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

What you said and what you linked are not related. That case strengthened the interstate commerce powers

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

#53

Post by 32163704 »

buscoquadnary wrote: post #35
32163704 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How is this allowed in light of the interstate commerce clause? Laws are allowed until the Court rules on them. The states can pass all manner of fucked up laws (and they will), and they will stand while we figure this out -- or, until the Supreme Court rules in their favor. Edit: changing Supreme Court to Courts, since the appellate court exists. But the point is the same.

My understanding is that this can go to a federal court pretty quickly who can then rule on this and block it, and it can be appellead up to the Supreme court, but for the time being it will be stopped, then I am assuming the Supreme Court will defer to whatever the appellate court decided because it is so open and shut.

>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?

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

#54

Post by ChrisLomont »

carbadtraingood wrote: post #24
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why are we using a 200+ year old document Because it’s worked. The alternative, opening up the entire system of government for debate, simultaneously, continuously, predictably tears itself apart in a generation. (That or you wind up with an unwritten Constitution only the elites can decipher.) The Constitution isn’t sacred. But it’s far from worthless as a basis of our society.

Most modern, developed nations regularly update their constitutions. The US is somewhat anomalous in holding on to an ancient document and considering it sacred.

>The US is somewhat anomalous in holding on to an ancient document and considering it sacred.

The Constitution was amended 12 times in the 1900s, the last being 1992. There are still multiple pending amendments.

And, as a Union of States, each also with constitutions and amendments, how do you treat the overall legal entity? Most developed nations are about the size of a US state - and some are slowly banding into larger groups like the EU.

So how is this anomalous? Do you have some list of developed nations rate of constitution updates? Are any of the structure like the US as a union of semi-autonomous states?

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

#55

Post by AlexandrB »

buscoquadnary wrote: post #32
AlexandrB wrote: post #13

> For the NRLC, which wrote the model legislation, limiting communication is a key part of the strategy to aggressively enforce laws restricting abortion. “The whole criminal enterprise needs to be dealt with to effectively prevent criminal activity,” Jim Bopp, the group’s general counsel, wrote in a July 4 memo, comparing the group’s efforts to fighting organized crime. This basically tells you everything you need t…

I always worry when we start painting large groups of people with a single brush and labeling them the enemy. There are plenty of people who oppose abortion that are appalled at something like this or the Texas bounty hunting law. If we continue to try and paint each other group as a monolithic enemy other division will continue to rise and polarization will increase and the effects will be devestating.

I'm speaking about groups like the NRLC and the Federalist Society who have been working towards this goal for decades. I'm sure some conservatives are opposed to the extremity of what's being proposed, but if they continue to vote Republican I'm not sure what good that does anyone.

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

#56

Post by Ekaros »

jaskyle wrote: post #2

Quoted post unavailable.

Hasn't there been some issues for example with instructions of making bombs or chemical weapons? And both of those should be constitutional rights... So limiting harm to others by banning abortion information don't seem any less of overstepping boundaries.

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

#57

Post by EddieDante »

buscoquadnary wrote: post #32
AlexandrB wrote: post #13

> For the NRLC, which wrote the model legislation, limiting communication is a key part of the strategy to aggressively enforce laws restricting abortion. “The whole criminal enterprise needs to be dealt with to effectively prevent criminal activity,” Jim Bopp, the group’s general counsel, wrote in a July 4 memo, comparing the group’s efforts to fighting organized crime. This basically tells you everything you need t…

I always worry when we start painting large groups of people with a single brush and labeling them the enemy. There are plenty of people who oppose abortion that are appalled at something like this or the Texas bounty hunting law. If we continue to try and paint each other group as a monolithic enemy other division will continue to rise and polarization will increase and the effects will be devestating.

No post body was provided.

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

#58

Post by dragonwriter »

32163704 wrote: post #34
BitwiseFool wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interstate Commerce could be used to thwart this, but wouldn't First Amendment be a more compelling justification?

The first amendment doesn't have anything to say about the Internet, so it doesn't apply. Think I'm joking? This is the stated judicial philosophy of the majority of Supreme Court justices. There is no traditional deeply rooted in American tradition that says anything about the Internet, either.

> The first amendment doesn't have anything to say about the Internet, so it doesn't apply.

Moreover, when taking that mode of interpretation, it doesn't say anything about the States, nor does the 14th Amendment say anything about some of the rights protected against federal intrusion by the Bill of Rights.

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

#60

Post by 32163704 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #45
32163704 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How is this allowed in light of the interstate commerce clause? Laws are allowed until the Court rules on them. The states can pass all manner of fucked up laws (and they will), and they will stand while we figure this out -- or, until the Supreme Court rules in their favor. Edit: changing Supreme Court to Courts, since the appellate court exists. But the point is the same.

> Laws are allowed until the Supreme Court rules on them No, they aren't. Unconstitutional laws are unconstitutional ab initio , and lower courts can and do refuse to enforce laws on that basis, and the Supreme Court may never even get to rule on them since appeal to the Supreme Court is not by right; the farthest that cases in the federal system get by right is the Court of Appeals.

>and lower courts can and do refuse to enforce laws on that basis

Courts don't enforce laws, but I get what you mean. I have no confidence whatsoever that appellate courts will do anything about these laws. There has been a willful, deliberate, strategic stacking of the judiciary starting in the early 2000s to get us to this place.

Sorry to repeat myself, but we really can't all sit back and reference our civics books as if this system is still functioning to protect us against these fucked up laws. It's over. Stare decisis is now at the whim of the political affiliation of the courts.

Post reply on HN