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

Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

761–770 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#761

Post by 3pt14159 »

fulvioterzapi wrote: post #686
cmollis wrote: post #525

When I was a child in the Catholic Church (70s and 80s) there was NEVER any political discussion that entered into the service (“..render unto caesar what is caesar’s..” or ‘separation of church and state’. Or, more probable, perhaps it was felt that it simply was not the forum for present-day politics. I don’t know). Since lapsed, A few years ago I was encouraged by a priest, as he enjoyed his fourth old fashioned,…

> What I witnessed was no less than a 45 minute diatribe on the dangers of abortion, casting various aspersions (ad hominem) on any political leader not on board with new political agenda of the Catholic Church. A typical Catholic Mass lasts less than one hour. Most of the Mass follows a fixed, prescribed set of prayers and readings, that have nothing to do with politics. In the middle there's a sermon, that usually…

Yeah, I'm not Catholic, but I go to services in all three major branches (Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic) and I am a Christian. Granted, I've only been to one service in the USA in recent years, but even still, Canada is not so different and I've not even heard abortion mentioned once nor long diatribes on any specific political issue other than vague warnings against government manipulated media.

But this isn't what gets mentioned in Hacker News comments. And it certainly isn't what is upvoted. The internet boosts grievances and fourth sigma event reporting.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#762

Post by portpecos »

softcactus wrote: post #485
ausbah wrote: post #441

saying "SCOTUS didn't ban abortion" is at best useless semantic formality and at worst plain incorrect a number of state have laws that the automatically make abortion illegal as soon as Roe was overturned, those are now enacted. furthermore, the case behind this ruling was dealing with a state law the effectively outlawed abortions, despite previous precedent ruling against it. this rule is simply enabling such beha…

The HN crowd never fails to surprise me. For all of the great discussions about software on here, threads like this one reek of ignorance of civics and history. The de facto outcome of this ruling is abortion banned in red states. It's clearly partisan hackery when we have: 1. A court full of Federalist Society members 2. A court full of Catholics (staunchly pro-life) 3. Who are using the old argument of "states righ…

It’s almost as if the liberals didn’t even read this part the current court’s opinion.

“The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives”

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#763

Post by devmor »

mattnewton wrote: post #457
screye wrote: post #330

I'll be the begrudging devils advocate for a decision that is sure to have devastating consequences for poor women in red states. It is good for unelected bodies like the Supreme Court to allow such dividing issues be figured out democratically. The US house has bled power to the other 3 institutions and of them, the judiciary is the least democratic. Ofc, my support for this change assumes that this Supreme Court wi…

Where you see delegating to the states, I see a minority (less than 30% of Americans agree with this) enforcing social views on the majority- and it will not stop here. Other things the Supreme Court has blocked state law using the same logic as roe v Wade (due process of the 14th amendment[0]) on are blocking contraception bans (grisewald), overturning anti-sodomy laws (lawrence), and giving equal protection to gay…

No post body was provided.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#764

Post by mikewarot »

I almost lost my wife due to the Catholic Hospital's policy against D&C procedures. Had the OBGYN not put his career on the line, and over-riding the prohibition on the procedure, she would have died. Now that same hurdle can become risking prison.

A few years later, we were blessed with a child who is doing well. I would have neither if not for Roe v. Wade.

This isn't about abortion, it's about denying healthcare!

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#765

Post by i5Aj7PXGjUPy »

lanstin wrote: post #397
InTheArena wrote: post #188

Separate abortion from Roe v. Wade. The big challenge has been that Roe v. Wade was horribly decided. Even RBG thought so. Roe v wade gave the Supreme Court the right to make law without reference to any text in the constitution. Casey tried to change the justification but it still was a disaster. Sadly it is far from the only time the Supreme Court has made things up out of whole cloth that has had massive societal…

Pence just asked for federal legislation banning all abortions. So I think you are wrong to say the Republicans are trying to return it to the states, thy are trying to ban it. Note that a man is not required to donate blood to save an adult human, even if there is no risk to him. The equal protection clause extends that right to your own body to women, and that is fairly sound constitutional reasoning. The constitut…

> The equal protection clause extends that right to your own body to women

No it doesn't

Here's the clause:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Where is a guaranteed right to abortion in this? You said Roe "is fairly sound constitutional reasoning", but I don't see you reading a Roe from this without some serious mental gymnastics

Also:

> Note that a man is not required to donate blood to save an adult human, even if there is no risk to him. The equal protection clause extends that right to your own body to women, and that is fairly sound constitutional reasoning.

Donating blood != killing a fetus

If you consider equating the two "fairly sound constitutional reasoning" then that speaks for itself

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#766

Post by ok123456 »

cryptonector wrote: post #519
InTheArena wrote: post #188

Separate abortion from Roe v. Wade. The big challenge has been that Roe v. Wade was horribly decided. Even RBG thought so. Roe v wade gave the Supreme Court the right to make law without reference to any text in the constitution. Casey tried to change the justification but it still was a disaster. Sadly it is far from the only time the Supreme Court has made things up out of whole cloth that has had massive societal…

Yes. In fact, this ruling might well lead to an end of Republican majorities in red States, and to multi-decadal Democrat rule. Certainly that is likely if: a) public opinion is strongly in favor of some legal abortion, and b) Republicans ignore that and move to ban all abortions. In 1992 Republicans ran on abortion and lost badly. In 1994 they ran on everything-but-abortion and won big. So there is precedent for the…

I don't see this really having any impact on voting patterns. Voting demographics are largely over-determined.

Republicans lost in 92 because of the "economy stupid" and, after sixteen years of incumbency, the pendulum swung to "throw the bums out." They were trotting out "Family Values" when people had actual concerns about their material conditions as we were in a relatively minor recession.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#767

Post by iandanforth »

screye wrote: post #330

I'll be the begrudging devils advocate for a decision that is sure to have devastating consequences for poor women in red states. It is good for unelected bodies like the Supreme Court to allow such dividing issues be figured out democratically. The US house has bled power to the other 3 institutions and of them, the judiciary is the least democratic. Ofc, my support for this change assumes that this Supreme Court wi…

Democracy is great but hundreds of thousands of the impacted can't vote.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#768

Post by throwaway23234 »

screye wrote: post #330

I'll be the begrudging devils advocate for a decision that is sure to have devastating consequences for poor women in red states. It is good for unelected bodies like the Supreme Court to allow such dividing issues be figured out democratically. The US house has bled power to the other 3 institutions and of them, the judiciary is the least democratic. Ofc, my support for this change assumes that this Supreme Court wi…

Set up a website that lets you buy these people a round-trip plane ticket to CA. That gets around both issues. If the doctor says there's no baby, then no money.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#769

Post by blinkingled »

cryptonector wrote: post #565
blinkingled wrote: post #151

Biggest thing to me is the message this sends - that there is no settled law really - I think the notion that nothing is legally set in stone and change is only a relatively easy matter of installing supreme court justices siding with your beliefs - that's gotta have some chilling consequences down the line for the country as a whole. Greater progress requires building upon smaller progress, a settled foundation. If…

Plessy v. Ferguson was settled law. Until it wasn't. And it was rightly overturned after decades of injustice. I bet there were many in the 50s who cried about settled law. Basically, the stare decisis argument is very limited, and the best anyone can hope for is that stare decisis is time-limited. Plessy lasted 64 years, while Roe lasted 50. So stare decisis seems to mean "for a few decades", which I think is fair.…

Fair point of course - but the devil really is in the details - of how far we stretch, how often, which way we change - towards correcting or regressing, and on what is open to debate vs what is not. This combined with the other things opened up for debate - same sex marriage, inter-racial marriage, contraception etc. makes one feel like everything including slavery being illegal/immoral can be soon up for discussion.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#770

Post by afandian »

starkd wrote: post #695
cmollis wrote: post #525

When I was a child in the Catholic Church (70s and 80s) there was NEVER any political discussion that entered into the service (“..render unto caesar what is caesar’s..” or ‘separation of church and state’. Or, more probable, perhaps it was felt that it simply was not the forum for present-day politics. I don’t know). Since lapsed, A few years ago I was encouraged by a priest, as he enjoyed his fourth old fashioned,…

Except that the court relinquished its power to decide on these matters. It may not seem like it now to you, but it actually gains credibility by the courts, because they are not put in the middle of such a consequential decision. It allows the legislature to act. This isn't a power grab, but a relinquishing of power.

The supreme court can at least hide behind some abstract legal argument (spurious or otherwise).

Much more concerning to me is the states who have enacted the actual bans with whatever passes for a democratic mandate. And it's that system which presumably will be the only tool that people have to protect themselves.

Post reply on HN