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

881–890 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#881

Post by endisneigh »

unsui wrote: post #873

Reading the various discussions on HN, it is obvious that HN skews male. The vast majority of threads are either regarding the interpretation of legal frameworks and their implications, or asserting a-priori values on start of life and following the rational implications thereof. No-where do I see any discussions, or even caring about, how this affects women directly: the ability to govern their own bodies, their rep…

I’m curious (since you mention things skewing male), do you believe that a man who gets a woman pregnant should have to support the child? Why or why not?

As for the reproductive rights, as long as contraception is legal (and who knows what will happen next) isn’t the choice at conception? Contraceptives should be untaxed and widely available.

People talk about Roe v Wade as if women spontaneously get pregnant against their will and are forced to care for the baby.

That being said women who are raped should be able to get an abortion imo

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#882

Post by AlimJaffer »

unsui wrote: post #873

Reading the various discussions on HN, it is obvious that HN skews male. The vast majority of threads are either regarding the interpretation of legal frameworks and their implications, or asserting a-priori values on start of life and following the rational implications thereof. No-where do I see any discussions, or even caring about, how this affects women directly: the ability to govern their own bodies, their rep…

Well said. Too much of the debate on here is around logical fallacies rather than the direct impact this will have on women - particularly those who are poor and unable to travel for safe abortions in other states.

Banning abortion only makes access to safe abortions harder - if the right wing want to reduce abortions, making contraceptives freely available has been proven to dramatically reduce the abortion rate as evidenced in Colorado[1].

[1] - https://www.yesmagazine.org/social-justice/2019/06/05/aborti...

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#883

Post by mattnewton »

kokanator wrote: post #835
mikewarot wrote: post #764

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!

It is important to note the position was that of the Hospital and not a legal position. All laws in place or being contemplated allow for abortive procedures in medical emergencies such as when the mothers life is in danger. For instance, the Mississippi law which was the impetus of the recent SCOTUS ruling has the following language: “[e]xcept in a medical emergency or in the case of a severe fetal abnormality, a pe…

This is a lot of room for selective enforcement even in the Mississippi law. All it takes are criminal penalties for a doctor to hesitate or even refuse to perform potentially life saving operations. And that’s not even looking at laws like the one in Oklahoma which doesn’t have this carve out. Edit: OK has a stricter form of this carve out for medical emergencies, I misspoke.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#884

Post by eric_cc »

unsui wrote: post #873

Reading the various discussions on HN, it is obvious that HN skews male. The vast majority of threads are either regarding the interpretation of legal frameworks and their implications, or asserting a-priori values on start of life and following the rational implications thereof. No-where do I see any discussions, or even caring about, how this affects women directly: the ability to govern their own bodies, their rep…

I think it’s totally fair to respond to this in multiple ways. Legal and economic repercussions are important discussions. So is the practical impact to women. There is no reason to belittle people for considering various aspects of this ruling.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#885

Post by dbingham »

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…

It's important to note that 4 of the 9 justices on the court, and 4 of the 6 who voted in favor of this decision were appointed by presidents that lost the popular vote.

Literally appointed by minority governments.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#886

Post by ErrantX »

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…

Ultimately, I don't feel this is really about reproductive rights.

It's part of a long term disenfranchisement of groups of individuals in a way which secures GOP electoral college votes. As you say, the power of rural Republican votes is significant and depopulating those areas of democratic votes is a significant part of the GOP strategy.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#887

Post by mattnewton »

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #337

The Supreme Court neither banned abortion nor prohibited the legislature from protecting the right to abortion. It merely decided that it is not currently protected by constitution, which to me seems completely correct. If most people agree that it should be a constitutional right, no one stops the legislature from adding the required amendment. And if most people can't agree on that, well, adding that wouldn't be de…

> The Supreme Court neither banned abortion nor prohibited the legislature from protecting the right to abortion. It merely decided that it is not currently protected by constitution, which to me seems completely correct.

The Supreme Court includes multiple justices put there in no small part due to lobbying by conservative faith groups, and as part of their lobbying plan, several states have trigger laws on the books that immediately make abortion legal in many states. The Supreme Court’s decision is the immediate cause of these “trigger laws” going into effect. It’s a part of a larger concerted effort, so this is a distinction with little difference for anyone living in these states or who may find themselves sued in Texas for providing abortions to a Texan who crossed into their state.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#889

Post by mattnewton »

cryptonector wrote: post #580
bambax wrote: post #155

The fact that the same institution (SCOTUS), reading the same text (US Constitution) could conclude that abortion is a right, then isn't, tells us much of what we need to know about said institution, text... and certainly "historicism" as well. It's all arbitrary; clever and well-read people spending a lot of time justifying and rationalizing their predjudice.

Yeah, it's a bunch of humans with opinions.

always has been :/

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#890

Post by Kye »

I remember all the times I was called a poor sport for bringing up Brendan Eich's support of Prop 8 right here on HN, any time Brave came up.

"You won! Take the W and move on."

There is no win when the same people who supported Prop 8 were working hard to prevent marriage equality, and end it once it happened, and working hard to fight the very underpinnings for it and other rulings like Roe vs. Wade. This is why I refused to move on for so long, but eventually the downvotes and flags and screaming won over, and I gave up. And we lost.

For now.

Post reply on HN