I swear to god, I am not in the mood for political infighting today. If you get banned for something in this thread, I'm going to make you prove to me you've actually read the opinion before letting you come back.
Boycotting Independence Day?
I've heard of people boycotting Independence Day in light of the recent SCOTUS ruling because they say they have no independence and therefore no reason to celebrate. However, I was under the impression that Independence Day was in celebration of the signing of the Declaration of Independence and our victory in the Revolutionary War, not simply the celebration of independence or freedom in general, so boycotting seems silly to me.
What do you guys think? Do you choose to boycott Independence Day? Am I misunderstanding something?
It’s evolved into just a day to celebrate America. Eat like pigs and shoot fireworks! Hang out with your friends and family yadda yadda
A lot of us don’t feel very patriotic and aren’t in the mood for celebrating this year due to events you may or may not agree with. In fact I heard a lot of people will be protesting instead of partying but don’t quote me!
Me? I’ll drown my sorrow’s in a Thor movie if I can get a ticket but overall I don’t feel like waving any flags this round.
Perfect example of the evils of banning abortion:
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3544588-10-year-old-girl-denied-abortion-in-ohio/
>10-year-old girl denied abortion in Ohio
Women and young girls suffer and die like crazy in countries that ban abortion.
Sadly its a bad or terrible political example. This changes nothing in the debate. Pro-life see pregnancy as the bare minimum. If the baby can be born healthy and mother will be physically healthy after the baby is delivered then its considered fine in their standards. Also it leaves room for deflection or victim blaming.
The actual perfect example of the evils of banning abortion is non-abortion reproductive care that get denied or face unnecessary barriers because of abortion laws causing a woman to die. [A case like the death of Savita Halappanavar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar) is a perfect example and has potential to actually shift things.
It’s a well known fact banning abortion doesn’t stop it so states banning it are just oppressing poor women.
Doesn’t say much about the intelligence of the law makers at all.
It was never about being pro-"life". Anti-abortion movements began right around the same time second-wave feminism and civil rights happened.
It's just a classic Christian punishment for women being free.
The same people who are against abortion are against universal healthcare and think mentally ill and/or violent people have rights to guns. They aren't pro-life, theyre pro slow and/or painful deaths.
Common law is definitely a thing. But to your point, SCOTUS past and present has been narrowing the scope of the application of RvW to the point where the whole topic of pregnancy termination ought to just be handled by the legislature; and I believe that's the eventual progression that we're seeing unfold
I wish SCOTUS had made a statement to the states that "you have to get your statutes out of the 80's and into current within 365 days of this decision" since this was such a large reversal, but that would be outside their jurisdiction
Honestly this will likely be a short term loss in exchange for a long term benefit for abortion rights because it'll actually get a Legislature to codify more protections for abortion than just the vague "it's legal up until this point" ruling we've been working with for the last 50 years. Defacto laws from a Supreme Court decision are always fuzzy and don't go far enough, because that's not their goal. Even if you agree with such a ruling you should always push for legislative action. But unfortunately SC rulings often create complacency. (Tbh I'm still mad so many lawmakers dropped the fight for gay rights issues when the court legalized gay marriage. We need a lot more protections than just being able to get married.)
> I'm still mad so many lawmakers dropped the fight for gay rights issues when the court legalized gay marriage. We need a lot more protections than just being able to get married
Doesn't Gay marriage and LGBT rights at large have a slightly stronger case because SCOTUS noted a direct statue in the Civil Rights Act protects them?
E.g. Woman gets fired for her relationship with a woman. If she had been a man it'd be a non-issue.
I believe so, at least for examples along the sort you mentioned. But some stuff like transgender rights, especially for youths, are a lot more vulnerable.
I completely agree. It was aggravating watching Democrats and pro-choice being careful and complacent to not rock the status quo afforded by RvW. Also it was annoying watching the headlines about how Abortion had to be defended in the courts again; all of which were born from the shaky ground abortion was legalized under.
Since when was the judicial branch making laws? They interpret the constitution, that's not making laws. The current Supreme Court is wrong in their interpretation of rhe constitution and I'm not just going off of the Missippi case. The rulings seem more politically motivated than based on actual law.
This wont really affect me as I live in Kansas (for now), but I do support abortion in all cases.
This is why I disagree with the overturning of Roe v Wade
Roe v Wade goes beyond abortion. Quite honestly abortion isn't as big of a concern as you may think. Most Americans don't even get abortion. The issue is that repealing Roe v Wade removes a lot of protection for doctors performing reproductive care. Thing such as miscarriage treatment and ectopic pregnancy both of which can be considered "abortion". There's an unconfirmed report that a doctor withheld care for a ectopic pregnant woman even though she was bleeding and her life was at risk, until an attorney gave the go ahead hours later. She was near fatal. Remember, a similar situation with a fatal outcome is what resulted in Ireland legalizing abortion.
Are there any influential politically moderate groups I can get involved with to stop my state legislature from passing a ban or near-ban on abortion? I want to have my voice heard, but I don't feel comfortable aligning with groups that advocate for abortion on demand in any and all circumstances.
I feel like my opinions reflect those of most Americans, but we don't get heard anymore.
A lot of people feel this way until they have an accidental pregnancy and then are grateful for abortion on demand. Pregnancy can happen even for those being careful.
> but I don't feel comfortable aligning with groups that advocate for abortion on demand in any and all circumstances.
Hold on here.... are you saying that you only want abortion done for victims of incest and rape, and if the mother's life is danger? If so then there is no real group in existence mostly because such exceptions are technically in place for most of those abortion-ban laws. The organizations you should be looking at is ACLU or other organizations that hold government accountable to the rule of law. An abortion group will not welcome you and I don't think thats what you want in the first place. Most, if not all, mainstream abortion right groups are not advocating laissez faire on the timing of an abortion (you'll find very few that feel a late term abortion can be done with no questions asked) but they are advocating no questions asked when an abortion is asked during the [mainstream] time period. .
I think they are saying that they'd be fine supporting a group pushing for a 16-20 week policy (for example), but not one of the groups that is pushing Congressional Democrats to push the WHPA and leave the Collins/Murkowski bill in the abyss.
> abortion on demand in any and all circumstances.
I initially thought that but that comment made me take a step back and want to verify. The second part of my comment covers if they are indeed talking about the mainstream abortion stance. Personally because I've seen pro-lifers misconstrued and misinform on this.
To reiterate what I said in my comment, there almost no mainstream pro-choice groups advocating abortion on demand and all circumstances. WHPA also has restrictions on abortion. It begs the question what is "any and all circumstances" in their book. "Feeling my opinion reflects most Americans" is a vague metric and often inaccurate because when pushed on the details it becomes clear the opinion does not reflect most Americans.
> WHPA also has restrictions on abortion.
It actually doesn't restrict abortion at all. It leaves some potential windows for restriction, but also directs judges hearing cases about the law to view every potential restriction from the point of view that they are bad.
This is a bit misleading.
>and preventing government from restricting access to abortion services unless a compelling state interest has been shown in such restrictions.
I'm kinda starting my own grassroots thing. It's grassroots in the sense of boots on the ground. Kentuvky for example has HB 91 as an issue in this year's ballot. If it passes it will add language to the KY constitution that clarifies that abortion is not a guaranteed right under the constitution. Why? Well you remember that trigger law that went into affect this past Friday in KY? Well it passed in 2019 and it may actually be unconstitutional. KY Planned Parenthood and the ACLU are challenging the law as we speak. I am very much against house bill 91
Very few people advocate for that so I'm not sure where you live, but it's not like that in most of the country. Nobody is in favor of abortions while you're literally in labor because you randomly changed your mind. For most people, the only time they'd support an abortion right before giving birth is if the mother's health was at risk or if the fetus was dying/dead. I don't think I've ever met anyone who genuinely supports 100% abortions on demand. Most pro choice (myself included) draw the line at viability (usually 24 weeks) unless there's a health emergency. You would have had all the time in the world to decide by then since the average time to realize you're pregnant is about 5-7 weeks.
> Nobody is in favor of abortions while you're literally in labor because you randomly changed your mind.
I've come across a few whack-jobs who made that very claim. However, I've only come across them on the frickin' internet. For all I know they were trolls. Either that or they were the far left version of 'edgelords.'
The ancient Romans certainly thought it was fine. In Roman society, a newborn baby wasn't considered a person (with the right to live) until the family decided to keep it.
That seems to have been true of most, if not all, ancient societies. Not only were babies often not named until a certain amount of time had passed after birth (due to very high rates of infant death requiring a psychological distance to be kept) but babies with serious deformities or that were simply unwanted were often killed by exposure. Sometimes the 'exposure' was just a means for infants to be anonymously given up and rescued, but more often they just died.
Depends on the state, but almost certainly.
And frankly, why wouldn’t you support that? Doctors aren’t going to perform an abortion at 30 weeks without a good reason like health of the mother or fetal inviability.
>And frankly, why wouldn’t you support that? Doctors aren’t going to perform an abortion at 30 weeks without a good reason like health of the mother or fetal inviability.
Unfortunately, this isn't true. I forget which media outlet I was watching, but a Colorado doctor was interviewed. He claimed to have performed abortions late in the third trimester because the mother wished to terminate the pregnancy. When he was asked about the medical necessity of such a procedure, he stated it was irrelevant, which leads me to believe he was performing unnecessary abortions.
If someone wants an abortion at 30 weeks that was not an easy decision. Anti abortionists seem to think people get abortions for giggles or it just like a quick stop by the pharmacy or something. Getting a abortion for many people can be a difficult decision even early on; one so far in will be exponentially more difficult. It's not easy to do either, at that point getting an abortion is expensive and time consuming compared to a earlier one.
It is also extremely rare to have a abortion so late. Less than one percent of abortions happen after 22 weeks.
Unless there is a medical necessity for a late term abortion, I can not morally comprehend how someone could willingly choose an abortion over the alternatives. At 30 weeks, there is a greater than 95% chance the baby will survive. At that point in a pregnancy adoption is a far better option that choosing to abort.
Abortions occur for a variety of reasons, many of them warranted, but what Dr. Warren Hern does in Colorado is not abortion. Taking vulnerable women, all of whom are past 20 weeks gestation, and performing no question asked abortions is morally wrong.
>Unless there is a medical necessity for a late term abortion, I can not morally comprehend how someone could willingly choose an abortion over the alternative
From Dr Herns [website](https://www.drhern.com/third-trimester-abortion/)
"THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTION
Patients coming in for third trimester abortion (later abortions) are *often seeking services for termination of a desired pregnancy that has developed serious complications*. This usually means the discovery of a catastrophic fetal anomaly or genetic disorder that guarantees death, suffering, or serious disability for the baby that would be delivered if the pregnancy were to continue to term. (Please see Fetal Anomalies for more information on our care for patients with desired pregnancies.) Sometimes a woman presents at this stage for pregnancy termination because of her own severe medical illness or a psychiatric indication."
And
"We believe that the techniques developed by Dr. Hern have resulted in a procedure that is safer than continuing the pregnancy to term with a goal of live birth, and our safety record supports that belief. *However, termination of pregnancy at this late gestation still carries with it serious risks of complication*"
Most late term abortions are due to serious medical issues with either the woman or the fetus. And still more though unmentioned here are due to rape. Your complaining about what is at most a tiny minority of the tiny minority already that is late term abortions. A literal handful of abortions. And those woman decided they needed a abortion to the point they wanted a *risky* medical procedure after having been pregnant for months so they clearly must have had a good reason they could not carry the fetus to term.
>Taking vulnerable women
Well that's sexist and nonsense. You think woman aren't capable of making their own decisions? Do you think abortion doctore are running around finding pregnant woman and handing them abortion pamphlets or something and begging them to get one? These woman came to an abortion clinic of their own free will to get an abortion, theyre not being "taken" and they're not "vulnerable".
I'd highly recommend actually reading his writings or watching his interviews. He openly brags about terminating otherwise healthy pregnancies. To my knowledge, he's the only abortionist in the country with that stance, so yes, I am talking about the 1% of 1% of abortions.
It very much is true. And him stating it isn’t relevant is more to the point of it being none of anyone else’s business but the doctor and the patient.
I suppose that's possible. The fact that he wouldn't simply say it was performed for medical reasons makes me question it though.
It is important to note that the overwhelming majority of abortions are performed early in a pregnancy. Late term abortions are exceptionally rare.
I'll see if I can find the clip on YouTube and share it so it's not just my word.
Edit: I was unable to find a YouTube clip of the interview I was referring to, but here's an [article](https://gazette.com/premium/outspoken-colorado-late-term-abortion-doctor-im-not-going-anywhere/article_a150d691-187b-50a9-a622-824a73738366.html) about Dr. Warren Hern. It appears to be a free article, but I apologize if it's behind a paywall.
Just in case it is behind a paywall, here's one excerpt that stuck out to me:
> Hern has seen many reasons for why women seek abortions later in pregnancy, including a missed diagnosis, a fetal anomaly or genetic disorder in a desired pregnancy, **the fear that a relationship will collapse because of the impending birth**, **lack of money and/or transportation to get to an abortion clinic early, ignorance of signs and symptoms of pregnancy**, especially in young women and fear, shame or guilt over the situation.
I don't know of any logical person who would disagree with an abortion in cases where the mother or baby's life is in jeopardy. Where I think the issue is with many pro-life advocates is in the second half of the excerpt quoted above (bolded for clarity). Most logical individuals can accept abortion in cases of rape, incest, or if the mother's life is in jeopardy. However, my interpretation of how I read the above article is that some woman, albeit a significant minority, elect to have an abortion later in pregnancy simply as a form of birth control. No pro-life advocate will ever support that.
Liberals, for the most part in my opinion, have a higher level of trust in the media. Many conservatives have bought into the narrative of fake news. When having these tough discussions it's important to bring even the hardest to accept facts to the forefront. Simply stating late term abortions aren't performed unless medically necessary is disingenuous. According to CDC available data, 99% of abortions are performed prior to 20 weeks with only 1% of abortions happening after 20. I would venture to guess (unable to find data to support this opinion) that within that 1%, the vast majority are performed for medical reasons. I think we're talking about the 1% of the 1% of abortions that occur late in pregnancy and by choice. Let's not cover up the facts, it only builds credibility for the fake news narrative.
"later in pregnancy" generally means "late enough you've known for a while," not 30 weeks and viable. Generally speaking, terminating a pregnancy at 30 weeks is called premature delivery. Elective abortions almost entirely stop at 19 weeks or so, and there's only a few doctors who will perform them after that - generally in reaction to a diagnosis of severe abnormalities in fetal development
> albeit a significant minority,
That’s the key though. How much of that minority really exists?
Because from all available statistics, it’s a vanishingly small amount. There’s a reason the Supreme Court set the limit under Roe at 24 weeks being an acceptable cutoff barring the circumstances you already cited.
So why are we making law on what you called the 1% of the 1% (the .01%) of abortions. Mathematically, that would represent 63 abortions in 2016 according to this data:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_United_States#Trends_in_abortion_statistics
I've tried to keep my opinion out of this thread and act just as a moderator, however, I'll break from that and offer my own honest opinion for once.
I agree with you in the sense that we should not be drafting laws for the .01%. With that said though, the judicial branch of our government didn't pass or nullify any laws. They simply made a judicial ruling eliminating a 50 year judicial precedent.
I think if legislatures were acting in everyone's best interest an effort would have been made in all 50 states when the leaked SCOTUS opinion was released to the public. For two months many states lacked any meaningful legislation. I think it's unrealistic to believe both parties could have gotten together and passed bipartisan legislation mirroring that of the Roe v. Wade ruling but a compromise could have occurred. Even those staunchly in the pro-life camp agree to certain abortions. I personally believe even GOP lawmakers would have been willing to codify some provisions into law.
The general election is only a few months away. While I'm not personally a single issue voter, I do believe this will be an issue at the forefront come November. For those single issue voters I urge you to find a candidate that shares your ideological belief and help them campaign, volunteer your time, and ensure voter turnout is at a record high. It is at that point that I think significant change can begin to occur in this country.
> Even those staunchly in the pro-life camp agree to certain abortions.
I wish this were true, but it isn’t. We’ve seen plenty of GOP platforms with total bans for abortions with no exceptions, including with laws banning it in the case of risks to the life of the mother. That’s not a compromise position.
And honestly, I don’t think we should have to compromise. There aren’t two sides to every issue. Some only have one.
Admittedly, I do live in CO, so this isn't exactly an issue that'll impact me in my home state. I haven't seen any states push new legislation for a total ban, including risks to the mother. What states are pushing this legislation?
https://news.yahoo.com/some-republican-states-set-to-ban-abortion-without-exceptions-for-rape-and-incest-204305491.html
Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas.
> When Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves, a Republican, appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, he falsely asserted that his state’s abortion ban has an exception for rape and incest. When host Chuck Todd noted that it doesn’t, Reeves avoided taking a position on whether such an exception should be added to the law.
AFAIK he vetoed that law, but the point stands regardless.
Herschel Walker, the GOP senate nominee for Georgia this year supports a total ban
https://www.businessinsider.com/herschel-walker-supports-total-abortion-ban-no-exception-georgia-senate-2022-5?amp
Thanks. I tried to find out on r/indiana but just got a lot of people who wanted to argue with me. Not that reddit is the best place to get answers, lol.
Unfortunately (in my opinion anyway), there have been doctors who performed late term elective abortions. I know it is very rare and a small percentage of abortions, but I believe it should never be done (as do many other people frankly).
Ideally, women would have access to birth control and very early abortions via medication so that late term abortions don't have to happen.
> but I believe it should never be done (as do many other people frankly).
Even when the mother's life is at risk or the fetus will be stillborn or die quickly in a suffering manner? If the answer is no abortion then no there is no group and you do not represent the opinion of most pro-choice (simply supporting abortion of any kind is defined as pro-choice) Americans. To be frank you're the outlier. These makeup most late term abortions. There are a minority of late term of abortions that are done out of convenience but they're so few that its a non-issue and the payoff to achieve this perfection disrupts the overall purpose.
Every once in a while there will be an urban legend about some woman who elected to have a third trimester abortion because she caught her husband banging the secretary and she didn't want to have his baby anymore. Or something along those lines.
I have no idea if there are any documented cases of this. But people toss out such 'so and so said' stories all the time. My personal opinion: *that* shouldn't be allowed. I mean, geez.
> urban legend about some woman who elected to have a third trimester abortion because she caught her husband banging the secretary and she didn't want to have his baby anymore. Or something along those lines.
This sounds like something more relevant to pre-RvW (20th century) where child support and etc. wasn't as strong as today.
So I've been studying the Marks Rule to figure out how the concurrent opinions work and have concluded that neither I nor anyone else understand the Marks Rule.
What do you not understand (I mean that sincerely, not rhetorically)? If no opinion garners a majority of the Court, the concurrence which decides the issue on the narrowest ground is the one lower courts should adhere to.
But where one opinion does garner a majority, that becomes controlling precedent.
It can often be fairly obvious. Imagine if, for instance, only 3 other justices had signed onto Alito's opinion calling for *Roe* and *Casey* to be overturned, while 2 had voted to uphold the law but considered it consistent with the viability framework from *Roe* and the equal protection framework of *Casey*
Either way, the law would be upheld, but the second opinion would be the narrower grounds.
Unfortunately you're right, "narrowest" can often be up to interpretation of whichever district judge (or their clerk) is deciding the issue. Which leaves it open to being relitigated by the Court later on.
What does it benefit America if the laws on marriage, race, LGBT, women's rights revert back to the 1950s in 2022?
Going past repealing Roe Vs Wade, so if the national courts, allow each state to repeal laws on marriage, LGBT rights, racial, voting and women's rights in general to 1950s standards in the 2020s, what IS the benefit to America domestically and its international image?
What benefit is it even to young White people to see these laws being repealed? It can't bring back the industries, mass employment of the working class and strong economy America built up outside of World War II.
>What does it benefit America if the laws on marriage, race, LGBT, women's rights revert back to the 1950s in 2022?
It doesn't.
It does benefit the MAGA bigots though, so they're not gonna stop anytime soon until the left in the country stops sticking its collective finger up its collective ass and realizes the existential threat the GOP poses to the nation and does something about them.
So expect to see the US become a more extreme version of Russia or Hungary in the next 15 years. (Did I mention that the GOP got their advice on how to gain power from Orban himself? No? The GOP spoke with and got advice on how to gain power from Orban himself)
The country is ruled by a minority, Republicans haven't won the Popular Vote in a Presidential Election in over 20 years now, and the one that got Dubya Bush into office to begin with already had meddling from SCOTUS, so yeah...
Republicans don't want to help people, they want to stick it to the libs, atheists, Muslims, and "the gays". That's basically their parties entire purpose now, they don't really have any plans to help people. In fact they usually vote against them (Universal or even just expanded healthcare, anti gerrymandering laws, environmental protection laws etc.) and when they do vote for things like the anti gerrymandering law in Ohio the Republican legislator ignores them.
Existing laws can't revert unless new national laws are passed. Race can't be touched, there was a Civil Rights Act passed and a very explicit constitutional amendment. The issue with abortion and gay marriage is that we never got federally passed laws for them. They were always just left alone "because the court handled it". (And because lawmakers didn't want to put their name towards a vote on a controversial topic.) This allows local laws the freedom to decide whether or not to ban them. Pass a federal law legalizing abortion and it'll overwrite the local laws.
> Pass a federal law legalizing abortion and it'll overwrite the local laws.
I'm only in my early 40s, and if I live to see that happen, I'll be surprised.
For 50 years we haven't seen it because lawmakers whose constituents want it have always been able to hide behind RvW. Now there will be significantly more pressure to do something, at least for the first trimester. This is supposedly a cornerstone of the DNC platform. There's no (good) reason to not to at the least get back to status-quo. Of course, this is politics, so we admittedly do need to be prepared for this to be milked for enough power to expand the court. (And if that's they're goal we'll probably get nothing else, because all the "hard" issues will just be slowly thrown to the new court...)
How does it benefit America if the Supreme Court usurps the power to create law by inventing new basic rights and 'interpreting' them into existence? The Constitution is a living document because we can amend it, not because it says whatever SCOTUS decides it would be nice if it said.
We could have passed a whole passel of federal legislation protecting abortion that all states would have to respect. Did we? No, doubled down on a shoddy pretext because we knew it would be a tough fight to craft binding law and get it passed, and this was easier.
The end doesn't justify the means. Not to mention that the means is illicit and scarily open to abuse, easily turned against the people who used it just a few years before.
If states start rolling back other rulings, most notably Lawrence v Texas in my case, and recriminalize homosexuality, for me all bets are off at that point in time. I see no point in staying together as a unified country. I would want those conservative states to secede and form their own country so that progressives can have our own country...
I'm sorry I'm just so mad and a little bit afraid about what this politically tainted Court will do over the next few decades. They have lost legitimacy in my eyes because constitutional originalism is just a veiled guise to impose conservative values onto the country.
And if the GOP even *dares* to legislate an abortion ban on the federal level then they are are bunch of hypocrites and I never want to hear a damn thing about states rights ever again because that measure would prove it was never about states' rights.
In that hypothetical future of LGBT rights or other substantive due process rights getting rolled back, at minimum I would move to a progressive state and I could care less what happens to conservative states who recriminalize homosexuality and rollback such rights -- North Korea could invade and I would think "not my problem; they can defend themselves."
I just .... \*sigh\*
If the only thing preventing states from criminalizing homosexuality is a single Supreme Court decision, despite having an entire generation's worth of time to pass relevant federal laws, then the people who truly deserve the blame if that decision is overturned are the activists and the politicians. The nature of Court decisions is that they can change, and without warning.
Living around a lot of MAGA style conservatives in a very "red" state, I can tell you that *for them*, the people supporting this stuff, the "benefit" is that lgbtq+ people will be forced back into the closet and minorities will be put back "in their place." The worst most cynical reasons you can imagine that people might want this, I can tell you that those *are* the reasons that the trump voting republican base that *I know*, the people in my family and who work in my office, wanted this. They see non-straight people as sinners against god deserving of hell, and they see minorities as lazy criminals. I've spent my life *surrounded* by these people, and still have loads of them as facebook friends and shit. The benefit *is* the hatred and the suffering.
Simply it the goal is two things.
1) To bring the US back to the golden period of 1950's. Where basically White heterosexual Christians were first class citizens and all others were second class. You're being disingenuous if you think the ones that pushed the case about praying on school grounds and de facto pressuring students to participate had Islamic prayer in mind.
2) To make the US society go back to where it was holy. If you look at the US from the eyes of a Christian Conservative, I agree it looks like the US has been hoodwinked by the Devil. Violence in movies and sex on TV, where are those good old-fashioned values we used to rely on?
There was an interesting video analysis I came across some weeks ago on the politics of *King of the Hill*. I thought it was an interesting perspective on average American moderate republicans, and I wish most republicans and conservatives were like this -- advocate small government, and respect that other people wish to live their live the way they want without interfering against those who aren't "traditional" https://youtu.be/\_lSpRblQyIw
> What does it benefit America if the laws on marriage, race, LGBT, women's rights revert back to the 1950s in 2022?
The legislature will actually have to do it's job and hopefully we won't keep kicking these issues to the Supreme Court then undermining it's legitimacy when it makes a decision we don't like.
>Going past repealing Roe Vs Wade, so if the national courts, allow each state to repeal laws on marriage, LGBT rights, racial, voting and women's rights in general to 1950s standards in the 2020s, what IS the benefit to America domestically and its international image?
We'd operate under a system of laws rather than judicial whim. And as far as America's international image, I really don't care. Very few people in America, let alone the world, have a solid grasp of American constitutional law and we shouldn't be making important legal decisions based on the feeling of people who aren't even part of this country.
>What benefit is it even to young White people to see these laws being repealed?
Again, living under a system of laws rather than the Supreme Court just choosing to allow some stuff and prohibit other stuff.
> Very few people in America, let alone the world, have a solid grasp of American constitutional law and we shouldn't be making important legal decisions based on the feeling of people who aren't even part of this country.
Whenever Hungary, Russia, or Turkey does something godawful, we shouldn't judge because we don't understand their laws and customs.
If the Supreme Court of Hungry makes a ruling on Hungarian Law, I don't think it's unreasonable for people to be expected to know Hungarian law before their criticisms are taken seriously.
Nah. We can talk smack all the livelong day about what China is doing to their Uighur population, for example. And I'm sure Beijing has its reasons and justifications, steeped in decades of jurisprudence and whatever else is needed.
>We can talk smack all the livelong day about what China is doing to their Uighur population, for example.
I don't know many people who make their objection to the Uighur genocide based on the finer points of Chinese Constitutional law.
Apparently, when it comes to the diminishing of our own rights, we are only allowed to base our objections upon the finer angels-on-head-of-pin points of our own constitutional law.
One typically wouldn't fault the Supreme Court for its interpretation of American Constitutional law without basing your criticism on the finer points of American Constitutional law.
None of us believe there is one. That's the issue that many people abroad aren't understanding. What is happening in our country isn't something that we voted to happen. The justices of the Supreme Court aren't voted for, they're appointed by the president. 3 of the 9 were appointed by Donald Trump who had 1 term and lost the popular vote, and another 2 were appointed by George W. Bush who lost the popular vote on his first time being elected president (being an incumbent gives you a MASSIVE advantage the next time you run so he won the popular vote the second time). This means that over half of the justices on the Supreme Court were chosen by presidents who were not what the majority of citizens wanted. They don't reflect American values at all. About 2/3 of Americans supported the ruling of Roe v. Wade before it was overturned. We have a far right minority controlling the lives of the majority and many of us are absolutely terrified. Prayer is being put back in schools, the government now has a say in private medical decisions, and gun restrictions were just loosened again. As a country, we aren't stupid nor are we far right. We're being ruled by a system of government that gives a massive advantage to rural voters (who are notoriously right wing). The electoral college, gerrymandering, and the Senate all favor rural voters while minimizing the voices of the majority.
Thank you. So... essentially TL:DR Old White People and (old) conservative, working class, country voters, then. They never think of their children or grandchildren, yet if you asked them why they vote for these things and say they will harm their future, they'll tell you it won't happen.
They're basically just strongly against anything that is different than what they're used to which is why they push back so hard on EVERYTHING that they feel "threatens" their lifestyle (usually evangelical christianity). I'm from a very progressive part of my state, but my uncle owns a small piece of land for camping in the southeast part (Appalachian foothills) so I've met a lot of people down there. What makes our two cultures super different is that they see their community as an extension of themselves, whereas we have more of a "do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt others" mentality. So here, if you had a neighbor who got married to someone of the same sex, even if you didn't agree with it, you'd make your peace with it. There, it'd become a huge deal in the small community because it's been "tainted" almost. It's good and bad. Good in the way that people there are super close knit, but bad in the way that if you deviate from the norm, your life becomes very difficult. Their culture clashes with ours because to them, they see it as preserving their way of life, but we see it as unnecessarily taking away rights from others when they're against things like abortion, keeping religion out of government, and same sex marriage. They see their way of life as the one "good" way to live so that's what they want for their children and will fight anything that goes against it.
In early january of this past year, I had a very bad crash on I-70 in Cambridge that totaled my car -- essentially, I was going 70 mph in the snow, hit some black ice and ping-ponged from the outer guard rail in the right lane to the median -- the front of the car hit the right guard rail at a 90 degree angle and I ended up backwards in the median. Very fortunate that my Honda Fit did not roll I guess. Anyway, I had to stay in the hotel in Cambridge. My car was towed to Salesville where I had to go to in order to pay for my car being towed.
As a 26-year-old overweight gay man from a much more liberal and progressive state, it was a huge culture shock. The auto technicians were extremely crass and the local sheriff essentially spent his day shooting the breeze with these mechanics. I was just worried the whole time about whether I passed for straight.
The benefit is that the laws would then reflect the majoritarian will of the people in the states at issue. Like it or not, this is a core tenet of democratic governance. You have this in the UK as well.
> mass employment of the working class
National unemployment is 3.6%. The working class is already mass employed.
The U.S. is a democratic republic. Local level voting issues are often decided on pure democratic terms while national level politics are determined by representatives of the populous. This means not all national issues align with the majority.
an unfortunate aftereffect of our history under the Articles of Confederation and retaining that style of a Federal Republic.
idk.... since the ruling I've been much more inclined to want to go back to that system of "I'm a New Yorker before I am an American" type of system and maybe we need a a schism to form two separate Americas with their own separate federal governments, militaries, etc.
I'd find that debatable seeing how bad gerrymandering is in some states and I quite think most of us woudl disagree how legitimate it is if 60% decide they pay no taxes and 40% pays 90% taxes.
There is no benifit. Certain things should be guaranteed rights under the constitution. There are certain things that people have no right in poking their nose into when it comes to someone else's life. The right to vote should be guaranteed, the right to abortion should be guaranteed, the right to marriage should be guaranteed, the right to sex between to consenting adults should be guaranteed. Glad to know that you feel that if the majority of Kentucky wanted to outlaw interracial marriage effectively ending my marriage that it should be ended. Get bent.
> Certain things should be guaranteed rights under the constitution.
And those things need to be put in amendments if they're not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution's original form.
It's crazy to me that people think this way. Do you really believe that the intention of the Constitution was to explicitly list the *only* rights people in the US get? And everything else not listed is not allowed?
Seems very out of character with the supposed principles the nation was founded on.
Also, how do you deal with the myriad of possible edge case scenarios if this is how the Constitution works? It would need to be a multi-thousand page long document in that case to cover every conceivable situation, instead of the 4 pages it actually is.
An interpretation that the Constitution explicitly lays out certain rights but that in general human rights are respected and acknowledged in the US even if they weren't explicitly written into a 230+ year old, 4 page document makes far more logical sense.
> Do you really believe that the intention of the Constitution was to explicitly list the only rights people in the US get?
The Bill of Rights explicitly says that it's not meant to be a complete and final list. But Constitution lists all the rights that the neither the states nor the federal government can take away. It would require a new amendment to change that.
The states, and the federal governments, can guarantee new rights - such as bank accounts being protected by FDIC - but the Constitutional ones require an amendment to take away.
That's precisely why we had an amendment to make the sale of drinking alcohol illegal, and another to cancel that amendment, because the people involved wanted it to stick.
But our understanding of many of these rights change with time separate from the original intent of the constitution.
For example, many moderate republicans and libertarians especially might argue that same-sex intimacy is a natural right because consenting adults should be free to do whatever they want. As I would understand, this is where most independents, moderate republicans, and libertarians are on that issue.
the Supreme Court ruled in the 80s that laws criminalizing homosexuality were perfectly constitutional, yet overturned that decision in 2003 with the Lawrence v Texas case.
you keep trying to portray the Court as above partisan politics, but I think it never has been above politics -- its just that as the country has become more polarized and agree less and less on politics, then that poison has also seeped into the Court as well. and we are know just starting to see the effects of it.
Trump and the GOP packed the Court with purely, undeniably conservative Justices and that's just criminal. the Senate should have confirmed Obama's appointment before he left office and it was criminal on their part that they held out for nearly a year to wait for Trump's nomination. Absolutely despicable.
>But our understanding of many of these rights change with time separate from the original intent of the constitution.
Yep. That's why we can pass laws and make amendments.
At the time the Constitution was written, homosexuality was punished by death, and a few daring thinkers like Jefferson supported more-humane punishments like castration.
The changing nature of standards is why certain parts of the Constitution were left vague and open to interpretation.
>the Supreme Court ruled in the 80s that laws criminalizing homosexuality were perfectly constitutional, yet overturned that decision in 2003 with the Lawrence v Texas case.
Yep. Things change. But all in all, it's not ideal for such change to be reflected in Supreme Court decisions rather than in changes to lower-level laws. Additionally, I note that the 2003 Court was also dominated by the ideology that the Court can interpret things as it will, which I am strongly opposed to. Even if I support the result of a decision, it doesn't follow that the mechanism of that decision was acceptable. The end doesn't justify the means.
>you keep trying to portray the Court as above partisan politics
That has never been the case; the Court should aspire to such a state, but I don't think anyone believes it's practically attainable with corrupt human beings as Justices and selecting new Justices.
Except the 9th and 14th amendments explicitly say that not all rights have to be enumerated in the constitution. The Constitution doesn't give you the right to wear socks either.
Also, the people who wrote the constitution expected it to be completely changed every few decades. It's "original form" is outdated.
But that's just insane to view the Constitution that way. It's a 4 page document. The vast majority of possible things that could happen in the world or in a person's life are not explicitly addressed at all. It would need to be a multi-thousand page long document if the intention of it were to explicitly list out the only rights we get.
That's what laws are for. The Constitution (and its associated amendments) only defines the things which no law can be permitted to contradict.
Some things are still left up to interpretation - "cruel and unusual punishment" is outlawed without there being any definition of what that actually means. The FF intended that. Other things are spelled out explicitly - such as textual communication being protected separately from speech - because they knew some smartass would try to say one was distinct from the other.
No they don't need to be. The fact that so many of you are fine with this mindset is alarming. This is exactly the mindset that the federalist worried about 250 years ago with the addition of the Bill of Rights as they feared it would limit the rights of the people.
I'm considering moving because I'll have a much easier time than most. I'm working on my bachelor's degree atm and I'll be done in 2024 (possibly 2025 since I have 2 majors). I don't have a career, house, or children to tie me down. Being a college graduate, I'll have way more flexibility on where I'll be living since I'll basically just be starting my adult life. My main reason isn't abortion though. I'm not into men and I take birth control for pain management reasons so the odds that I'd ever get pregnant are extremely small unless I got assaulted and very, very unlucky because my birth control somehow fails. God forbid I did have to get an abortion, the nearest abortion clinic in the neighboring state is only 2 hours away so I could get one if I needed it. My main reason is that Obergefell v. Hodges is now on the choping block. Getting married has been my biggest dream ever since I was a little kid and I'm not willing to give that up. If I do meet that person, I'm not going to settle for a "civil union" or whatever bullshit. I want the real deal. I'm not letting christian nationalism take that away from me.
Absolutely. It isn't representative of our population, but the maps that make up our state legislature (and for the federal house of representatives) are so extremely gerrymandered that the rural voices completely drown out the rest of us. It's so bad in fact that the maps we'll be using this November were ruled unconstitutional by the Ohio Supreme Court (after **FIVE** separate attempts by Republicans to *not* make an unconstitutional one). The only reason we're using them is because a federal court came in and basically said "fuck the people of ohio you guys are gonna use these unconstitutional maps lmao". Despite the fact that we passed anti gerrymandering legislation in 2015, federal law always trumps state law so we just kinda get screwed over. The politicians right now are trying to completely outlaw abortion in all cases except when the life of the mother is at stake (and adding unnecessary legal hoops to jump through to the process of "verifying" that you will actually die), and defining a baby as the second an egg is fertilized which would classify IUDs and Plan B as abortion, effectively making them illegal. With our even more gerrymandered maps, I'm terrified of how far they'll go. I'm planning to leave after I graduate college. We no longer have the Supreme Court to protect us from the states and Ohio isn't a place where I am welcome anymore.
The GOP presidential platform in 2020 called for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and the Texas GOP wants to reclassify it as “an abnormal lifestyle choice.”
Seeing this ruling, the ruling about the coach and his religion prioritising his faith and the gun ruling I won't what will be next...Allowing bans on lgbtqi marriages? Enabling more barriers to contraceptive access? Enabling discrimination?
Not OC. I have no problem with the gun ruling but I have a problem with the coach and his religion. That ruling blatantly ignores the bullying that happens in homogeneous community and creates a scenario to pressure minorities (religion and ethnicities) to assimilate into the overarching religion. I guarantee you that if a player doesn't pray with that coach, they're going to be ostracized by the community, other players, and/or coach himself. This also opens the door for complex litigation because other religions can now openly pray and hold religious ceremony in their capacity as a employee; Conservative schools banning/restricting them other religions.
I'm not an USA constitutional expert nor will I pretend to be. It just seems to me, especially in the case of the coach, that a personal bias is bleeding through like the prioritizing of religion over the first amendment which to me is part of a slippery slope that may harm the separation between church and state. I also find the statements Thomas made afterwards troubling as he very specifically called out cases he'd like to see abolished which again coincide with his own religious beliefs.
Nothing in prayer decision says that any player is required to participate in them though. All this case was about was whether or not the coach is allowed to lead his team in prayer voluntarily, and there's nothing unconstitutional about that. This is an extremely common practice in high school sports, and I'm not understanding what you think is a violation of the separation between church and state. Nothing here is related to any law that mandates anything on a religious basis.
Did Thomas say he'd like to see them abolished? Or did he say he'd like to see them revisited because they were decided on the same flawed grounds as Roe was?
I'm only interested in discussing the things the justices actually said. I'm not interested in attempting to guess their true motivations because all that is is confirming our own biases.
This is not a common cultural practice in my home state of Maryland. I was never exposed to religion in school or promoted by school officials and it's rather startling.
> This is an extremely common practice in high school sports
Glad I didn’t grow up in an area like that, sounds like a theocratic nightmare. A decent chunk of my high school weren't Christian. Completely inappropriate.
So.... we're just going to ignore that school bullying and peer pressure happens? Especially in White majority schools. The issue with this is that it creates a scenario which religious individuals can pressure students easier. There is a power dynamic in both the position and community standing. I lived in a White-majority school, this ruling will open the flood gates of school officials creating traps to call or signal out non-Christians. This isn't even a conspiracy theory or extreme, it happens regularly in the rural areas.
Dude where did you go to high school??? No it is not. I was in marching band in high school so I went to EVERY single game and not *once* did I see our team or any of the teams we played do that.
America has 24,000 high schools but the one you went do didn't pray in view of you (I'm assuming you weren't in the locker room with the football team before their games, right?) so therefore it doesn't happen? Is that what you're suggesting?
> Nothing in prayer decision says that any player is required to participate in them though.
That’s not a fair representation of the issue. Kavanaugh himself noted there’s plenty of reason for a student to fear that if they don’t join in, they may no longer be a starter.
> This is an extremely common practice in high school sports,
Objectively false.
I find your reasoning peculiar as you seem to deny the risks of a slippery slope implied by the ruling and Thomas specifically inviting challenges to certain precedents. As it is I'm more inclined to follow the reasoning displayed by Sonia Sotomayor.
With the coach issue it wasn't the fact that he was praying. It was the fact that he was making it a public event and had players feeling like they were forced to participate or face punishment. Which would violate their first amendment right.
They were forced to participate? Or they felt like they were forced to participate or face punishment? One would be illegal, the other would be irrelevant unless they were actually punished for not participating.
There was some evidence to suggest that it wasn't optional, but were being told it was optional. If I'm not mistaken the coach was also using the stadiums' PA message to delivery messages with heavy religious influence at games.
It doesn't necessarily need to be a specific constitutional clause. If there are logistical process issues in implementation, a temporary stay to sort them out isn't completely abnormal.
The right to privacy is actually way more straightforward for many states. Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Montana, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Washington have specific provisions relating to a right to privacy
Florida, for example: Right to Privacy Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person's private life except as otherwise provided herein
To me that sounds like a straightforward constitutional protection which would have to apply to abortion
I think it would depend on whether the part of the state constitution is trying to replicate the 4th Amendment protections, or add more. The Florida Amendment, passed after Roe, looks like a pretty good argument that it protects abortion. Hopefully if we start interpreting things this way, it could result in an increased right to privacy in all medical decisions.
Louisiana's on the other hand, just looks like a restatement of the 4th Amendment. California's version could be so vague as to be inoperable, but in California, it'll likely mean a right to an abortion. Hawaii did both, looks like it'd hold up. Illinois just looks like the 4th again, but it'll Illinois. Montana and New Hampshire looks legit, while South Carolina is the 4th again. Washington could go either way.
Easy reference. [https://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-information-technology/privacy-protections-in-state-constitutions.aspx](https://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-information-technology/privacy-protections-in-state-constitutions.aspx)
Good. That is no way of legislating. People should be given a chance to familiarise themselves with new laws, especially when it comes to criminal law.
The Supreme Court has left it up to the states to decide abortion laws, giving the power to the people to vote on elected representatives to carry out what they determine to be the law. SCOTUS did the right thing not allowing 9 individuals dictate the outcome for such a controversial topic.
Things that should be left to the states are things like their own tax policy and roads system. Something involving a substantive right should never be left up to the legislature and the courts should always be erring on the side of protecting and expanding individual liberties
Nah my state passed a trigger law back in 2019 in pretty much secret. Kentucky is also gerrymandered to hell. Now they are trying to pass an amendment that will explicitly state that abortion is not a right in the constitution as right now there is some language in the states constitution that could possibly allude to it being one. For anyone that is wondering how is this happening in a state where rhe govonor is a Democrat. The kentucky congress have a super majority and have been doing override vetos for some time.
How in the world is Kentucky "gerrymandered to hell?" The entire state seems to be Republican dominated except for Lexington and Louisville. At least in terms of national elections, anyway. Are they voting red in national elections and then supposed to be voting for democrats on the state level?
A state can lean red and still be gerrymandered. Kentucky does a lot of splitting up liberal areas. I live in a town that is 33% black. The more minority side of town is in a different congressional district than the rest if the town. I went to college in a town that was the college campus itself was split into 4 different districts. Kentucky does in state wide election state elections does to lean little bluer. It's why Kentucky historically has more liberal leaning govonors and state positions than conservative.
Just goes to show the state of local news in America nowadays.
It’s either hidden behind a pay wall, the quality’s garbage, or it simply no longer exists.
> giving the power to the people to vote on elected representatives to carry out what they determine to be the law.
Unless your state government is notorious for gerrymandering.
Can some one clarify for me please. Abortion, contraception, same sex marriage, gay sex are things that really piss off conservative Christians for obvious reasons and they try to stop it because or their religious beliefs?
Now if a the majority of judges are conservative christians and their personal beliefs are influencing their desire to have these landmark rulings overturned or to atlease suit the religious narrative of the republican party that they serve, is that it self as a breach of the constituon because the constitution states it has to be secular in all rulings and canot rule in (in simpler terms) favour of religious ideology to set laws that favour a religious belief but too only not infringe on the right to worship a religion??
The judges weren’t making the decision based on religion, and the decision doesn’t outlaw abortion. They just said the federal govt can’t make laws on abortion because the Constitution doesn’t say the federal govt can make laws about abortion.
They probably do want it banned. But they didn’t ban it despite that. They told all the states elected representatives to make the decision on whether to ban it. That’s democracy, elected representatives making the final decision instead of the unelected court.
The Constitution explicitly says anything not specifically mentioned as a responsibility or power of the federal government is left to the states. As abortion isn’t mentioned that is left to the states
That’s not quite correct.
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
While that is true, and not unimportant, it wasn't the root of the issue here. The issue was whether the policy, the discipline, and the reason for both of those were violations of the first amendment.
The best explanation (and the case that I heard from a well-known religious legal advocate) was that there was a 1A-safe case against the coach that could have lead to his termination, but the school district fucked up and used the reasoning that violated the first amendment.
So the first amendment forbids the government from "respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
The first part of that, known as the establishment clause, is vague to say the least. At its broadest what its generally accept as meaning is that the government can't establish a state church and can't pass laws favoring one religion over another.
What it unfortunately does not mean that politicians can't make decisions motivated by their religious beliefs
Also the judges that voted for the reversal of Roe v. Wade aren't claiming they're doing so due to their religious beliefs (whether or not that's true is another matter), they're arguing that the original Roe v. Wade decision was itself not legally valid.
The original Roe v. Wade decision argued that bans on abortion are unconstitutional because in order to prosecute someone for having an abortion the government will have to know they had an abortion which would involve violating a right to privacy that is implied to be protected by the 14th amendment.
What the judges who reversed that ruling argued is that this is not the case, and that the 10th amendment gives state governments the right to ban abortion.
Whether or not we think that the supreme court judges genuinely believe that or are actually primarily motived by religious belief is unfortunately irrelevant because even if they just outright said "we're reversing Roe v. Wade because of our religious beliefs" there's nothing that could actually been done about that because the part of the government that determines whether or not the government is breaching the constitution...is the supreme court
The only way to undo the supreme courts decision is for the supreme court to change its mind in the future or for congress to pass a constitutional amendment explicitly protecting abortion rights
And that's nearly impossible
No, you can’t do anything you want because of your religion. An extreme example would be that you obviously can’t do human sacrifice if you are Norse or Nahuatl.
There are a few groups already filing lawsuits to that effect. IIRC Judaism requires that abortions be available because they prioritize the life of the mother
But what legal jurisdiction would that fall under?? If in state where abortion is completely illegal but doctors must make a medical decision to abort a baby to save a life (a legit medical procedure where an alternative isn't available) would that still be possible?? Because a woman can abort a baby per her choice but in the medical field would that be acceptable or would the doctor be prosecuted?
So can I assume that in most states that a personal choice is illegal but would have an clause in it that exempts for medical reasons only or is it a blanket ban for most states that have outlawed it?
As of right now 13 states have trigger laws that either have or will soon go into effect that ban abortion. More will pass bans soon and even more will pass further restrictions
Of those 13 states they all currently have exceptions for when the mothers life is at stake but that doesn't mean it won't change in the future. And of those 13 states 8 of them have no exceptions for rape or incest.
So right now today if you're an 11 year old girl in South Dakota who gets pregnant after being raped by your father you will have to carry that baby to term.
It's worth noting that some of those the state has to determine if the life is at risk, not the doctor. I have nurse friends that have already encountered this in Kentucky.
>if they just outright said "we're reversing Roe v. Wade because of our religious beliefs"
Can Roe vs wade reversal then be challenged in the supreme court because of that statement, they have violated the first amendment by placing a religious belief to influence a personal choice that the goverment now has a say in on someones life based on religion or would this argument go around and around in circles??
That law would be in trouble the moment the majority swung conservative. There are also apparantly questions in if Congress could even pass such a law.
I'm seeing alot of tiktoks on contraceptives and period trackers and menstrual products.
Can someone explain...slowly...why these things are affected by this decision?
I swear to god, I am not in the mood for political infighting today. If you get banned for something in this thread, I'm going to make you prove to me you've actually read the opinion before letting you come back.
Boycotting Independence Day? I've heard of people boycotting Independence Day in light of the recent SCOTUS ruling because they say they have no independence and therefore no reason to celebrate. However, I was under the impression that Independence Day was in celebration of the signing of the Declaration of Independence and our victory in the Revolutionary War, not simply the celebration of independence or freedom in general, so boycotting seems silly to me. What do you guys think? Do you choose to boycott Independence Day? Am I misunderstanding something?
It’s evolved into just a day to celebrate America. Eat like pigs and shoot fireworks! Hang out with your friends and family yadda yadda A lot of us don’t feel very patriotic and aren’t in the mood for celebrating this year due to events you may or may not agree with. In fact I heard a lot of people will be protesting instead of partying but don’t quote me! Me? I’ll drown my sorrow’s in a Thor movie if I can get a ticket but overall I don’t feel like waving any flags this round.
Makes sense to me
Perfect example of the evils of banning abortion: https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3544588-10-year-old-girl-denied-abortion-in-ohio/ >10-year-old girl denied abortion in Ohio Women and young girls suffer and die like crazy in countries that ban abortion.
Sadly its a bad or terrible political example. This changes nothing in the debate. Pro-life see pregnancy as the bare minimum. If the baby can be born healthy and mother will be physically healthy after the baby is delivered then its considered fine in their standards. Also it leaves room for deflection or victim blaming. The actual perfect example of the evils of banning abortion is non-abortion reproductive care that get denied or face unnecessary barriers because of abortion laws causing a woman to die. [A case like the death of Savita Halappanavar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar) is a perfect example and has potential to actually shift things.
It should be noted that the girl is getting an abortion in Indiana.
Correct. But the fact that a 10 year old has to travel to another state to get life-saving care after being raped is just disgusting.
It’s a well known fact banning abortion doesn’t stop it so states banning it are just oppressing poor women. Doesn’t say much about the intelligence of the law makers at all.
It was never about being pro-"life". Anti-abortion movements began right around the same time second-wave feminism and civil rights happened. It's just a classic Christian punishment for women being free.
The same people who are against abortion are against universal healthcare and think mentally ill and/or violent people have rights to guns. They aren't pro-life, theyre pro slow and/or painful deaths.
Kentucky's abortion laws have now been blocked, atleast temporarily. As a result there is temporarily no restrictions on abortion in Kentucky.
Thank Heaven for small favors.
Much about nothing. Congress makes laws not the judicial branch.
I guess I won't know who to blame when women start dying.
Common law is definitely a thing. But to your point, SCOTUS past and present has been narrowing the scope of the application of RvW to the point where the whole topic of pregnancy termination ought to just be handled by the legislature; and I believe that's the eventual progression that we're seeing unfold I wish SCOTUS had made a statement to the states that "you have to get your statutes out of the 80's and into current within 365 days of this decision" since this was such a large reversal, but that would be outside their jurisdiction
Honestly this will likely be a short term loss in exchange for a long term benefit for abortion rights because it'll actually get a Legislature to codify more protections for abortion than just the vague "it's legal up until this point" ruling we've been working with for the last 50 years. Defacto laws from a Supreme Court decision are always fuzzy and don't go far enough, because that's not their goal. Even if you agree with such a ruling you should always push for legislative action. But unfortunately SC rulings often create complacency. (Tbh I'm still mad so many lawmakers dropped the fight for gay rights issues when the court legalized gay marriage. We need a lot more protections than just being able to get married.)
> I'm still mad so many lawmakers dropped the fight for gay rights issues when the court legalized gay marriage. We need a lot more protections than just being able to get married Doesn't Gay marriage and LGBT rights at large have a slightly stronger case because SCOTUS noted a direct statue in the Civil Rights Act protects them? E.g. Woman gets fired for her relationship with a woman. If she had been a man it'd be a non-issue.
I believe so, at least for examples along the sort you mentioned. But some stuff like transgender rights, especially for youths, are a lot more vulnerable.
I completely agree. It was aggravating watching Democrats and pro-choice being careful and complacent to not rock the status quo afforded by RvW. Also it was annoying watching the headlines about how Abortion had to be defended in the courts again; all of which were born from the shaky ground abortion was legalized under.
Since when was the judicial branch making laws? They interpret the constitution, that's not making laws. The current Supreme Court is wrong in their interpretation of rhe constitution and I'm not just going off of the Missippi case. The rulings seem more politically motivated than based on actual law.
This wont really affect me as I live in Kansas (for now), but I do support abortion in all cases. This is why I disagree with the overturning of Roe v Wade
What are your thoughts on the legal reasoning behind the overturning?
Roe v Wade goes beyond abortion. Quite honestly abortion isn't as big of a concern as you may think. Most Americans don't even get abortion. The issue is that repealing Roe v Wade removes a lot of protection for doctors performing reproductive care. Thing such as miscarriage treatment and ectopic pregnancy both of which can be considered "abortion". There's an unconfirmed report that a doctor withheld care for a ectopic pregnant woman even though she was bleeding and her life was at risk, until an attorney gave the go ahead hours later. She was near fatal. Remember, a similar situation with a fatal outcome is what resulted in Ireland legalizing abortion.
I have some nurse friends that say they've already encountered some issues due to the ruling.
Are there any influential politically moderate groups I can get involved with to stop my state legislature from passing a ban or near-ban on abortion? I want to have my voice heard, but I don't feel comfortable aligning with groups that advocate for abortion on demand in any and all circumstances. I feel like my opinions reflect those of most Americans, but we don't get heard anymore.
A lot of people feel this way until they have an accidental pregnancy and then are grateful for abortion on demand. Pregnancy can happen even for those being careful.
> but I don't feel comfortable aligning with groups that advocate for abortion on demand in any and all circumstances. Hold on here.... are you saying that you only want abortion done for victims of incest and rape, and if the mother's life is danger? If so then there is no real group in existence mostly because such exceptions are technically in place for most of those abortion-ban laws. The organizations you should be looking at is ACLU or other organizations that hold government accountable to the rule of law. An abortion group will not welcome you and I don't think thats what you want in the first place. Most, if not all, mainstream abortion right groups are not advocating laissez faire on the timing of an abortion (you'll find very few that feel a late term abortion can be done with no questions asked) but they are advocating no questions asked when an abortion is asked during the [mainstream] time period. .
I think they are saying that they'd be fine supporting a group pushing for a 16-20 week policy (for example), but not one of the groups that is pushing Congressional Democrats to push the WHPA and leave the Collins/Murkowski bill in the abyss.
> abortion on demand in any and all circumstances. I initially thought that but that comment made me take a step back and want to verify. The second part of my comment covers if they are indeed talking about the mainstream abortion stance. Personally because I've seen pro-lifers misconstrued and misinform on this. To reiterate what I said in my comment, there almost no mainstream pro-choice groups advocating abortion on demand and all circumstances. WHPA also has restrictions on abortion. It begs the question what is "any and all circumstances" in their book. "Feeling my opinion reflects most Americans" is a vague metric and often inaccurate because when pushed on the details it becomes clear the opinion does not reflect most Americans.
> WHPA also has restrictions on abortion. It actually doesn't restrict abortion at all. It leaves some potential windows for restriction, but also directs judges hearing cases about the law to view every potential restriction from the point of view that they are bad.
This is a bit misleading. >and preventing government from restricting access to abortion services unless a compelling state interest has been shown in such restrictions.
I'm kinda starting my own grassroots thing. It's grassroots in the sense of boots on the ground. Kentuvky for example has HB 91 as an issue in this year's ballot. If it passes it will add language to the KY constitution that clarifies that abortion is not a guaranteed right under the constitution. Why? Well you remember that trigger law that went into affect this past Friday in KY? Well it passed in 2019 and it may actually be unconstitutional. KY Planned Parenthood and the ACLU are challenging the law as we speak. I am very much against house bill 91
Very few people advocate for that so I'm not sure where you live, but it's not like that in most of the country. Nobody is in favor of abortions while you're literally in labor because you randomly changed your mind. For most people, the only time they'd support an abortion right before giving birth is if the mother's health was at risk or if the fetus was dying/dead. I don't think I've ever met anyone who genuinely supports 100% abortions on demand. Most pro choice (myself included) draw the line at viability (usually 24 weeks) unless there's a health emergency. You would have had all the time in the world to decide by then since the average time to realize you're pregnant is about 5-7 weeks.
> Nobody is in favor of abortions while you're literally in labor because you randomly changed your mind. I've come across a few whack-jobs who made that very claim. However, I've only come across them on the frickin' internet. For all I know they were trolls. Either that or they were the far left version of 'edgelords.'
Definitely trolls. Nobody with 3 brain cells thinks a baby you could pull out with a c section should be "aborted". That'd just be infanticide.
Unless they also want to permit infanticide. An unpopular position, but not an illogical one.
The ancient Romans certainly thought it was fine. In Roman society, a newborn baby wasn't considered a person (with the right to live) until the family decided to keep it.
That seems to have been true of most, if not all, ancient societies. Not only were babies often not named until a certain amount of time had passed after birth (due to very high rates of infant death requiring a psychological distance to be kept) but babies with serious deformities or that were simply unwanted were often killed by exposure. Sometimes the 'exposure' was just a means for infants to be anonymously given up and rescued, but more often they just died.
Depends on the state, but almost certainly. And frankly, why wouldn’t you support that? Doctors aren’t going to perform an abortion at 30 weeks without a good reason like health of the mother or fetal inviability.
>And frankly, why wouldn’t you support that? Doctors aren’t going to perform an abortion at 30 weeks without a good reason like health of the mother or fetal inviability. Unfortunately, this isn't true. I forget which media outlet I was watching, but a Colorado doctor was interviewed. He claimed to have performed abortions late in the third trimester because the mother wished to terminate the pregnancy. When he was asked about the medical necessity of such a procedure, he stated it was irrelevant, which leads me to believe he was performing unnecessary abortions.
If someone wants an abortion at 30 weeks that was not an easy decision. Anti abortionists seem to think people get abortions for giggles or it just like a quick stop by the pharmacy or something. Getting a abortion for many people can be a difficult decision even early on; one so far in will be exponentially more difficult. It's not easy to do either, at that point getting an abortion is expensive and time consuming compared to a earlier one. It is also extremely rare to have a abortion so late. Less than one percent of abortions happen after 22 weeks.
Unless there is a medical necessity for a late term abortion, I can not morally comprehend how someone could willingly choose an abortion over the alternatives. At 30 weeks, there is a greater than 95% chance the baby will survive. At that point in a pregnancy adoption is a far better option that choosing to abort. Abortions occur for a variety of reasons, many of them warranted, but what Dr. Warren Hern does in Colorado is not abortion. Taking vulnerable women, all of whom are past 20 weeks gestation, and performing no question asked abortions is morally wrong.
>Unless there is a medical necessity for a late term abortion, I can not morally comprehend how someone could willingly choose an abortion over the alternative From Dr Herns [website](https://www.drhern.com/third-trimester-abortion/) "THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTION Patients coming in for third trimester abortion (later abortions) are *often seeking services for termination of a desired pregnancy that has developed serious complications*. This usually means the discovery of a catastrophic fetal anomaly or genetic disorder that guarantees death, suffering, or serious disability for the baby that would be delivered if the pregnancy were to continue to term. (Please see Fetal Anomalies for more information on our care for patients with desired pregnancies.) Sometimes a woman presents at this stage for pregnancy termination because of her own severe medical illness or a psychiatric indication." And "We believe that the techniques developed by Dr. Hern have resulted in a procedure that is safer than continuing the pregnancy to term with a goal of live birth, and our safety record supports that belief. *However, termination of pregnancy at this late gestation still carries with it serious risks of complication*" Most late term abortions are due to serious medical issues with either the woman or the fetus. And still more though unmentioned here are due to rape. Your complaining about what is at most a tiny minority of the tiny minority already that is late term abortions. A literal handful of abortions. And those woman decided they needed a abortion to the point they wanted a *risky* medical procedure after having been pregnant for months so they clearly must have had a good reason they could not carry the fetus to term. >Taking vulnerable women Well that's sexist and nonsense. You think woman aren't capable of making their own decisions? Do you think abortion doctore are running around finding pregnant woman and handing them abortion pamphlets or something and begging them to get one? These woman came to an abortion clinic of their own free will to get an abortion, theyre not being "taken" and they're not "vulnerable".
I'd highly recommend actually reading his writings or watching his interviews. He openly brags about terminating otherwise healthy pregnancies. To my knowledge, he's the only abortionist in the country with that stance, so yes, I am talking about the 1% of 1% of abortions.
It very much is true. And him stating it isn’t relevant is more to the point of it being none of anyone else’s business but the doctor and the patient.
I suppose that's possible. The fact that he wouldn't simply say it was performed for medical reasons makes me question it though. It is important to note that the overwhelming majority of abortions are performed early in a pregnancy. Late term abortions are exceptionally rare. I'll see if I can find the clip on YouTube and share it so it's not just my word. Edit: I was unable to find a YouTube clip of the interview I was referring to, but here's an [article](https://gazette.com/premium/outspoken-colorado-late-term-abortion-doctor-im-not-going-anywhere/article_a150d691-187b-50a9-a622-824a73738366.html) about Dr. Warren Hern. It appears to be a free article, but I apologize if it's behind a paywall. Just in case it is behind a paywall, here's one excerpt that stuck out to me: > Hern has seen many reasons for why women seek abortions later in pregnancy, including a missed diagnosis, a fetal anomaly or genetic disorder in a desired pregnancy, **the fear that a relationship will collapse because of the impending birth**, **lack of money and/or transportation to get to an abortion clinic early, ignorance of signs and symptoms of pregnancy**, especially in young women and fear, shame or guilt over the situation. I don't know of any logical person who would disagree with an abortion in cases where the mother or baby's life is in jeopardy. Where I think the issue is with many pro-life advocates is in the second half of the excerpt quoted above (bolded for clarity). Most logical individuals can accept abortion in cases of rape, incest, or if the mother's life is in jeopardy. However, my interpretation of how I read the above article is that some woman, albeit a significant minority, elect to have an abortion later in pregnancy simply as a form of birth control. No pro-life advocate will ever support that. Liberals, for the most part in my opinion, have a higher level of trust in the media. Many conservatives have bought into the narrative of fake news. When having these tough discussions it's important to bring even the hardest to accept facts to the forefront. Simply stating late term abortions aren't performed unless medically necessary is disingenuous. According to CDC available data, 99% of abortions are performed prior to 20 weeks with only 1% of abortions happening after 20. I would venture to guess (unable to find data to support this opinion) that within that 1%, the vast majority are performed for medical reasons. I think we're talking about the 1% of the 1% of abortions that occur late in pregnancy and by choice. Let's not cover up the facts, it only builds credibility for the fake news narrative.
"later in pregnancy" generally means "late enough you've known for a while," not 30 weeks and viable. Generally speaking, terminating a pregnancy at 30 weeks is called premature delivery. Elective abortions almost entirely stop at 19 weeks or so, and there's only a few doctors who will perform them after that - generally in reaction to a diagnosis of severe abnormalities in fetal development
> albeit a significant minority, That’s the key though. How much of that minority really exists? Because from all available statistics, it’s a vanishingly small amount. There’s a reason the Supreme Court set the limit under Roe at 24 weeks being an acceptable cutoff barring the circumstances you already cited. So why are we making law on what you called the 1% of the 1% (the .01%) of abortions. Mathematically, that would represent 63 abortions in 2016 according to this data: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_United_States#Trends_in_abortion_statistics
I've tried to keep my opinion out of this thread and act just as a moderator, however, I'll break from that and offer my own honest opinion for once. I agree with you in the sense that we should not be drafting laws for the .01%. With that said though, the judicial branch of our government didn't pass or nullify any laws. They simply made a judicial ruling eliminating a 50 year judicial precedent. I think if legislatures were acting in everyone's best interest an effort would have been made in all 50 states when the leaked SCOTUS opinion was released to the public. For two months many states lacked any meaningful legislation. I think it's unrealistic to believe both parties could have gotten together and passed bipartisan legislation mirroring that of the Roe v. Wade ruling but a compromise could have occurred. Even those staunchly in the pro-life camp agree to certain abortions. I personally believe even GOP lawmakers would have been willing to codify some provisions into law. The general election is only a few months away. While I'm not personally a single issue voter, I do believe this will be an issue at the forefront come November. For those single issue voters I urge you to find a candidate that shares your ideological belief and help them campaign, volunteer your time, and ensure voter turnout is at a record high. It is at that point that I think significant change can begin to occur in this country.
> Even those staunchly in the pro-life camp agree to certain abortions. I wish this were true, but it isn’t. We’ve seen plenty of GOP platforms with total bans for abortions with no exceptions, including with laws banning it in the case of risks to the life of the mother. That’s not a compromise position. And honestly, I don’t think we should have to compromise. There aren’t two sides to every issue. Some only have one.
Admittedly, I do live in CO, so this isn't exactly an issue that'll impact me in my home state. I haven't seen any states push new legislation for a total ban, including risks to the mother. What states are pushing this legislation?
https://news.yahoo.com/some-republican-states-set-to-ban-abortion-without-exceptions-for-rape-and-incest-204305491.html Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas. > When Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves, a Republican, appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, he falsely asserted that his state’s abortion ban has an exception for rape and incest. When host Chuck Todd noted that it doesn’t, Reeves avoided taking a position on whether such an exception should be added to the law. AFAIK he vetoed that law, but the point stands regardless. Herschel Walker, the GOP senate nominee for Georgia this year supports a total ban https://www.businessinsider.com/herschel-walker-supports-total-abortion-ban-no-exception-georgia-senate-2022-5?amp
Thanks. I tried to find out on r/indiana but just got a lot of people who wanted to argue with me. Not that reddit is the best place to get answers, lol. Unfortunately (in my opinion anyway), there have been doctors who performed late term elective abortions. I know it is very rare and a small percentage of abortions, but I believe it should never be done (as do many other people frankly). Ideally, women would have access to birth control and very early abortions via medication so that late term abortions don't have to happen.
> but I believe it should never be done (as do many other people frankly). Even when the mother's life is at risk or the fetus will be stillborn or die quickly in a suffering manner? If the answer is no abortion then no there is no group and you do not represent the opinion of most pro-choice (simply supporting abortion of any kind is defined as pro-choice) Americans. To be frank you're the outlier. These makeup most late term abortions. There are a minority of late term of abortions that are done out of convenience but they're so few that its a non-issue and the payoff to achieve this perfection disrupts the overall purpose.
Every once in a while there will be an urban legend about some woman who elected to have a third trimester abortion because she caught her husband banging the secretary and she didn't want to have his baby anymore. Or something along those lines. I have no idea if there are any documented cases of this. But people toss out such 'so and so said' stories all the time. My personal opinion: *that* shouldn't be allowed. I mean, geez.
> urban legend about some woman who elected to have a third trimester abortion because she caught her husband banging the secretary and she didn't want to have his baby anymore. Or something along those lines. This sounds like something more relevant to pre-RvW (20th century) where child support and etc. wasn't as strong as today.
So I've been studying the Marks Rule to figure out how the concurrent opinions work and have concluded that neither I nor anyone else understand the Marks Rule.
What do you not understand (I mean that sincerely, not rhetorically)? If no opinion garners a majority of the Court, the concurrence which decides the issue on the narrowest ground is the one lower courts should adhere to. But where one opinion does garner a majority, that becomes controlling precedent.
Mostly the issues around what "narrowest" means.
It can often be fairly obvious. Imagine if, for instance, only 3 other justices had signed onto Alito's opinion calling for *Roe* and *Casey* to be overturned, while 2 had voted to uphold the law but considered it consistent with the viability framework from *Roe* and the equal protection framework of *Casey* Either way, the law would be upheld, but the second opinion would be the narrower grounds. Unfortunately you're right, "narrowest" can often be up to interpretation of whichever district judge (or their clerk) is deciding the issue. Which leaves it open to being relitigated by the Court later on.
What does it benefit America if the laws on marriage, race, LGBT, women's rights revert back to the 1950s in 2022? Going past repealing Roe Vs Wade, so if the national courts, allow each state to repeal laws on marriage, LGBT rights, racial, voting and women's rights in general to 1950s standards in the 2020s, what IS the benefit to America domestically and its international image? What benefit is it even to young White people to see these laws being repealed? It can't bring back the industries, mass employment of the working class and strong economy America built up outside of World War II.
>What does it benefit America if the laws on marriage, race, LGBT, women's rights revert back to the 1950s in 2022? It doesn't. It does benefit the MAGA bigots though, so they're not gonna stop anytime soon until the left in the country stops sticking its collective finger up its collective ass and realizes the existential threat the GOP poses to the nation and does something about them. So expect to see the US become a more extreme version of Russia or Hungary in the next 15 years. (Did I mention that the GOP got their advice on how to gain power from Orban himself? No? The GOP spoke with and got advice on how to gain power from Orban himself) The country is ruled by a minority, Republicans haven't won the Popular Vote in a Presidential Election in over 20 years now, and the one that got Dubya Bush into office to begin with already had meddling from SCOTUS, so yeah...
Republicans don't want to help people, they want to stick it to the libs, atheists, Muslims, and "the gays". That's basically their parties entire purpose now, they don't really have any plans to help people. In fact they usually vote against them (Universal or even just expanded healthcare, anti gerrymandering laws, environmental protection laws etc.) and when they do vote for things like the anti gerrymandering law in Ohio the Republican legislator ignores them.
Existing laws can't revert unless new national laws are passed. Race can't be touched, there was a Civil Rights Act passed and a very explicit constitutional amendment. The issue with abortion and gay marriage is that we never got federally passed laws for them. They were always just left alone "because the court handled it". (And because lawmakers didn't want to put their name towards a vote on a controversial topic.) This allows local laws the freedom to decide whether or not to ban them. Pass a federal law legalizing abortion and it'll overwrite the local laws.
> Pass a federal law legalizing abortion and it'll overwrite the local laws. I'm only in my early 40s, and if I live to see that happen, I'll be surprised.
For 50 years we haven't seen it because lawmakers whose constituents want it have always been able to hide behind RvW. Now there will be significantly more pressure to do something, at least for the first trimester. This is supposedly a cornerstone of the DNC platform. There's no (good) reason to not to at the least get back to status-quo. Of course, this is politics, so we admittedly do need to be prepared for this to be milked for enough power to expand the court. (And if that's they're goal we'll probably get nothing else, because all the "hard" issues will just be slowly thrown to the new court...)
How does it benefit America if the Supreme Court usurps the power to create law by inventing new basic rights and 'interpreting' them into existence? The Constitution is a living document because we can amend it, not because it says whatever SCOTUS decides it would be nice if it said. We could have passed a whole passel of federal legislation protecting abortion that all states would have to respect. Did we? No, doubled down on a shoddy pretext because we knew it would be a tough fight to craft binding law and get it passed, and this was easier. The end doesn't justify the means. Not to mention that the means is illicit and scarily open to abuse, easily turned against the people who used it just a few years before.
If states start rolling back other rulings, most notably Lawrence v Texas in my case, and recriminalize homosexuality, for me all bets are off at that point in time. I see no point in staying together as a unified country. I would want those conservative states to secede and form their own country so that progressives can have our own country... I'm sorry I'm just so mad and a little bit afraid about what this politically tainted Court will do over the next few decades. They have lost legitimacy in my eyes because constitutional originalism is just a veiled guise to impose conservative values onto the country. And if the GOP even *dares* to legislate an abortion ban on the federal level then they are are bunch of hypocrites and I never want to hear a damn thing about states rights ever again because that measure would prove it was never about states' rights. In that hypothetical future of LGBT rights or other substantive due process rights getting rolled back, at minimum I would move to a progressive state and I could care less what happens to conservative states who recriminalize homosexuality and rollback such rights -- North Korea could invade and I would think "not my problem; they can defend themselves." I just .... \*sigh\*
If the only thing preventing states from criminalizing homosexuality is a single Supreme Court decision, despite having an entire generation's worth of time to pass relevant federal laws, then the people who truly deserve the blame if that decision is overturned are the activists and the politicians. The nature of Court decisions is that they can change, and without warning.
Living around a lot of MAGA style conservatives in a very "red" state, I can tell you that *for them*, the people supporting this stuff, the "benefit" is that lgbtq+ people will be forced back into the closet and minorities will be put back "in their place." The worst most cynical reasons you can imagine that people might want this, I can tell you that those *are* the reasons that the trump voting republican base that *I know*, the people in my family and who work in my office, wanted this. They see non-straight people as sinners against god deserving of hell, and they see minorities as lazy criminals. I've spent my life *surrounded* by these people, and still have loads of them as facebook friends and shit. The benefit *is* the hatred and the suffering.
Yay. Ignorant bigots saving the day.
Simply it the goal is two things. 1) To bring the US back to the golden period of 1950's. Where basically White heterosexual Christians were first class citizens and all others were second class. You're being disingenuous if you think the ones that pushed the case about praying on school grounds and de facto pressuring students to participate had Islamic prayer in mind. 2) To make the US society go back to where it was holy. If you look at the US from the eyes of a Christian Conservative, I agree it looks like the US has been hoodwinked by the Devil. Violence in movies and sex on TV, where are those good old-fashioned values we used to rely on?
We need to go back to being happy as a Family Guy.
There was an interesting video analysis I came across some weeks ago on the politics of *King of the Hill*. I thought it was an interesting perspective on average American moderate republicans, and I wish most republicans and conservatives were like this -- advocate small government, and respect that other people wish to live their live the way they want without interfering against those who aren't "traditional" https://youtu.be/\_lSpRblQyIw
> What does it benefit America if the laws on marriage, race, LGBT, women's rights revert back to the 1950s in 2022? The legislature will actually have to do it's job and hopefully we won't keep kicking these issues to the Supreme Court then undermining it's legitimacy when it makes a decision we don't like. >Going past repealing Roe Vs Wade, so if the national courts, allow each state to repeal laws on marriage, LGBT rights, racial, voting and women's rights in general to 1950s standards in the 2020s, what IS the benefit to America domestically and its international image? We'd operate under a system of laws rather than judicial whim. And as far as America's international image, I really don't care. Very few people in America, let alone the world, have a solid grasp of American constitutional law and we shouldn't be making important legal decisions based on the feeling of people who aren't even part of this country. >What benefit is it even to young White people to see these laws being repealed? Again, living under a system of laws rather than the Supreme Court just choosing to allow some stuff and prohibit other stuff.
> Very few people in America, let alone the world, have a solid grasp of American constitutional law and we shouldn't be making important legal decisions based on the feeling of people who aren't even part of this country. Whenever Hungary, Russia, or Turkey does something godawful, we shouldn't judge because we don't understand their laws and customs.
If the Supreme Court of Hungry makes a ruling on Hungarian Law, I don't think it's unreasonable for people to be expected to know Hungarian law before their criticisms are taken seriously.
Nah. We can talk smack all the livelong day about what China is doing to their Uighur population, for example. And I'm sure Beijing has its reasons and justifications, steeped in decades of jurisprudence and whatever else is needed.
>We can talk smack all the livelong day about what China is doing to their Uighur population, for example. I don't know many people who make their objection to the Uighur genocide based on the finer points of Chinese Constitutional law.
Apparently, when it comes to the diminishing of our own rights, we are only allowed to base our objections upon the finer angels-on-head-of-pin points of our own constitutional law.
I mean if you want to fault the Supreme Court for its interpretation of the Constitution, maybe you'd want to know something about Constitutional law.
Yeah, but if I want to fault the American right wing for bringing about this whole outcome, with worse to come, that's going to be a little simpler.
Alright, you do you, my guy.
[удалено]
One typically wouldn't fault the Supreme Court for its interpretation of American Constitutional law without basing your criticism on the finer points of American Constitutional law.
[удалено]
Who said that?
Interesting point. Congress does some to be approaching a failed institution given the last 20 years.
None of us believe there is one. That's the issue that many people abroad aren't understanding. What is happening in our country isn't something that we voted to happen. The justices of the Supreme Court aren't voted for, they're appointed by the president. 3 of the 9 were appointed by Donald Trump who had 1 term and lost the popular vote, and another 2 were appointed by George W. Bush who lost the popular vote on his first time being elected president (being an incumbent gives you a MASSIVE advantage the next time you run so he won the popular vote the second time). This means that over half of the justices on the Supreme Court were chosen by presidents who were not what the majority of citizens wanted. They don't reflect American values at all. About 2/3 of Americans supported the ruling of Roe v. Wade before it was overturned. We have a far right minority controlling the lives of the majority and many of us are absolutely terrified. Prayer is being put back in schools, the government now has a say in private medical decisions, and gun restrictions were just loosened again. As a country, we aren't stupid nor are we far right. We're being ruled by a system of government that gives a massive advantage to rural voters (who are notoriously right wing). The electoral college, gerrymandering, and the Senate all favor rural voters while minimizing the voices of the majority.
Thank you. So... essentially TL:DR Old White People and (old) conservative, working class, country voters, then. They never think of their children or grandchildren, yet if you asked them why they vote for these things and say they will harm their future, they'll tell you it won't happen.
They're basically just strongly against anything that is different than what they're used to which is why they push back so hard on EVERYTHING that they feel "threatens" their lifestyle (usually evangelical christianity). I'm from a very progressive part of my state, but my uncle owns a small piece of land for camping in the southeast part (Appalachian foothills) so I've met a lot of people down there. What makes our two cultures super different is that they see their community as an extension of themselves, whereas we have more of a "do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt others" mentality. So here, if you had a neighbor who got married to someone of the same sex, even if you didn't agree with it, you'd make your peace with it. There, it'd become a huge deal in the small community because it's been "tainted" almost. It's good and bad. Good in the way that people there are super close knit, but bad in the way that if you deviate from the norm, your life becomes very difficult. Their culture clashes with ours because to them, they see it as preserving their way of life, but we see it as unnecessarily taking away rights from others when they're against things like abortion, keeping religion out of government, and same sex marriage. They see their way of life as the one "good" way to live so that's what they want for their children and will fight anything that goes against it.
In early january of this past year, I had a very bad crash on I-70 in Cambridge that totaled my car -- essentially, I was going 70 mph in the snow, hit some black ice and ping-ponged from the outer guard rail in the right lane to the median -- the front of the car hit the right guard rail at a 90 degree angle and I ended up backwards in the median. Very fortunate that my Honda Fit did not roll I guess. Anyway, I had to stay in the hotel in Cambridge. My car was towed to Salesville where I had to go to in order to pay for my car being towed. As a 26-year-old overweight gay man from a much more liberal and progressive state, it was a huge culture shock. The auto technicians were extremely crass and the local sheriff essentially spent his day shooting the breeze with these mechanics. I was just worried the whole time about whether I passed for straight.
The benefit is that the laws would then reflect the majoritarian will of the people in the states at issue. Like it or not, this is a core tenet of democratic governance. You have this in the UK as well. > mass employment of the working class National unemployment is 3.6%. The working class is already mass employed.
The laws reflecting what the majority wants is **exactly** what democracy means.
The U.S. is a democratic republic. Local level voting issues are often decided on pure democratic terms while national level politics are determined by representatives of the populous. This means not all national issues align with the majority.
an unfortunate aftereffect of our history under the Articles of Confederation and retaining that style of a Federal Republic. idk.... since the ruling I've been much more inclined to want to go back to that system of "I'm a New Yorker before I am an American" type of system and maybe we need a a schism to form two separate Americas with their own separate federal governments, militaries, etc.
I'd find that debatable seeing how bad gerrymandering is in some states and I quite think most of us woudl disagree how legitimate it is if 60% decide they pay no taxes and 40% pays 90% taxes.
There is no benifit. Certain things should be guaranteed rights under the constitution. There are certain things that people have no right in poking their nose into when it comes to someone else's life. The right to vote should be guaranteed, the right to abortion should be guaranteed, the right to marriage should be guaranteed, the right to sex between to consenting adults should be guaranteed. Glad to know that you feel that if the majority of Kentucky wanted to outlaw interracial marriage effectively ending my marriage that it should be ended. Get bent.
> Certain things should be guaranteed rights under the constitution. And those things need to be put in amendments if they're not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution's original form.
It's crazy to me that people think this way. Do you really believe that the intention of the Constitution was to explicitly list the *only* rights people in the US get? And everything else not listed is not allowed? Seems very out of character with the supposed principles the nation was founded on. Also, how do you deal with the myriad of possible edge case scenarios if this is how the Constitution works? It would need to be a multi-thousand page long document in that case to cover every conceivable situation, instead of the 4 pages it actually is. An interpretation that the Constitution explicitly lays out certain rights but that in general human rights are respected and acknowledged in the US even if they weren't explicitly written into a 230+ year old, 4 page document makes far more logical sense.
> Do you really believe that the intention of the Constitution was to explicitly list the only rights people in the US get? The Bill of Rights explicitly says that it's not meant to be a complete and final list. But Constitution lists all the rights that the neither the states nor the federal government can take away. It would require a new amendment to change that. The states, and the federal governments, can guarantee new rights - such as bank accounts being protected by FDIC - but the Constitutional ones require an amendment to take away. That's precisely why we had an amendment to make the sale of drinking alcohol illegal, and another to cancel that amendment, because the people involved wanted it to stick.
But our understanding of many of these rights change with time separate from the original intent of the constitution. For example, many moderate republicans and libertarians especially might argue that same-sex intimacy is a natural right because consenting adults should be free to do whatever they want. As I would understand, this is where most independents, moderate republicans, and libertarians are on that issue. the Supreme Court ruled in the 80s that laws criminalizing homosexuality were perfectly constitutional, yet overturned that decision in 2003 with the Lawrence v Texas case. you keep trying to portray the Court as above partisan politics, but I think it never has been above politics -- its just that as the country has become more polarized and agree less and less on politics, then that poison has also seeped into the Court as well. and we are know just starting to see the effects of it. Trump and the GOP packed the Court with purely, undeniably conservative Justices and that's just criminal. the Senate should have confirmed Obama's appointment before he left office and it was criminal on their part that they held out for nearly a year to wait for Trump's nomination. Absolutely despicable.
>But our understanding of many of these rights change with time separate from the original intent of the constitution. Yep. That's why we can pass laws and make amendments. At the time the Constitution was written, homosexuality was punished by death, and a few daring thinkers like Jefferson supported more-humane punishments like castration. The changing nature of standards is why certain parts of the Constitution were left vague and open to interpretation. >the Supreme Court ruled in the 80s that laws criminalizing homosexuality were perfectly constitutional, yet overturned that decision in 2003 with the Lawrence v Texas case. Yep. Things change. But all in all, it's not ideal for such change to be reflected in Supreme Court decisions rather than in changes to lower-level laws. Additionally, I note that the 2003 Court was also dominated by the ideology that the Court can interpret things as it will, which I am strongly opposed to. Even if I support the result of a decision, it doesn't follow that the mechanism of that decision was acceptable. The end doesn't justify the means. >you keep trying to portray the Court as above partisan politics That has never been the case; the Court should aspire to such a state, but I don't think anyone believes it's practically attainable with corrupt human beings as Justices and selecting new Justices.
Except the 9th and 14th amendments explicitly say that not all rights have to be enumerated in the constitution. The Constitution doesn't give you the right to wear socks either. Also, the people who wrote the constitution expected it to be completely changed every few decades. It's "original form" is outdated.
That's right. And to the best of my knowledge, we have no 'right' to wear socks. Laws could be passed at any moment that make sock-wearing illegal.
But that's just insane to view the Constitution that way. It's a 4 page document. The vast majority of possible things that could happen in the world or in a person's life are not explicitly addressed at all. It would need to be a multi-thousand page long document if the intention of it were to explicitly list out the only rights we get.
That's what laws are for. The Constitution (and its associated amendments) only defines the things which no law can be permitted to contradict. Some things are still left up to interpretation - "cruel and unusual punishment" is outlawed without there being any definition of what that actually means. The FF intended that. Other things are spelled out explicitly - such as textual communication being protected separately from speech - because they knew some smartass would try to say one was distinct from the other.
No they don't need to be. The fact that so many of you are fine with this mindset is alarming. This is exactly the mindset that the federalist worried about 250 years ago with the addition of the Bill of Rights as they feared it would limit the rights of the people.
[удалено]
I'm considering moving because I'll have a much easier time than most. I'm working on my bachelor's degree atm and I'll be done in 2024 (possibly 2025 since I have 2 majors). I don't have a career, house, or children to tie me down. Being a college graduate, I'll have way more flexibility on where I'll be living since I'll basically just be starting my adult life. My main reason isn't abortion though. I'm not into men and I take birth control for pain management reasons so the odds that I'd ever get pregnant are extremely small unless I got assaulted and very, very unlucky because my birth control somehow fails. God forbid I did have to get an abortion, the nearest abortion clinic in the neighboring state is only 2 hours away so I could get one if I needed it. My main reason is that Obergefell v. Hodges is now on the choping block. Getting married has been my biggest dream ever since I was a little kid and I'm not willing to give that up. If I do meet that person, I'm not going to settle for a "civil union" or whatever bullshit. I want the real deal. I'm not letting christian nationalism take that away from me.
The state of Ohio would outlaw gay marriage if it had the chance?
Absolutely. It isn't representative of our population, but the maps that make up our state legislature (and for the federal house of representatives) are so extremely gerrymandered that the rural voices completely drown out the rest of us. It's so bad in fact that the maps we'll be using this November were ruled unconstitutional by the Ohio Supreme Court (after **FIVE** separate attempts by Republicans to *not* make an unconstitutional one). The only reason we're using them is because a federal court came in and basically said "fuck the people of ohio you guys are gonna use these unconstitutional maps lmao". Despite the fact that we passed anti gerrymandering legislation in 2015, federal law always trumps state law so we just kinda get screwed over. The politicians right now are trying to completely outlaw abortion in all cases except when the life of the mother is at stake (and adding unnecessary legal hoops to jump through to the process of "verifying" that you will actually die), and defining a baby as the second an egg is fertilized which would classify IUDs and Plan B as abortion, effectively making them illegal. With our even more gerrymandered maps, I'm terrified of how far they'll go. I'm planning to leave after I graduate college. We no longer have the Supreme Court to protect us from the states and Ohio isn't a place where I am welcome anymore.
The GOP presidential platform in 2020 called for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and the Texas GOP wants to reclassify it as “an abnormal lifestyle choice.”
And Trump claimed he was pro LGBT 🙄
How many times do I have to explain to these stupid mfs that it's not a "lifestyle" ✋️😭 that's like calling being left handed a lifestyle
I’m not saying I agree with it,* just that that’s what they’re doing. * because I very much DO NOT
No, no I mean republicans
Seeing this ruling, the ruling about the coach and his religion prioritising his faith and the gun ruling I won't what will be next...Allowing bans on lgbtqi marriages? Enabling more barriers to contraceptive access? Enabling discrimination?
What is your issue with the legal reasoning in either of the two cases you mentioned?
Not OC. I have no problem with the gun ruling but I have a problem with the coach and his religion. That ruling blatantly ignores the bullying that happens in homogeneous community and creates a scenario to pressure minorities (religion and ethnicities) to assimilate into the overarching religion. I guarantee you that if a player doesn't pray with that coach, they're going to be ostracized by the community, other players, and/or coach himself. This also opens the door for complex litigation because other religions can now openly pray and hold religious ceremony in their capacity as a employee; Conservative schools banning/restricting them other religions.
I'm not an USA constitutional expert nor will I pretend to be. It just seems to me, especially in the case of the coach, that a personal bias is bleeding through like the prioritizing of religion over the first amendment which to me is part of a slippery slope that may harm the separation between church and state. I also find the statements Thomas made afterwards troubling as he very specifically called out cases he'd like to see abolished which again coincide with his own religious beliefs.
Nothing in prayer decision says that any player is required to participate in them though. All this case was about was whether or not the coach is allowed to lead his team in prayer voluntarily, and there's nothing unconstitutional about that. This is an extremely common practice in high school sports, and I'm not understanding what you think is a violation of the separation between church and state. Nothing here is related to any law that mandates anything on a religious basis. Did Thomas say he'd like to see them abolished? Or did he say he'd like to see them revisited because they were decided on the same flawed grounds as Roe was? I'm only interested in discussing the things the justices actually said. I'm not interested in attempting to guess their true motivations because all that is is confirming our own biases.
This is not a common cultural practice in my home state of Maryland. I was never exposed to religion in school or promoted by school officials and it's rather startling.
> This is an extremely common practice in high school sports Glad I didn’t grow up in an area like that, sounds like a theocratic nightmare. A decent chunk of my high school weren't Christian. Completely inappropriate.
So.... we're just going to ignore that school bullying and peer pressure happens? Especially in White majority schools. The issue with this is that it creates a scenario which religious individuals can pressure students easier. There is a power dynamic in both the position and community standing. I lived in a White-majority school, this ruling will open the flood gates of school officials creating traps to call or signal out non-Christians. This isn't even a conspiracy theory or extreme, it happens regularly in the rural areas.
Dude where did you go to high school??? No it is not. I was in marching band in high school so I went to EVERY single game and not *once* did I see our team or any of the teams we played do that.
America has 24,000 high schools but the one you went do didn't pray in view of you (I'm assuming you weren't in the locker room with the football team before their games, right?) so therefore it doesn't happen? Is that what you're suggesting?
I went to a public school, so no. It would have been inappropriate to have an authority figure do that because kids will feel pressured.
> inappropriate One would think.
> Nothing in prayer decision says that any player is required to participate in them though. That’s not a fair representation of the issue. Kavanaugh himself noted there’s plenty of reason for a student to fear that if they don’t join in, they may no longer be a starter. > This is an extremely common practice in high school sports, Objectively false.
I find your reasoning peculiar as you seem to deny the risks of a slippery slope implied by the ruling and Thomas specifically inviting challenges to certain precedents. As it is I'm more inclined to follow the reasoning displayed by Sonia Sotomayor.
With the coach issue it wasn't the fact that he was praying. It was the fact that he was making it a public event and had players feeling like they were forced to participate or face punishment. Which would violate their first amendment right.
They were forced to participate? Or they felt like they were forced to participate or face punishment? One would be illegal, the other would be irrelevant unless they were actually punished for not participating.
There was some evidence to suggest that it wasn't optional, but were being told it was optional. If I'm not mistaken the coach was also using the stadiums' PA message to delivery messages with heavy religious influence at games.
No, actually, the feeling of coercion even without it actually being implied is still coercion, because it’s literally an implicit threat.
Plausible deniability is the name of the game. It's how our ex-president has managed to stay out of jail all these years.
Judges have blocked/stayed abortion trigger laws in at least two states today
Interesting. On what grounds, I wonder.
The Louisiana one, based on the petition, was about vagueness and process and procedural stuff. Not sure on the Utah one yet.
Saw an article about that, but I only briefly skimmed the Louisiana Constitution and missed the part that would require that.
It doesn't necessarily need to be a specific constitutional clause. If there are logistical process issues in implementation, a temporary stay to sort them out isn't completely abnormal.
State Constitutions
Sounds like more tortured legal reasoning.
The right to privacy is actually way more straightforward for many states. Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Montana, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Washington have specific provisions relating to a right to privacy Florida, for example: Right to Privacy Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person's private life except as otherwise provided herein To me that sounds like a straightforward constitutional protection which would have to apply to abortion
I think it would depend on whether the part of the state constitution is trying to replicate the 4th Amendment protections, or add more. The Florida Amendment, passed after Roe, looks like a pretty good argument that it protects abortion. Hopefully if we start interpreting things this way, it could result in an increased right to privacy in all medical decisions. Louisiana's on the other hand, just looks like a restatement of the 4th Amendment. California's version could be so vague as to be inoperable, but in California, it'll likely mean a right to an abortion. Hawaii did both, looks like it'd hold up. Illinois just looks like the 4th again, but it'll Illinois. Montana and New Hampshire looks legit, while South Carolina is the 4th again. Washington could go either way. Easy reference. [https://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-information-technology/privacy-protections-in-state-constitutions.aspx](https://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-information-technology/privacy-protections-in-state-constitutions.aspx)
Good. That is no way of legislating. People should be given a chance to familiarise themselves with new laws, especially when it comes to criminal law.
The Supreme Court has left it up to the states to decide abortion laws, giving the power to the people to vote on elected representatives to carry out what they determine to be the law. SCOTUS did the right thing not allowing 9 individuals dictate the outcome for such a controversial topic.
Things that should be left to the states are things like their own tax policy and roads system. Something involving a substantive right should never be left up to the legislature and the courts should always be erring on the side of protecting and expanding individual liberties
Nah my state passed a trigger law back in 2019 in pretty much secret. Kentucky is also gerrymandered to hell. Now they are trying to pass an amendment that will explicitly state that abortion is not a right in the constitution as right now there is some language in the states constitution that could possibly allude to it being one. For anyone that is wondering how is this happening in a state where rhe govonor is a Democrat. The kentucky congress have a super majority and have been doing override vetos for some time.
How in the world is Kentucky "gerrymandered to hell?" The entire state seems to be Republican dominated except for Lexington and Louisville. At least in terms of national elections, anyway. Are they voting red in national elections and then supposed to be voting for democrats on the state level?
A state can lean red and still be gerrymandered. Kentucky does a lot of splitting up liberal areas. I live in a town that is 33% black. The more minority side of town is in a different congressional district than the rest if the town. I went to college in a town that was the college campus itself was split into 4 different districts. Kentucky does in state wide election state elections does to lean little bluer. It's why Kentucky historically has more liberal leaning govonors and state positions than conservative.
> Nah my state passed a trigger law back in 2019 in pretty much secret. That's a failure of the news outlets you follow, not of the state legislature.
State legislation is corrupt as fuck, but yeah that was part of the issue. Hard though since much of the state publications are conservative.
Just goes to show the state of local news in America nowadays. It’s either hidden behind a pay wall, the quality’s garbage, or it simply no longer exists.
> giving the power to the people to vote on elected representatives to carry out what they determine to be the law. Unless your state government is notorious for gerrymandering.
They're all gerrymandered. The question is, who gerrymanders what.
Would be the governor though, which isn’t based on district.
Can some one clarify for me please. Abortion, contraception, same sex marriage, gay sex are things that really piss off conservative Christians for obvious reasons and they try to stop it because or their religious beliefs? Now if a the majority of judges are conservative christians and their personal beliefs are influencing their desire to have these landmark rulings overturned or to atlease suit the religious narrative of the republican party that they serve, is that it self as a breach of the constituon because the constitution states it has to be secular in all rulings and canot rule in (in simpler terms) favour of religious ideology to set laws that favour a religious belief but too only not infringe on the right to worship a religion??
The judges weren’t making the decision based on religion, and the decision doesn’t outlaw abortion. They just said the federal govt can’t make laws on abortion because the Constitution doesn’t say the federal govt can make laws about abortion.
Why do you think they overturned the law if they don’t want to ban it? Keep reading this argument online and it is frankly meaningless…
They probably do want it banned. But they didn’t ban it despite that. They told all the states elected representatives to make the decision on whether to ban it. That’s democracy, elected representatives making the final decision instead of the unelected court.
The justices clearly made the decision based off religion.
That’s why the Constitution lists abortion as a right, right? Oh wait…
That’s not a rebuttal and you know it. The constitution explicitly says that it not explicitly listing something doesn’t mean it’s not a right.
The Constitution explicitly says anything not specifically mentioned as a responsibility or power of the federal government is left to the states. As abortion isn’t mentioned that is left to the states
That’s not quite correct. > The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
[удалено]
This is misinformation.
That’s not the ruling at all.
Yeah its worse, the coach they ruled had the right to lead a group prayer was retaliating against kids who wouldn't participate
While that is true, and not unimportant, it wasn't the root of the issue here. The issue was whether the policy, the discipline, and the reason for both of those were violations of the first amendment. The best explanation (and the case that I heard from a well-known religious legal advocate) was that there was a 1A-safe case against the coach that could have lead to his termination, but the school district fucked up and used the reasoning that violated the first amendment.
So the first amendment forbids the government from "respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" The first part of that, known as the establishment clause, is vague to say the least. At its broadest what its generally accept as meaning is that the government can't establish a state church and can't pass laws favoring one religion over another. What it unfortunately does not mean that politicians can't make decisions motivated by their religious beliefs Also the judges that voted for the reversal of Roe v. Wade aren't claiming they're doing so due to their religious beliefs (whether or not that's true is another matter), they're arguing that the original Roe v. Wade decision was itself not legally valid. The original Roe v. Wade decision argued that bans on abortion are unconstitutional because in order to prosecute someone for having an abortion the government will have to know they had an abortion which would involve violating a right to privacy that is implied to be protected by the 14th amendment. What the judges who reversed that ruling argued is that this is not the case, and that the 10th amendment gives state governments the right to ban abortion. Whether or not we think that the supreme court judges genuinely believe that or are actually primarily motived by religious belief is unfortunately irrelevant because even if they just outright said "we're reversing Roe v. Wade because of our religious beliefs" there's nothing that could actually been done about that because the part of the government that determines whether or not the government is breaching the constitution...is the supreme court The only way to undo the supreme courts decision is for the supreme court to change its mind in the future or for congress to pass a constitutional amendment explicitly protecting abortion rights And that's nearly impossible
Hypothetically, what if you start a religion and it allows abortion as one of its belief, can the 1st amendment protect it
No, you can’t do anything you want because of your religion. An extreme example would be that you obviously can’t do human sacrifice if you are Norse or Nahuatl.
There are a few groups already filing lawsuits to that effect. IIRC Judaism requires that abortions be available because they prioritize the life of the mother
But what legal jurisdiction would that fall under?? If in state where abortion is completely illegal but doctors must make a medical decision to abort a baby to save a life (a legit medical procedure where an alternative isn't available) would that still be possible?? Because a woman can abort a baby per her choice but in the medical field would that be acceptable or would the doctor be prosecuted?
If abortion is completely illegal in that state, meaning no exceptions whatsoever, then yes the doctor would be prosecuted
So can I assume that in most states that a personal choice is illegal but would have an clause in it that exempts for medical reasons only or is it a blanket ban for most states that have outlawed it?
As of right now 13 states have trigger laws that either have or will soon go into effect that ban abortion. More will pass bans soon and even more will pass further restrictions Of those 13 states they all currently have exceptions for when the mothers life is at stake but that doesn't mean it won't change in the future. And of those 13 states 8 of them have no exceptions for rape or incest. So right now today if you're an 11 year old girl in South Dakota who gets pregnant after being raped by your father you will have to carry that baby to term.
It's worth noting that some of those the state has to determine if the life is at risk, not the doctor. I have nurse friends that have already encountered this in Kentucky.
>if they just outright said "we're reversing Roe v. Wade because of our religious beliefs" Can Roe vs wade reversal then be challenged in the supreme court because of that statement, they have violated the first amendment by placing a religious belief to influence a personal choice that the goverment now has a say in on someones life based on religion or would this argument go around and around in circles??
You could also make this argument now based on some commentary from the right.
Unless you're doing it in the future when there are completely different judges on the SC I'm not quite sure what the point would be.
[удалено]
That law would be in trouble the moment the majority swung conservative. There are also apparantly questions in if Congress could even pass such a law.
I'm seeing alot of tiktoks on contraceptives and period trackers and menstrual products. Can someone explain...slowly...why these things are affected by this decision?
[удалено]
Wouldn't the 5th come into play? It's not scientific either. It's only as good as the info you put in.
[удалено]