The overturning of Roe v Wade

[The Ham]

Is that what women are now, "some thing key to survival"?

There is a vast difference between a couple of insulin pens, and a human being.

Which still misses the point that the women should be the ones making the choice as to if they want to be key to survival or not and it shouldn't be up to anyone else as to if they want to our don't want to be.

Anyway it's not uncommon for humans to be key to survival of others (doctors, nurses, parents, first aiders, etc.) however they all have the right to refuse to do so (for instance a doctor could refuse to treat their child, not because they want their child to die, but maybe because they can't do it due to their emotions).

As an aside it's only been fairly recently that it's been possible to have a child survive to weaning without the need of a women.

The thing that I was highlighting is that wherever there's one step towards taking away that choice it runs the risk of the next step of taking away choice becoming easier and causing greater harm.

That is "rare" but is also a lot (and maybe more than some people think?) The real figure is probably quite a bit higher too.

Depends on how you define rare and why you need to define it.

Taking another example if 1:12 (circa 8%) people died of Covid how much more would we have gone through to limit the spread? Probably a lot more than we did.

Why? because we can see first hand the harm that it is doing, because people are less likely to talk about it then it doesn't get the same level of attention.

To put those numbers (8%) into context in 2 classrooms there'd be 5 children who were born due to rape, within a primary schools with 2 form entry that's 35 children. A 2 form entry primary school is viable in a village of about 4,500 people. That's only counting those in primary education.

Personally I don't think that's not really rare enough to justify not giving women the choice.

 

[Ediswan]

As an aside it's only been fairly recently that it's been possible to have a child survive to weaning without the need of a women.

If you believe Wikipedia, there is evidence from the third millenium BC of using animal milk as a substitute.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human–animal_breastfeeding#Breastfeeding_by_humans_of_animals

 

[nw1]

But it is not the US government dictating this. It is the Supreme Court.

It shows that the Supreme Court have too much power and appear to be answerable to no-one. Weren't the conservatives in there behind this attempt to return the abortion laws to the Stone Age appointed by Trump? Now Trump's out, it's very dangerous if they're allowed to continue in the post without facing any form of re-election or re-appointment by the current administration.

 

[AlterEgo]

It shows that the Supreme Court have too much power and appear to be answerable to no-one. Weren't the conservatives in there behind this attempt to return the abortion laws to the Stone Age appointed by Trump? Now Trump's out, it's very dangerous if they're allowed to continue in the post without facing any form of re-election or re-appointment by the current administration.

Never ever let an American lecture you about their terrific system of government. Nine unaccountable law school graduates appointed for life, politically, apparently control America’s concept of “natural law”. Laughable really.

 

[najaB]

Never ever let an American lecture you about their terrific system of government. Nine unaccountable law school graduates appointed for life, politically, apparently control America’s concept of “natural law”. Laughable really.

It's by design, but the design assumed that people would act in the best interests of the country, rather than party or special interests. The reasoning behind lifetime appointments is that it makes the judges beholden to nobody.

 

[ComUtoR]

i.e. if abortion necessarily entails the killing of an innocent human being then it is readily understandable why people might form the view that the best solution is not necessarily to entrust the matter to the mother given that the baby is also ‘in the mix’.

The Mother is responsible. Like it or not, the human inside her is growing and is dependent on the host body to survive. Nothing you can do, or legislate, can prevent the Mother from terminating the pregnancy. One way or another. That child is dependent on the Mother. 'Life' isn't just about the unborn child. The Host body has a right to life too.

 

[najaB]

The Mother is responsible. Like it or not, the human inside her is growing and is dependent on the host body to survive.

Given that we consider brain death to be the point at which someone stops being a person then medically speaking, it's not even correct to refer to the foetus as a 'human being' until the third trimester.

 

[ComUtoR]

it's not even correct to refer to the foetus as a 'human being' until the third trimester.

Tell that to the Mother.

 

[najaB]

Tell that to the Mother.

Oh, I'm not saying a mother shouldn't have maternal feelings, or that it's wrong to colloquially speak about 'baby' as a person. Just pointing out that a born human with the same level of brain activity as a second trimester foetus would be considered legally dead.

 

[ComUtoR]

Oh, I'm not saying a mother shouldn't have maternal feelings, or that it's wrong to colloquially speak about 'baby' as a person. Just pointing out that a born human with the same level of brain activity as a second trimester foetus would be considered legally dead.

The Moral Vs Legal Vs Social Vs Religious Vs Science Vs Nature debate. I probably missed something there too. If the Mother doesn't want to carry the pregnancy to term then there is nothing anyone else can do.

 

[najaB]

If the Mother doesn't want to carry the pregnancy to term then there is nothing anyone else can do

Except criminalise her decision, assuming it's even a decision.

There's been more than one case of a woman facing criminal charges after suffering a miscarriage.

 

[A Challenge]

Now Trump's out, it's very dangerous if they're allowed to continue in the post without facing any form of re-election or re-appointment by the current administration.

By that logic (bot allowing Supreme Court judges to serve beyond the end of the term of the President that appointed them) you would end up with a Supreme Court that was as political as the administration, as they would be reappointed every four years.

 

[nw1]

By that logic (bot allowing Supreme Court judges to serve beyond the end of the term of the President that appointed them) you would end up with a Supreme Court that was as political as the administration, as they would be reappointed every four years.

Maybe but now we have a load of conservatives who cannot be removed and will stay there until they die.

The ideal solution of course is to prevent the Supreme Court being political.

 

[AlterEgo]

Maybe but now we have a load of conservatives who cannot be removed and will stay there until they die.

The ideal solution of course is to prevent the Supreme Court being political.

The liberal justices will stay there until they die too. The entire system is a tyranny whichever way you look at it, but it became a problem for some people recently.

I much prefer our system where our highest court cannot simply strike down laws that our representatives pass in our name as “unconstitutional”. Parliament is sovereign, not nine law school graduates.

 

[najaB]

Except criminalise her decision, assuming it's even a decision.

For example: Reuters: Louisiana legislators advance bill classifying abortion as homicide.

Louisiana legislators advance bill classifying abortion as homicide

Louisiana lawmakers have advanced a bill that would abolish abortion in the state, grant constitutional rights to "all unborn children from the moment of fertilization" and classify abortion as a homicide crime.

www.reuters.com

I much prefer our system where our highest court cannot simply strike down laws that our representatives pass in our name as “unconstitutional”.

Largely because our constitution is uncodified, meaning that the Court would be unable to make a legal judgement of constitutionality in most cases.

 

[ComUtoR]

For example: Reuters: Louisiana legislators advance bill classifying abortion as homicide.

So where would a Law like this sit if a Mother was in surgery and the Doctor faced a Life/Death situation where it was the child or the Mother. If the unborn child has rights; could a Doctor now be faced with a Murder charge based on a decision to "kill" the child ?

 

[najaB]

So where would a Law like this sit if a Mother was in surgery and the Doctor faced a Life/Death situation where it was the child or the Mother. If the unborn child has rights; could a Doctor now be faced with a Murder charge based on a decision to "kill" the child ?

Potentially, yes. But it actually gets worse than that.

Since the grant of constitutional rights is "from the moment of fertilization", a woman who uses the morning after pill, an IUD or even the regular combined contraceptive pill could be charged with homicide, since they all act to prevent implantation of a fertilized zygote.

Just in case you thought the above was hyperbole, the Governor of Mississippi was specifically asked about bans on contraception and refused to commit to maintaining free* access. The closest he could come to it was saying that he "didn't think" this is something would happen.

Mississippi Republican Gov. Tate Reeves on Sunday hedged when asked if his state would consider banning certain forms of birth control if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, only offering that it's "not what we are focused on at this time."

"And while I'm sure there will be conversations around America regarding [birth control] it's not something that we've spent a lot of time focused on," Reeves told CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union" when asked if his state would consider targeting intrauterine devices and Plan B -- amid some Republican calls to ban forms of birth control. During an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" later Sunday, Reeves said he didn't think future Mississippi legislation would "apply to those that choose to use birth control."

Mississippi governor declines to rule out contraception bans, saying his state 'isn't presently focused' on it

By Paul LeBlanc, CNN

www.kake.com

*Speech not lunch

The first few minutes of this video goes through the evolution of the Evangelical Right's position on abortion:

 

[Scotrail12]

And it's been overturned. Oh crap.

Roe v Wade: US Supreme Court ends constitutional right to abortion

States can decide to ban abortion after the Supreme Court overrules the landmark Roe v Wade case.

www.bbc.co.uk

Roe v Wade: US Supreme Court strikes down abortion rights​

Millions of women in the US will lose the legal right to abortion, after the Supreme Court overturned a 50-year-old ruling that legalised it nationwide.
The court struck down the landmark Roe v Wade decision, weeks after an unprecedented leaked document suggested it favoured doing so.
The judgement will transform abortion rights in America, with individual states now able to ban the procedure.
Half of US states are expected to introduce new restrictions or bans.
Thirteen have already passed so-called trigger laws that will automatically outlaw abortion following the Supreme Court's ruling. A number of others are likely to pass new restrictions quickly.

Justice Clarence Thomas is also quoted as saying that the Supreme Court should "reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell". Aka - contraception, same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage.

So being gay might be illegal again in America. And people definitely can't abort in any circumstance in some states. In a 1st world country in the 21st century. Well bloody done, scum the lot of them. Just authoritarian halfwits who seem to love restricting other people's rights for the sake of their own religion.

I will not visit the USA ever again.

 

[dgl]

America is really showing at the moment that it's by far the worlds greatest democracy, relaxing gun laws and now the overturning of roe vs wade? America should hand it's head in shame!

 

[Strathclyder]

And so the Handmaid's Tale recreation in the US reaches it's watershed moment.

So being gay might be illegal again in America. And people definitely can't abort in any circumstance in some states. In a 1st world country in the 21st century. Well bloody done, scum the lot of them. Just authoritarian halfwits who seem to love restricting other people's rights for the sake of their own religion.

The US is dressed up pretty damned well as a 1st world country, when not-insignificant parts of it wouldn't be out of place in a 3rd world one. The right-wing authoritarian imbeciles are hell-bent on dragging all of it down to that level and then some.

America should hand it's head in shame!

Authoritarian imbeciles like Justice Thomas (not to mention his 'gem' of a wife) and the vast majority of the GQP - some of whom will be taking victory laps in the media over this while simultaneously trying to distance themselves from ever having supported/championed such a descision in the past despite such clips being readily available online, ready to be thrown back in their faces - have no concept of shame, let alone being able to feel it.

What they are in the stifling darkness of the world stage are soulless, ghoulish hypocrites who care for nothing but claiming/retaining power, acculmating wealth and suppressing or actively endangering the lives of the minorities they so often claim to want to protect.

 

[Domh245]

The US is dressed up pretty damned well as a 1st world country, when not-insigificant parts of it wouldn't be out of place in a 3rd world one.

I still maintain that the US is a third world country, with a veneer of 1st-worldism and respectability projected by a few coastal states (and even then, arguably only some cities within those states). It's remarkable just how backwards this supposed world power can be at times

 

[deltic]

In my view the decision made by the Supreme Court was the right legal decision. Whatever your views are of the rights and wrongs of abortion they should be determined by either the people directly via a referendum as in Ireland or their elected representatives as in the UK and not a set of judges trying to interpret the thoughts of a small number of men 200 years ago. And that's the argument put forward by the majority view in the court's judgement.

 

[windingroad]

In my view the decision made by the Supreme Court was the right legal decision. Whatever your views are of the rights and wrongs of abortion they should be determined by either the people directly via a referendum as in Ireland or their elected representatives as in the UK and not a set of judges trying to interpret the thoughts of a small number of men 200 years ago. And that's the argument put forward by the majority view in the court's judgement.

That's just a convenient pretext. If abortion (and various other rights) had been legislated for instead, the court as it currently exists would find a reason to strike them down. This isn't about jurisprudence; it's about theocratic ideology. The former is just a smokescreen for the latter at this point.

 

[najaB]

Whatever your views are of the rights and wrongs of abortion they should be determined by either the people directly via a referendum as in Ireland or their elected representatives as in the UK and not a set of judges trying to interpret the thoughts of a small number of men 200 years ago.

The problem there is that the GOP have managed to stack the cards such that, with a minority of the vote, they are able to hold on to enough power to kill any legislation dead in its tracks.

 

[birchesgreen]

We have to be wary now for the emboldened to try and push for similar here.

 

[najaB]

We have to be wary now for the emboldened to try and push for similar here.

Fortunately it isn't (yet) the wedge issue here that it is over there.

 

[birchesgreen]

Fortunately it isn't (yet) the wedge issue here that it is over there.

That won't stop them trying, the alt-right are already over this.

 

[Shrop]

I must admit to finding it increasingly hard to understand the way the USA works. Biden is in charge of the country, as democratically elected, he despairs of this new ruling, but is powerless to do anything about it. He also despairs of the gun laws, but is also powerless to do anything about it. This raises two questions -
1. If the abortion laws are part of US Constitution and can be overturned, how can it be that their gun laws cannot be overturned BECAUSE they're part of the Constitution?
2. Does Biden actually have power at all? It seems that everything goes against his wishes and there's nothing he can do about it.
Meanwhile, Trump can incite riots leading to deaths, nothing can be done to stop him, and there's talk of him running for President again.
It makes you wonder whether Trump is actually still in power behind the scenes.

 

[yorksrob]

This isn't a religious country. It's a niche issue here.

 

[najaB]

1. If the abortion laws are part of US Constitution and can be overturned, how can it be that their gun laws cannot be overturned BECAUSE they're part of the Constitution?

The Constitution is silent on the specific topic of abortion. It does, however, in the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee a right to due process under the law. This is intended to prevent the government from enacting any law that results in an arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the government outside the sanction of law.

In Roe v Wade the decision of the court was (simplified) that any law against abortion represented a reach of the government into the womb.

With respect to gun rights, it's probably instructive to quote the text itself (as it's so short):

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The intent of the law is pretty clear, however the gun lobby have pushed the letter of the law as far as possible.

2. Does Biden actually have power at all? It seems that everything goes against his wishes and there's nothing he can do about it.

He has as much power as any US President ever does. The US congress has basically been gridlocked since the late 1990s. Neither side has been able to obtain both a working majority in the House and a super-majority in the Senate at the same time, so any legislation that makes it as far as a vote inevitably dies in one house or the other. If Machin and Sinema could be counted on to actually vote the party line then there might be a chance - though that would require either the filibuster rule to be suspended/revoked or they have to use budget reconciliation rules. The problem with the latter is that it can only be done once per Congress, so the GOP would love nothing more than to force the Democrats to use 'early' as that would kill any chance whatsoever of getting anything done past that point.