So altogether it's about the ability to twist the law to advantage. Just like Boris and Trump have succeeded doing, and which sums up my despair at the way these societies on both sides of the Atlantic operate. Right and wrong come second to this, it seems.
A smokescreen the GOP and it's sycophantic supporters would have you believe doesn't exist, but is patently obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense and two functioning brain-cells worth rubbing together.
Beat me to this. It's all well and good to propose such legistion over there, but what chance would it realistically have of becoming enshrined as the law of the land with the way the GOP have stacked things in their favour even with a minority of the overall vote? Silm to zilch, that's what.
Try and fail spectacularly, making utter arses of themselves and showing themselves up for who they really are in the process. A cold, comforting distraction from the horror show State-side if nothing else.
Given the way things have been going, and the precident this particular decision sets, I'd be inclined to agree.
Disagree completely, the judges have a particular absolutistic view of the Constitution. But it takes some amazing twisting of interpretation of it to come to the view that abortion is a Constitutional right.
So it's a good thing that Roe v Wade didn't come to that conclusion.
Do you mean as enforced by the 18th Amendment?
The judges have that absolutist view precisely and exclusively because it provides them with political cover to roll back rights. This is the culmination of a long-term political project by the Christian nationalist right to install judges sympathetic to their view, which is a matter of fact, not opinion.
You are extremely naive if you believe this is about state rights. This won't end until abortion is criminalised nationwide and the people pushing for this judgement have said as much repeatedly.
While this ruling presents such a risk, I'm not sure how certain we can be about abortion being criminalised across the US. California, for instance won't be outlawing it anytime soon.
Not naive, just a realist. I know that a shrill, emotional response to anything that the left doesnt like seems to be mandatory these days, but the reality is that democrat states will go one way, Republican states another way. Places like california will allow abortion up to birth, with places like Texas having limits on it.
Who's saying anything about such a ban? Obviously some would like that.
I would submit that both sides in this argument could, in their minds, justify going to any length to see their ends.
This is among a long list of reasons why such a heavy focus on GDP is not a good way to measure success as a country. The US having the highest GDP in the world doesn't make anyone victim to abortion laws and gun crimes any happier, nor does it help the poorest in society or any other groups demonised as minorities for whatever reason. Then of course the country with the 2nd highest GDP in the world is one of the most authoritarian countries in the world and is also helping Russia get by while it ruins Ukraine.
One of the most prominent Republicans in the country just proposed exactly that. Five years ago even this court judgement would've been unthinkable, and the Overton window has shifted very significantly since then. It's also looking very likely that Republicans will control every branch of government after the next election, so things will get worse before they get better.
Thanks for this, was not aware.
Oh it very much is about jurisprudence. In the UK a handful of politically appointed law school graduates can’t strike down law in the way we have seen the Supreme Court in the USA do.
I would tend to agree. It does seem much more rational for the issue to be decided by the states themselves. Unfortunately, many of them take their lead from fundamental Christian theology, and I’m afraid in many of those states that also reflects the view of the electorate.
Oh you’re right that it’s not what this is *about*, no, although I’m afraid I can’t find any flaw in the mere fact the SC has batted the issue back to states.
Why? What makes it more rational to be decided by the States? What is rational about allowing women on one side of a line on a map control over their bodies and denying it to women on the other side of a line on a map?
It represents the views of a minority of the electorate. Over 60% of Republican women think that Roe should have stood.
Fundamentally, it is. As you say, rightly, there are moral questions over which there can be no correct answer - but a ban on abortion is predicted on one answer being right.
No, it is not exclusively women. But given that women are the only ones directly impacted by a ban on abortion, the fact that it is widely unpopular with women shows how out of touch the GOP are on this.
I agree and, technical arguments about the SCOTUS aside, I am as concerned about today’s development as you. I have always considered it a moral dilemma I have vacillated on for years, a decision therefore beyond my consent for any state to impose an answer, and best delegated to the woman at the centre of the problem.
The availability of contraception and interracial marriage had the same basis in law, if that helps?
