The overturning of Roe v Wade

[Scotrail12]

What do we make of this?

Roe v Wade: US Supreme Court may overturn abortion rights, leak suggests

Millions could lose the legal right to abortion this summer, a leaked Supreme Court document shows.

www.bbc.co.uk

The document, published by Politico, suggests the country's top court is poised to overturn the 1973 decision that legalised abortion nationwide.
If the court strikes down the Roe v Wade ruling, individual states would be allowed to ban abortion, if they wish.
It is expected abortion could then be banned in almost half of US states.

Pretty appalling stuff. It's worrying that a country like the United States wants to take an authoritarian path such as this, why should the government be dictating this? All it's going to do is inflict harm on young mothers, probably on babies as well, all because of some religious bigot who can't resist the urge to control people.

Also wondering what precedent that this will set for other Supreme Court rulings. Could Obergefell be next?

I'd say I'm also pretty disappointed that some of the people I followed on Twitter during COVID that constantly cried about their civil liberties are now supporting this. Not so libertarian, freedom-loving after all...

 

[jon0844]

Funny how they're not voting for gun control because, hey, freedom. Double standards much?

 

[341o2]

When President Trump was informed of the case, he is alleged to have said "I don't care how those damn Cubans get home!"

 

[TheEdge]

Welcome to 2022 USA. The most religious fundamentalist nation on Earth.

 

[GB]

So much for the land of the free!

 

[C96]

There was someone interviewing going around to anti mask events, with the attendees stating how they shouldn’t be told what to do. Only for them to seize up when asking if that applied to abortion.

 

[Peterthegreat]

What do we make of this?

Roe v Wade: US Supreme Court may overturn abortion rights, leak suggests

Millions could lose the legal right to abortion this summer, a leaked Supreme Court document shows.

www.bbc.co.uk

Pretty appalling stuff. It's worrying that a country like the United States wants to take an authoritarian path such as this, why should the government be dictating this? All it's going to do is inflict harm on young mothers, probably on babies as well, all because of some religious bigot who can't resist the urge to control people.

Also wondering what precedent that this will set for other Supreme Court rulings. Could Obergefell be next?

I'd say I'm also pretty disappointed that some of the people I followed on Twitter during COVID that constantly cried about their civil liberties are now supporting this. Not so libertarian, freedom-loving after all...

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

 

[brad465]

This picture from Fox News that's been doing the rounds talking about this revelation perfectly sums up the out of touch logic being applied:



As someone who is Christian what really annoys me is the double standards many of those who are Christian are applying to its teachings: they focus a lot of things like abortions, gay rights and anything similar, but not of Christian teachings around supporting others/charity (love thy neighbour as yourself), where they seem to love extreme wealth and/or selfishness, which tend to be frowned upon in Christianity. Being Christian I don't like abortion and thus think it should be avoided, but tolerate it in cases of rape and respect others have their own views that I won't force mine onto; overturning this ruling would go against much of that.

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

This is correct, and the US Government have been vocally critical of this move. The Supreme court though in the US is very politicised and its decisions are the legacy of former US Presidents who appointed them, going back as far as George Bush Snr

 

[MikeWM]

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

Yes, and that's the key point here. Whether one thinks the *outcome* is desireable or not, the fact is that Roe Vs Wade was a very clear case of judicial activism, massive overreach, and reading an awful lot into the US Constitiution that really isn't there. We shouldn't fall into the trap of applauding things that shouldn't happen just because we may like the result. Next time the judicial overreach may put into place something you don't like. Judges shouldn't be inventing law, that is the job of the legislature.

If there is to be a federal ban on states banning abortions, the correct way to do that is via a law passed by Congress - and if that is considered constitutionally dubious due to states rights considerations, then it needs a Constitutional Amendment. Whether we like the result or not, that's how it is supposed to work.

 

[Peterthegreat]

This picture from Fox News that's been doing the rounds talking about this revelation perfectly sums up the out of touch logic being applied:

View attachment 114010

As someone who is Christian what really annoys me is the double standards many of those who are Christian are applying to its teachings: they focus a lot of things like abortions, gay rights and anything similar, but not of Christian teachings around supporting others/charity (love thy neighbour as yourself), where they seem to love extreme wealth and/or selfishness, which tend to be frowned upon in Christianity. Being Christian I don't like abortion and thus think it should be avoided, but tolerate it in cases of rape and respect others have their own views that I won't force mine onto; overturning this ruling would go against much of that.


This is correct, and the US Government have been vocally critical of this move. The Supreme court though in the US is very politicised and its decisions are the legacy of former US Presidents who appointed them, going back as far as George Bush Snr

Furthermore I suspect many of those who who describe themselves as "pro-life" are advocates of the death penalty.

 

[MikeWM]

This picture from Fox News that's been doing the rounds talking about this revelation perfectly sums up the out of touch logic being applied:

I'm certainly no fan of Sean Hannity, and I'm sure that particular debate wouldn't have been one I'd have enjoyed watching, but I'm not sure why people other than women-of-childbearing-age shouldn't discuss such issues. If we limit discussion on issues to those directly and immediately affected by them then we get a far less rich debate.

As someone who is Christian what really annoys me is the double standards many of those who are Christian are applying to its teachings: they focus a lot of things like abortions, gay rights and anything similar, but not of Christian teachings around supporting others/charity (love thy neighbour as yourself), where they seem to love extreme wealth and/or selfishness, which tend to be frowned upon in Christianity.

Having spent a lot of time on a Catholic discussion board many years ago, I very much agree. They often called others who were more liberal on social issues 'Cafeteria Catholics', apparently without realising that by exhibiting the exact behaviours you describe (plus at the time also warmongering - they generally approved of invading Iraq), they were doing exactly the same themselves.

 

[brad465]

I'm certainly no fan of Sean Hannity, and I'm sure that particular debate wouldn't have been one I'd have enjoyed watching, but I'm not sure why people other than women-of-childbearing-age shouldn't discuss such issues. If we limit discussion on issues to those directly and immediately affected by them then we get a far less rich debate.

I'm not suggesting men are barred from the discussion entirely, but not having any women in a discussion where women are the primary group affected doesn't come across as representative in any way. That panel I think should have been 2 men 2 women, but even if it was 3:1 in favour of men it would be far more representative of the subject.

 

[Ediswan]

If there is to be a federal ban on states banning abortions, the correct way to do that is via a law passed by Congress - and if that is considered constitutionally dubious due to states rights considerations, then it needs a Constitutional Amendment. Whether we like the result or not, that's how it is supposed to work.

There is no proposal for a federal ban. It is some of the state legislatures which seek a ban.

 

[MikeWM]

I'm not suggesting men are barred from the discussion entirely, but not having any women in a discussion where women are the primary group affected doesn't come across as representative in any way. That panel I think should have been 2 men 2 women, but even if it was 3:1 in favour of men it would be far more representative of the subject.

Part of the problem there is that the women usually interviewed on Fox panels aren't terribly representative either I do get your point and I agree to some extent, but finding a truly representative panel is incredibly difficult even if you're actively trying to do so (though I agree it is very likely Fox weren't).

---

There is no proposal for a federal ban. It is some of the state legislatures which seek a ban.

No, I know - my point is that RvW is currently a federal measure that prevents state bans. Those who support RvW should presumably support a law passed by Congress to the same effect, and that would have the distinct advantage of being something that was done in a proper manner, rather than by judges effectively making up things in the Constitution that aren't actually there.

 

[Ediswan]

No, I know - my point is that RvW is currently a federal measure that prevents state bans. Those who support RvW should presumably support a law passed by Congress to the same effect, and that would have the distinct advantage of being something that was done in a proper manner, rather than by judges effectively making up things in the Constitution that aren't actually there.

There is such a law proposed. It seems unlikely to pass though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_Health_Protection_Act

The Women’s Health Protection Act of 2021 (H.R. 3755) is a piece of legislation introduced in the United States House of Representatives aimed at codifying Roe v. Wade in response to the Texas Heartbeat Act.

 

[najaB]

As someone who is Christian what really annoys me is the double standards many of those who are Christian are applying to its teachings: they focus a lot of things like abortions, gay rights and anything similar, but not of Christian teachings around supporting others/charity (love thy neighbour as yourself), where they seem to love extreme wealth and/or selfishness, which tend to be frowned upon in Christianity.

It's been my experience that the majority of people who call themselves Christians have never read the entire Bible, and that people who have read the entire Bible rarely still call themselves Christians.

I'm certainly no fan of Sean Hannity, and I'm sure that particular debate wouldn't have been one I'd have enjoyed watching, but I'm not sure why people other than women-of-childbearing-age shouldn't discuss such issues. If we limit discussion on issues to those directly and immediately affected by them then we get a far less rich debate.

Nobody is saying that men don't have a place in the debate - after all, we are just as involved in conception as women are - but since abortion is a women's health matter, they should lead the debate.

Those who support RvW should presumably support a law passed by Congress to the same effect, and that would have the distinct advantage of being something that was done in a proper manner, rather than by judges effectively making up things in the Constitution that aren't actually there.

Given that the majority of the US population express support for access to abortion, I expect that it would have popular support - except that those on the right turned it into a wedge issue.

 

[The Ham]

An interesting interview to listen to regardless of what side of the debate you fall:

Anne Robinson on having an abortion in her twenties

The TV presenter was reacting to the news that abortion laws might be rolled back in America.

www.bbc.co.uk

It's stories like this which is why I think that there should be support for those who are considering an abortion, with support for them for the months after a decision is made (in either direction). Such support may result in fewer abortions, however it still provides the option for those for whom it is what they want.

Banning it will likely just result in more harm to those who try to avoid the ban as well as to those who can't avoid the ban and have to go through an unwanted pregnancy.

The problem is, that as with all things in life, it's never as easy as one thing is good whilst the other is bad. It's very easy to say ending the potential of child by having an abortion is bad. However there's always going to be lots of cases where it's the least worst option (and even in saying that, those words don't even get close to the complexity of the issues involved).

Although such a change in the law appears to be just one in a long list of bills being prepared by the right of politics in the USA. For instance States requiring schools have CCTV (but not providing funding for it), teachers being able to be sued if they teach a child something against the patient's religion, or teaching that (say) Hitler wasn't morally wrong.

 

[telstarbox]

I'm not suggesting men are barred from the discussion entirely, but not having any women in a discussion where women are the primary group affected doesn't come across as representative in any way. That panel I think should have been 2 men 2 women, but even if it was 3:1 in favour of men it would be far more representative of the subject.

That would apply to this forum as well...

 

[najaB]

Banning it will likely just result in more harm to those who try to avoid the ban as well as to those who can't avoid the ban and have to go through an unwanted pregnancy.

The Right's obsession with abortion is a relatively recent thing - as late as the 1970s the likes of Billy Graham said words to the effect of "life begins at the first breath". It became a wedge issue for them when they realised that being pro-segregation was a losing position. They recognised that restricting access to abortion was an effective way to keep the 'undesirables' in their place (rich, white women will always be able to hop on a flight to get around bans).

Although such a change in the law appears to be just one in a long list of bills being prepared by the right of politics in the USA. For instance States requiring schools have CCTV (but not providing funding for it), teachers being able to be sued if they teach a child something against the patient's religion, or teaching that (say) Hitler wasn't morally wrong.

Expect Obergefell v. Hodges (same sex marriage) to be next in their sights.

 

[jon0844]

That would apply to this forum as well...

How do we know what forum members are male, female (or identify as another), their age, sexuality, ethnicity etc?

 

[Scotrail12]

Expect Obergefell v. Hodges (same sex marriage) to be next in their sights.

I mentioned this one in the OP. I also saw mentions online about Lawrence v Texas, now the potential for that to be overturned makes me sick.

 

[najaB]

They also mentioned Lawrence v Texas, now the potential for that to be overturned makes me sick.

That one I hadn't heard.

The US's march towards Christian Nationalism is scary. Really scary.

 

[Strathclyder]

I mentioned this one in the OP. I also saw mentions online about Lawrence v Texas, now the potential for that to be overturned makes me sick.

Just looked that one up and the mere prospect of that one, along with Obergefell, being overturned makes me dry-heave. Much like Roe v Wade, stomach-churning doesn't even begin to describe the implications such overturnings represent.

The US's march towards Christian Nationalism is scary. Really scary.

It's like watching a slow-motion plane crash. All kinds of horrific and completely out of our control, but we can't bear, nay afford, to look away.

Funny how they're not voting for gun control because, hey, freedom. Double standards much?

You could fill a Bible-sized book with the amount of double standards present in the modern USA. Honestly makes my head hurt.

 

[birchesgreen]

You could fill a Bible-sized book with the amount of double standards present in the modern-day USA. Honestly makes my head hurt.

Oh you are being nice, i was thinking more like a set of encyclopaedia Britannicas, all 30 volumes.

 

[Strathclyder]

Oh you are being nice, i was thinking more like a set of encyclopaedia Britannicas, all 30 volumes.

Yeah, I was being a tad generous I think. Just tag on both testaments of the Bible to all 30 Encyclopedia Britannica volumes and there'd still be enough left over to fill out a War & Peace-sized novel.

 

[tspaul26]

Yes, and that's the key point here. Whether one thinks the *outcome* is desireable or not, the fact is that Roe Vs Wade was a very clear case of judicial activism, massive overreach, and reading an awful lot into the US Constitiution that really isn't there. We shouldn't fall into the trap of applauding things that shouldn't happen just because we may like the result. Next time the judicial overreach may put into place something you don't like. Judges shouldn't be inventing law, that is the job of the legislature.

If there is to be a federal ban on states banning abortions, the correct way to do that is via a law passed by Congress - and if that is considered constitutionally dubious due to states rights considerations, then it needs a Constitutional Amendment. Whether we like the result or not, that's how it is supposed to work.

Agreed.

Furthermore I suspect many of those who who describe themselves as "pro-life" are advocates of the death penalty.

Regardless of whether one supports such things on a prudential level, there is a difference between the two: abortion is intrinsically evil whereas the death penalty is not. At least, that is certainly the position as a matter of Catholic moral theology.

There is no proposal for a federal ban. It is some of the state legislatures which seek a ban.

Exactly. If Roe and Casey are overturned then the matter simply returns to the state level for decision by the elected legislatures.

And I can’t imagine California or New York will do anything to restrict abortion.

Given that the majority of the US population express support for access to abortion, I expect that it would have popular support - except that those on the right turned it into a wedge issue.

I think you have to drill down into the detail though. For example, my understanding is that a majority of Americans (including majorities of both Democrats and Republicans) do not support the framework put in place by Roe. There is far more support for the approach adopted by Mississippi which gave rise to the current Supreme Court case as far as I am aware from the sundry reporting over the past year.

 

[Giugiaro]

So much for the land of the free!

It's been for quite a while dubbed as the "Land of the Fee".
Yes, without the "r".

I'm not suggesting men are barred from the discussion entirely, but not having any women in a discussion where women are the primary group affected doesn't come across as representative in any way. That panel I think should have been 2 men 2 women, but even if it was 3:1 in favour of men it would be far more representative of the subject.

I always assumed Fox News was a channel designed for conservative white men. The image doesn't surprise me at all.

The years when news and debates were neutral in the United States are long gone. Echo chambers are far more profitable.

 

[Strathclyder]

It's been for quite a while dubbed as the "Land of the Fee".
Yes, without the "r".

You only have to take one look at the US healthcare 'system' to see how true that is.

 

[najaB]

I think you have to drill down into the detail though. For example, my understanding is that a majority of Americans (including majorities of both Democrats and Republicans) do not support the framework put in place by Roe. There is far more support for the approach adopted by Mississippi which gave rise to the current Supreme Court case as far as I am aware from the sundry reporting over the past year.

That may be the case, however the laws being proposed go way beyond that - e.g. the 15-week limit imposed by the latest Texas law. And the fact that some of the laws provide no exception for cases of rape or incest! Or the laws which make no exception for ectopic pregnancies!

Roe isn't perfect, but you should never make perfect the enemy of good enough.

 

[deltic]

Yes, and that's the key point here. Whether one thinks the *outcome* is desireable or not, the fact is that Roe Vs Wade was a very clear case of judicial activism, massive overreach, and reading an awful lot into the US Constitiution that really isn't there. We shouldn't fall into the trap of applauding things that shouldn't happen just because we may like the result. Next time the judicial overreach may put into place something you don't like. Judges shouldn't be inventing law, that is the job of the legislature.

If there is to be a federal ban on states banning abortions, the correct way to do that is via a law passed by Congress - and if that is considered constitutionally dubious due to states rights considerations, then it needs a Constitutional Amendment. Whether we like the result or not, that's how it is supposed to work.

Couldnt agree more - no matter what your views are on abortion the way that the US Constitution is used and abused is ridiculous.

Regardless of whether one supports such things on a prudential level, there is a difference between the two: abortion is intrinsically evil whereas the death penalty is not. At least, that is certainly the position as a matter of Catholic moral theology.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty has changed, calling capital punishment “an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person” and deeming it “inadmissible” in all cases.