The overturning of Roe v Wade

wilbers

Member
Joined
10 Mar 2022
Messages
34
Location
Penrith
True. The west coast and parts of the north-east won’t, but what happens if it is pushed through as a nationwide ban? Some may say the constitution would prevent that, but the extremists have ‘God on their side’ and consider that that justifies going to any lengths to get what they want.

Good luck to them getting God to testify in court. ;)
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
6,229
This isn't an attack on women, it's an attack on anyone who isn't white, well off, straight, Christian and nationalist.

Wow, so it didn't take long for someone to bring the race card into the debate, did it.

I'm guessing you've never seen any photos of Justice Clarence Thomas?

And how on Earth does overturning Roe vs Wade amount to an attack on anyone who isn't straight? I'd have thought people who not straight are the least likely people to be affected by the decision, since they are the people least likely to accidentally get pregnant (or get their partner pregnant).

And ditto, how does it amount to an attack on anyone who isn't nationalist? Whether your views are nationalist/internationalist/whatever surely has zero bearing on your likelihood of getting pregnant or needing an abortion.
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
2,313
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
needing desiring an abortion.
Corrected that for you - it is only rarely that abortions are "clinically" indicated, e.g. to save the life of the mother or avoid the risk of her being seriously harmed. Most US states that have decided to ban "social" abortions are still going to permit them in these sort of circumstances, although the exemptions vary from state to state and in some seem too restrictive.

Peter Hitchens has published an interesting perspective on abortion on his blog at: https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2022/06/on-abortion-.html

ON Abortion.

I thought this - the overturning of the Roe v. Wade judgment - might be a good moment to republish this posting from October 2007 on the Abortion controversy:

Hardly anyone says or thinks that abortion is a good thing in itself. Even its supporters accept that this is a nasty procedure. .......
 
Last edited:

NSEFAN

Established Member
Joined
17 Jun 2007
Messages
3,495
Location
Southampton
Wow, so it didn't take long for someone to bring the race card into the debate, did it.

I'm guessing you've never seen any photos of Justice Clarence Thomas?

And how on Earth does overturning Roe vs Wade amount to an attack on anyone who isn't straight? I'd have thought people who not straight are the least likely people to be affected by the decision, since they are the people least likely to accidentally get pregnant (or get their partner pregnant).

And ditto, how does it amount to an attack on anyone who isn't nationalist? Whether your views are nationalist/internationalist/whatever surely has zero bearing on your likelihood of getting pregnant or needing an abortion.
I thought that the argument was that the original basis for Rode vs Wade was later applied to other rulings that granted various freedoms that some states wished to restrict. If one can be overturned, it may be a matter of time before the others are as well.

The sort of person who is vehemently against all abortions is likely also against same-sex and interracial marriages.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
3,203
Very difficult to say, abortion is many voters is not a major issue if you think about it. Biden is very very unpopular at the moment so whatever happens I think it will be disaster for the Democrats.

Is it not?

I would suspect that a majority of the population would take exception to authoritarian politicians telling them that abortion is illegal - including all Democrats and a good number of moderate Republicans.

People do not vote just because of things that may or may not happen to them but out of empathy.

For example I strongly support abortion rights and gay rights even though I am neither female nor gay. I detest Donald Trump even though I am not American. I detest Viktor Orban even though I am not Hungarian. And so on.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
27,119
Location
Scotland
Very difficult to say, abortion is many voters is not a major issue if you think about it.
It wasn't an issue for many voters because they saw it as settled. Even many people who personally are opposed to abortion were okay with the choice being left to the woman.

The idea that the Republicans are "coming for your uterus" has the potential to be as powerful a calling cry as the Republican's "their coming for your guns".

I thought that the argument was that the original basis for Rode vs Wade was later applied to other rulings that granted various freedoms that some states wished to restrict. If one can be overturned, it may be a matter of time before the others are as well.
Precisely! The argument that supported Roe v Wade directly supported access to contraception, made sodomy laws unconstitutional and underpins same-sex marriage. And if you don't believe that these are under threat, consider that the self-same justice Thomas wrote, in his judgement that Griswold vs. Connecticut (in which the Supreme Court said married couples have the right to obtain contraceptives), Lawrence v. Texas (which established the right to engage in private sexual acts) and Obergefell v. Hodges (which said there is a right to same-sex marriage) were "demonstrably erroneous decisions.”

And it is undeniable that bans on abortion will disproportionately affect poor people - who are more likely to be non-white - as they are least likely to be able to afford contraceptives. Not to mention that it is also highly unlikely that they can travel out of state for an abortion. And it's no coincidence that Federally-financed family planning services - which many in minority communities depend on - were severely cut back by the Trump administration.

On top of that, many the Christian fundamentalists who are behind this push genuinely believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible - seven day creation, six thousand year-old Earth, Noah's flood 3400 years ago, etc. They are emboldened by this and other recent decisions to the point that I've seen more than one of their most popular leaders make calls for homosexuals to be executed.
 
Last edited:

NSEFAN

Established Member
Joined
17 Jun 2007
Messages
3,495
Location
Southampton
Precisely! The argument that supported Roe v Wade directly supported access to contraception, made sodomy laws unconstitutional and underpins same-sex marriage. And if you don't believe that these are under threat, consider that the self-same justice Thomas wrote, in his judgement that Griswold vs. Connecticut (in which the Supreme Court said married couples have the right to obtain contraceptives), Lawrence v. Texas (which established the right to engage in private sexual acts) and Obergefell v. Hodges (which said there is a right to same-sex marriage) were "demonstrably erroneous decisions.”
I am quite ignorant of American law, but one generous interpretation of what has happened could be that these things need to be written into federal law in order to properly protect them (or indeed the constitution physically amended to specifically allow them without ambiguity), rather than down to particular interpretations of cases which are subject to re-interpretation. In this light, the “correct” thing has happened, although the reality is that it will screw over vulnerable people. The due process of law is all very nice, but real human suffering that comes out of it doesn’t seem to matter enough to those who made this decision. Whether or not we see constitutional or federal law changes out of this remains to be seen…
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
25,046
Location
Redcar
(or indeed the constitution physically amended to specifically allow them without ambiguity)
Constitutional amendments are fairly tricky at the best of times (and these are not the best of times). There's two main routes for an amendment. The main (and so far only used route) is for a joint resolution from both the House of Representatives and the Senate passed by a two-thirds majority vote proposing an amendment which is then ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures (38). It would be a brave person I'd suggest that thinks that it would be possible to achieve that sort of support for such an amendment, or indeed at the moment, just about any amendment!

There is another mechanism which is for the three-fourths of the State legislatures to call for a constitutional convention to propose amendments but this method has, so far, never been used.

The US National Archives (for they actually play an important administrative role in such a process) have an interesting and easy to read article on the subject here for anyone interested in reading about it a bit more.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
9,037
I think sanity left the room back in the 1990s.

Some would argue that not updating documents since the 1790's would mean that it was likely to do so and therefore would be surprised at such a late date for sanity leaving the building.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
27,119
Location
Scotland
Some would argue that not updating documents since the 1790's would mean that it was likely to do so and therefore would be surprised at such a late date for sanity leaving the building.
To be fair, the most recent constitutional amendment was passed in 1992.
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
11,952
The 'logic' for banning abortion amongst Republican types is surely based on the principle that every foetus is needed to develop into a child so they are given an equal chance to be gunned down in their prime, preferably in their classroom, so that their 'leftie' teacher suffers the same fate: if not that, then it must be to increase the number of gun, rifle and carbine toting 'loyalists' defending their 2nd Amendment Biblical Tablet that was discovered on Mount Sinai, apparently, and of course must never, ever be subject to amendment or reason. Sorry, can't see an emoji which reflects my abject feelings on the matter,
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
27,119
Location
Scotland
Interestingly, the Government is not backing a move to codify the right of UK women to access abortion in the proposed Bill of Rights:
The right to abortions in the UK is "settled" and there is not a "strong case for change", Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab has said.

The comments follow a US decision overturning the right to abortion.

In the Commons, Labour MP Rosie Duffield asked if the government's Bill of Rights would be amended to "enshrine a woman's right to choose".

Mr Raab replied that abortion was an "issue of conscience" for MPs and that it was up to them to decide the law.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
6,229
Interestingly, the Government is not backing a move to codify the right of UK women to access abortion in the proposed Bill of Rights

Out of interest, how would you want to see it codified? While fully supporting in principle the right to an abortion, I can see potential problems with introducing it as a fundamental right rather than as a normal law. For example, up to how late in the pregnancy would you want to allow abortions? That limit is inevitably to some extent arbitrary, but I'm guessing few would disagree that some kind of time limit needs to be there. How could you codify a 'right to abortion' while not restricting the ability of future governments to tweak that limit, or to tweak the circumstances under which abortion is allowed/restricted if it's so desired? On the other hand, given that the UK Parliamentary system allows Parliament to pass whatever laws it wishes to, if a majority of both Houses agree, would codifying it as a right actually make any practical difference?

Settled law of course, what could go wrong?

Presumably the difference is that, in the UK, the law was settled largely by majority consensus, as a political decision, whereas in the US, Roe vs Wade introduced it as - for all practical purposes - a judiciary-created law that lacked political/democratic involvement?
 
Last edited:

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
27,119
Location
Scotland
On the other hand, given that the UK Parliamentary system allows Parliament to pass whatever laws it wishes to, if a majority of both Houses agree, would codifying it as a right actually make any practical difference?
On a practical level it would make little difference, but it would be a powerful statement given the changes that are happening on the other side of the pond.
Out of interest, how would you want to see it codified? While fully supporting in principle the right to an abortion, I can see potential problems with introducing it as a fundamental right rather than as a normal law. For example, up to how late in the pregnancy would you want to allow abortions?
The easiest way would be to not address abortion specifically, but rather state that people have the right to make decisions on medical procedures in consultation with their medical professionals, so long as any procedure doesn't conflict with the rights of any other person (or similar such wording). The limits on how late in term an abortion would be allowed can continue to be set by other law.
 

Cloud Strife

Member
Joined
25 Feb 2014
Messages
861
Presumably the difference is that, in the UK, the law was settled largely by majority consensus, as a political decision, whereas in the US, Roe vs Wade introduced it as - for all practical purposes - a judiciary-created law that lacked political/democratic involvement?

That's the problem with the US as a whole. A huge, huge amount of law is settled by state and national Supreme Courts, rather than by legislation. The requirement for a super-majority in the Senate is really a huge impediment to law making in the US.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
15,845
Location
No longer here
That's the problem with the US as a whole. A huge, huge amount of law is settled by state and national Supreme Courts, rather than by legislation. The requirement for a super-majority in the Senate is really a huge impediment to law making in the US.
This is how I view it too. It always seemed appropriate to me that a moral dilemma of conscience belonged in legislation, not in judgments by the Supreme Court.

As an aside, the near-panic shown by some people in the UK at Roe v Wade as if it’s going to affect things here is terrifying. This is a different country. Abortion is not an open political issue. Turn off the television; you don’t live in America. Stop importing all their ridiculous, awful politics here. That goes for everyone, current government included.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
27,119
Location
Scotland
As an aside, the near-panic shown by some people in the UK at Roe v Wade as if it’s going to affect things here is terrifying. This is a different country. Abortion is not an open political issue. Turn off the television; you don’t live in America.
Six years ago it was seen as near-impossible in the USA as well. I mean, a country that is legalising same-sex marriages is hardly likely to be one that could see women facing potential prosecution because they had a miscarriage.

Yet that is where they are. And, if we are not vigilant, where we could easily end up too.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
15,845
Location
No longer here
Six years ago it was seen as near-impossible in the USA as well. I mean, a country that is legalising same-sex marriages is hardly likely to be one that could see women facing potential prosecution because they had a miscarriage.

Yet that is where they are. And, if we are not vigilant, where we could easily end up too.
But not even our Conservative party rules in the name of Jesus Christ. It’s a different ecosystem here. Abortion isn’t a live issue, and the vast majority of people agree with abortion rights. And that is why it belongs in the realm of democratic politics - our elected representatives make and repeal laws, not a handful of law school graduates. It’s also why our system is better than the USA.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
27,119
Location
Scotland
But not even our Conservative party rules in the name of Jesus Christ. It’s a different ecosystem here. Abortion isn’t a live issue, and the vast majority of people agree with abortion rights.
The majority of Americans agree with abortion rights as well:
Today, a 61% majority of U.S. adults say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 37% think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. These views are relatively unchanged in the past few years. The latest Pew Research Center survey, conducted March 7 to 13, finds deep disagreement between – and within – the parties over abortion. In fact, the partisan divide on abortion is far wider than it was two decades ago.
Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...rtion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases-2/

Yet in 17 States it is either already illegal or will be within weeks.
It’s also why our system is better than the USA.
Pride, they say, goeth before the fall.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
15,845
Location
No longer here
The majority of Americans agree with abortion rights as well:
But the majority of American women will still have abortion rights. All Roe v Wade does is turn the issue, rightly in my view, back to the states - the democratically elected representatives - to decide.

Yet in 17 States it is either already illegal or will be within weeks.
Are there any states where there is a clear majority in the state's electorate in favour of abortion rights, but which is currently making it illegal? Any with elections coming up soon?

In the UK, the right to an abortion (with certain conditions) is a settled issue, because it went through a proper democratic process and at no time in my lifetime has there ever been anything close to a majority in the Commons of members who wish to ban it. You could probably count the number of MPs who would ban abortion in Britain on two, maybe three hands, out of over 600 seats.

Pride, they say, goeth before the fall.
Well we don't pretend to believe in natural law or natural rights when they can be overturned by a handful of lawyers. Parliament here is supreme, has been unquestioningly for 400+ years, and quite rightly too. Every right is negotiated.
 

Cloud Strife

Member
Joined
25 Feb 2014
Messages
861
Are there any states where there is a clear majority in the state's electorate in favour of abortion rights, but which is currently making it illegal? Any with elections coming up soon?

North Carolina is a big one. The population supports it, but the Republican-controlled legislature wants to ban it as quickly as possible. The problem in NC is that it's another situation where the judge made the law, as it's based on a ruling in the NC Supreme Court that referred to Roe v Wade.

There is an interesting question as to whether abortion is a big enough issue to turn the NC legislature into the hands of the Democrats. Right now, the Republicans (through considerable amounts of gerrymandering) hold a clear 69-51 advantage, but from what I gather, the NC Supreme Court is 4-3 for the Democrats. But again, we have the same lunacy: the NC Governor is from the Democrats and he will veto any legislative ban on abortion. So, the law goes back to what is on the legislative books, which is legislation prohibiting abortion from 1881.
 

Ianigsy

Member
Joined
12 May 2015
Messages
827
Not really an issue to most people in the US too but look what happened.

As for there being no possibility here, well of course

As I said to a friend last week, MPs seem to be exempt from the general rule nowadays that you check your religious beliefs in at the door when you arrive at your workplace.
 

Cloud Strife

Member
Joined
25 Feb 2014
Messages
861
Slightly OT, but here's another example of the Supreme Court making law for themselves:


They were challenging whether the agency has the power to regulate planet-warming emissions for state-wide power sectors or just individual power plants.
These 19 states were worried their power sectors would be regulated and they would be forced to move away from using coal, at a severe economic cost.

In a 6-3 ruling, the court sided with the conservative states and fossil-fuel companies, agreeing that Congress had not "intended to delegate... decision of such economic and political significance".

This is exactly why the US system is broken. Laws cannot get through Congress due to the super-majority in Senate, regulations can be passed by the President and then struck down if the Republicans don't agree with them, so effectively, the party that doesn't control the Presidency, the House and the Senate is controlling law through the Supreme Court. It's nonsense.
 

Ediswan

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2012
Messages
1,707
Location
Stevenage
Slightly OT, but here's another example of the Supreme Court making law for themselves:

Alternatively, the Supreme Court are saying that the Environmental Protection Agency were exceeding the authority granted to them by Congress.
BBC: The court hasn't completely prevented the EPA from making these regulations in the future - but says that Congress would have to clearly say it authorises this power. And Congress has previously rejected the EPA's proposed carbon limiting programmes.
 

Top