On abortion

[All-American]

I happen to have emotional management skis. Just put them away for spring though.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Honestly, I think the horrible take ratio on social media is at an all-time high right now. Never seen anything like it.

Joe Biden joining in on the hyperbolic and stupid take crowd. I saw him on the TV this morning claiming 1) if this ruling stands, the next thing the court is going to do is ban LGBTQ kids from associating with straight kids in schools. And 2) the MAGA crowd is the most dangerous group in American history.

Idiot.

[Northwestcoug]

So there is some hyperbole going around, and Twitter is certainly magnifying it. But the political climate now really feels unsettled. I would feel more confident if the state abortion laws that lead to the decision resembled anything reasonable. But almost all of them are draconian. If Roe goes, the frenzy that these state legislatures have created will not easily go away. At some point, we have to start believing what these people are saying: they are fighting for a near total ban on abortion.

as to the other worries people are extrapolating, yeah some of it seems like a stretch. Still, states are feeling their oats right now. Don’t say gay, book bans, and other attacks on freedom are very worrisome. If Roe v Wade is unconstitutional, what’s stopping a state from arguing that Obergefell isn’t ‘deeply rooted in the nation’s history’? Even if a challenge doesn’t go to the Supreme Court, it is a good bet that a state will try it.

it’s going to reverberate to other non-abortion political questions, no doubt. Both sides of the political divide are eager to fight culture wars. But one side has just found a lot of energy to fight, after losing their important wars for decades. I’m not optimistic.

[Clark Addison]

The worst thing about this stupid leak is that we are getting all sorts of madness and crazy people, to the point that you almost can't go online, and then when the ruling actually comes out we get to do it all again.

[falafel]

I may be alone on this take, but the more we talk about this draft decision, the more I agree with it. I have no problem with returning the decision on whether to allow abortion, and under what circumstances, to the people themselves. The Daily's episode this morning discussed this topic (although somewhat heavy-handedly) and noted that in 25 or so states that already have some Roe trigger law on the books or are looking to pass something similar, those laws actually reflect the majority view of their populations. The the blue states either have similar laws protecting abortion already, or are scrambling to get them on the books. Whatever happened to allowing the states to be the laboratories of democracy? Or, as the opinion appears to state, allowing Congress to make laws instead of the Court?

[falafel]

So there is some hyperbole going around, and Twitter is certainly magnifying it.

My favorite hyperbole is the "forced pregnancies". Yes, the government forced you to get pregnant.

[LVAllen]

Whatever happened to allowing the states to be the laboratories of democracy?

That would be the 14th Amendment. States developed quite the reputation for getting hinky with the Constitution.

[Jeff Lebowski]

So there is some hyperbole going around, and Twitter is certainly magnifying it. But the political climate now really feels unsettled. I would feel more confident if the state abortion laws that lead to the decision resembled anything reasonable. But almost all of them are draconian. If Roe goes, the frenzy that these state legislatures have created will not easily go away. At some point, we have to start believing what these people are saying: they are fighting for a near total ban on abortion.

as to the other worries people are extrapolating, yeah some of it seems like a stretch. Still, states are feeling their oats right now. Don’t say gay, book bans, and other attacks on freedom are very worrisome. If Roe v Wade is unconstitutional, what’s stopping a state from arguing that Obergefell isn’t ‘deeply rooted in the nation’s history’? Even if a challenge doesn’t go to the Supreme Court, it is a good bet that a state will try it.

it’s going to reverberate to other non-abortion political questions, no doubt. Both sides of the political divide are eager to fight culture wars. But one side has just found a lot of energy to fight, after losing their important wars for decades. I’m not optimistic.

I have heard people argue that the reason we are so polarized is precisely because of Roe v. Wade. That ruling took us instantly to having one of the most permissive abortion laws in the world - a statement that is still true 50 years later. It was way out of line with the wishes of the American public. Without that ruling, we would have gradually settled in to a legislative solution over time, just like what has happened in Europe. But here we are.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I may be alone on this take, but the more we talk about this draft decision, the more I agree with it. I have no problem with returning the decision on whether to allow abortion, and under what circumstances, to the people themselves. The Daily's episode this morning discussed this topic (although somewhat heavy-handedly) and noted that in 25 or so states that already have some Roe trigger law on the books or are looking to pass something similar, those laws actually reflect the majority view of their populations. The the blue states either have similar laws protecting abortion already, or are scrambling to get them on the books. Whatever happened to allowing the states to be the laboratories of democracy? Or, as the opinion appears to state, allowing Congress to make laws instead of the Court?

You are not alone.

Is it the end of the world if there is some variation in abortion laws from state to state? Nobody seems too worked up that Italy has more strict abortion laws than Denmark.

[smokymountainrain]

I may be alone on this take, but the more we talk about this draft decision, the more I agree with it. I have no problem with returning the decision on whether to allow abortion, and under what circumstances, to the people themselves. The Daily's episode this morning discussed this topic (although somewhat heavy-handedly) and noted that in 25 or so states that already have some Roe trigger law on the books or are looking to pass something similar, those laws actually reflect the majority view of their populations. The the blue states either have similar laws protecting abortion already, or are scrambling to get them on the books. Whatever happened to allowing the states to be the laboratories of democracy? Or, as the opinion appears to state, allowing Congress to make laws instead of the Court?

Is it really that simple?

for example, it seems like there are certain rights that should be protected even in the face of majority opinion. whether abortion is one of those, i don't know that i have a strong opinion, but it seems the principle itself has merit.

[Moliere]

I may be alone on this take, but the more we talk about this draft decision, the more I agree with it. I have no problem with returning the decision on whether to allow abortion, and under what circumstances, to the people themselves. The Daily's episode this morning discussed this topic (although somewhat heavy-handedly) and noted that in 25 or so states that already have some Roe trigger law on the books or are looking to pass something similar, those laws actually reflect the majority view of their populations. The the blue states either have similar laws protecting abortion already, or are scrambling to get them on the books. Whatever happened to allowing the states to be the laboratories of democracy? Or, as the opinion appears to state, allowing Congress to make laws instead of the Court?

Agreed, but of course I’m no lawyer.

The decision is a legal decision, not a political one.

[Applejack]

You are not alone.

Is it the end of the world if there is some variation in abortion laws from state to state? Nobody seems too worked up that Italy has more strict abortion laws than Denmark.

I think what we will see is not "some variation" between states, but a patchwork of laws that make obtaining an abortion difficult, confusing, and fraught with risk. Missouri has proposed a law which would make it a crime to assist someone travelling out of state to get an abortion. This is modeled on that Texas law that gives citizens the right to sue any one (a doctor, uber driver, neighbor) that assists someone obtaining an abortion in a state where abortion is legal. This deputizing of citizens to enforce the criminal law is Orwellian.

[Moliere]

Is it really that simple?

for example, it seems like there are certain rights that should be protected even in the face of majority opinion. whether abortion is one of those, i don't know that i have a strong opinion, but it seems the principle itself has merit.

And those rights are enumerated in the Constitution. Abortion is not a right in the Constitution…unless you streeeeetch the interpretation of the 14th amendment.

[Applejack]

And those rights are enumerated in the Constitution. Abortion is not a right in the Constitution…unless you streeeeetch the interpretation of the 14th amendment.

Is gay marriage in the constitution? Is inter-racial marriage?

Agreed, but of course I’m no lawyer.

D'oh! I should have listened to SU.

[Moliere]

So there is some hyperbole going around, and Twitter is certainly magnifying it. But the political climate now really feels unsettled. I would feel more confident if the state abortion laws that lead to the decision resembled anything reasonable. But almost all of them are draconian. If Roe goes, the frenzy that these state legislatures have created will not easily go away. At some point, we have to start believing what these people are saying: they are fighting for a near total ban on abortion.

as to the other worries people are extrapolating, yeah some of it seems like a stretch. Still, states are feeling their oats right now. Don’t say gay, book bans, and other attacks on freedom are very worrisome. If Roe v Wade is unconstitutional, what’s stopping a state from arguing that Obergefell isn’t ‘deeply rooted in the nation’s history’? Even if a challenge doesn’t go to the Supreme Court, it is a good bet that a state will try it.

it’s going to reverberate to other non-abortion political questions, no doubt. Both sides of the political divide are eager to fight culture wars. But one side has just found a lot of energy to fight, after losing their important wars for decades. I’m not optimistic.

I disagree to an extent as I think certain laws (Obergfell is a good example) won’t be overturned because they are (1) based on actual rights guaranteed to all people and (2) it has widespread public support. Gay marriage has over 70% support and that goes higher when you ask if gays should at least have the same rights as married people even if they are denied the term “married”. Access to birth control has over 90% support. Interracial marriage has over 95% support. These decisions aren’t being overturned and even if they are there are no states that would ban them (well, maybe Idaho).

Abortion (without limitations) does not share widespread support even after 50+ years. There’s a reason for that and it’s because there are competing moral issues on both sides that are not easily reconcilable. No matter how many times someone claims I just want to control a woman’s body, it’s not about that for me. It’s about the life of the fetus/unborn child.