On abortion

[Jeff Lebowski]

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.

Yeah, we are definitely going to see some rebound effects when Roe goes away. Again, this is blowback from having one of the most permissive abortion rights in the world for so long. It is going to take some time for the dust to settle and a new equilibrium to be established.

[Jeff Lebowski]

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.

One of the most frustrating parts of the abortion debate is how rare it is for someone to honestly acknowledge that this is a case of competing rights.

[Moliere]

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



D'oh! I should have listened to SU.

Equal protection clause in the 14th amendment.

[fusnik]

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.

You have demonstrated over the last couple of years your inability to imagine how insane republican politicians are:

https://mobile.twitter.com/GregHilbu...19471476170757

https://www.businessinsider.com/repu...rgefell-2022-5

https://mobile.twitter.com/JasonSCam...95060735942656

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/rcna27475

[Jeff Lebowski]

You have demonstrated over the last couple of years your inability to imagine how insane republican politicians are:

https://mobile.twitter.com/GregHilbu...19471476170757

https://www.businessinsider.com/repu...rgefell-2022-5

https://mobile.twitter.com/JasonSCam...95060735942656

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/rcna27475

You have demonstrated over the last couple of years your inability to distinguish hyperbole from reality.

Do you think the supreme court is going to ban straight kids from mixing with LGBTQ kids in elementary schools? Do seriously believe that is a serious possibility? Even a remote possibility?

[Pelado]

You have demonstrated over the last couple of years your inability to imagine how insane republican politicians are:

https://mobile.twitter.com/GregHilbu...19471476170757

https://www.businessinsider.com/repu...rgefell-2022-5

https://mobile.twitter.com/JasonSCam...95060735942656

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/rcna27475

From that last link:

In the recent past, conservative Republicans opposed reproductive rights, while more moderate Republicans supported reproductive rights. Now, the “moderate” position in the GOP is overturning Roe, while more conservative GOP officials are eager to explore a national ban.

Who is opposing the right to reproduce?

[Omaha 680]

One of the most frustrating parts of the abortion debate is how rare it is for someone to honestly acknowledge that this is a case of competing rights.

Very frustrating. I want women to have bodily autonomy but there is a certain point where the baby has to be considered as well. I don't pretend to know what that point is because it is such a difficult and unique issue.

The draft decision notes how the poorly-reasoned decisions of Roe and PP have only hardened the extremes and made it impossible for public debate on this complex issue to progress rationally. I think it is not unreasonable to think that without Roe and PP, most of the states would have gotten to a place that almost all of Europe is: highly permissive and accessible abortion before 12 weeks and highly restricted after 12 weeks. Alito also made it clear that this issue of competing rights is its own issue, not applicable to gay marriage or any other Supreme Court decision that fearmongers are claiming will be overturned next.

[falafel]

Who is opposing the right to reproduce?

The right to reproduce includes the right NOT to reproduce.

[falafel]

Very frustrating. I want women to have bodily autonomy but there is a certain point where the baby has to be considered as well. I don't pretend to know what that point is because it is such a difficult and unique issue.

The draft decision notes how the poorly-reasoned decisions of Roe and PP have only hardened the extremes and made it impossible for public debate on this complex issue to progress rationally. I think it is not unreasonable to think that without Roe and PP, most of the states would have gotten to a place that almost all of Europe is: highly permissive and accessible abortion before 12 weeks and highly restricted after 12 weeks. Alito also made it clear that this issue of competing rights is its own issue, not applicable to gay marriage or any other Supreme Court decision that fearmongers are claiming will be overturned next.

He did, but a lot of these rights are based on the same underlying principles in the Constitution, as I understand it. So I can see how people might be worried about knocking out one pillar and hoping the roof stays up.

A couple of things that I think distinguishes abortion from gay and interracial marriage from abortion: (1) the institution of "marriage" is a traditional and foundational principle pre-dating the Constitution, even if that institution was less inclusive than it is today. Abortion was not and has never been. (2) As Molieddie notes, abortion is still hotly contested 50 years after Roe, while the vast majority of Americans support the gay and interracial marriage now. Who is going to be fighting to cut those rights off? No interracial marriage? GTFO.

[Bo Diddley]

All this talk of rights has this going through my head:

right.jpg

[Applejack]

He did, but a lot of these rights are based on the same underlying principles in the Constitution, as I understand it. So I can see how people might be worried about knocking out one pillar and hoping the roof stays up.

A couple of things that I think distinguishes abortion from gay and interracial marriage from abortion: (1) the institution of "marriage" is a traditional and foundational principle pre-dating the Constitution, even if that institution was less inclusive than it is today. Abortion was not and has never been. (2) As Molieddie notes, abortion is still hotly contested 50 years after Roe, while the vast majority of Americans support the gay and interracial marriage now. Who is going to be fighting to cut those rights off? No interracial marriage? GTFO.

Ummm...did you miss General Conference?

[falafel]

Ummm...did you miss General Conference?

No one ever listens to us.

[SeattleUte]

Great column from Douthat. The leak could have come from anybody. Everyone had a political motive.

But what's clear is that the mystique is gone. Alito, Kagan, are just McConnell and Feinstein in black robes. There's no illusion any longer that the court is not just politics. But quasi-dictatorial because they're appointed for life.

And ironically this descent may have started with Roe.

What Was the Strategy Behind the Supreme Court Leak?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/04/o...e=articleShare

[SeattleUte]

The problem with the power that the Supreme Court has grabbed for itself, with respect to the Constitution, is that our Constitution, possibly because it was the first one, is so deficient, so tentative, full of holes, vague, ambiguous, not to mention the sexism and racism. Like the Bible you can make anything up about what it says. Does the Constitution have a right to privacy? No? What is protection against illegal searches? But no, it doesn't say privacy. It depends on your values, your politics.

This is the monstrously dishonest thing about Scalia's "original intent" and "dead Constitution". The Constitution doesn't give hardly any rights, explicitly, and its' 250 years old. Original intent is just a faux principled excuse to withhold rights.

[smokymountainrain]

imo, this is an issue that only women should argue over. i'm not about to tell a woman what she should do if she's preggo, hence i'm pro-choice. pro-dowhateveryouwantjustdonthurtme

in all serious though, it's easy for me as a dude, who will never have a baby inside me, to tell women they can't terminate the life of a fetus that is inside them. kinda makes me want to stay out of it all together.