On abortion

[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.

[falafel]

Who is opposing the right to reproduce?

The right to reproduce includes the right NOT 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.

[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?

[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?

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[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.