Roe vs Wade overturned

[Berzerker]

??? this seems like non-logic to me. unless you don't believe babies are people.

note that the constitution being decried because one doesn't agree with this decision is precisely the document that prevents compelled abortions, which have in fact happened in places like china. but it only works if citizens uphold it and protect it. if you want a world where the us goverment can compel abortions, go ahead and de-legitimize the constitution. i don't want that world though.

The Republicans just gave govt the power to compel abortions

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It used to be "doubtful" to alot of folks that they would overturn Roe, but here we are...

i don't think that holds. you could find respected lawyers/legal scholars pointing out that be basis the court gave for roe *at the time* and for the decades between then and now was not sound. it did not answer the pertinent question (when legal protection for fetus becomes a thing), and used a basis (privacy) that made no sense, for a topic not covered in the constitution...at least not until you consider the fetus a person legally.

imo a better example to prove your point would be that they've upheld asset forfeiture in the past...that is an objective due process problem and a clear violation of the 4th amendment (seizing property without any evidential burden on the state). compared to upholding that, the threat presented by overturning roe is trivial.

edit: equal protections clause is also something republicans will try to use to their advantage, thus i further doubt they'll go for that one.

The Republicans just gave govt the power to compel abortions

i'm interested in what makes you believe that, because i don't see anything that can possibly justify that conclusion as you've written it. can you point to any law or something in roe decision that implies this?

 

[Berzerker]

nothing in the Constitution about a right to have babies, the state decides

 

[Samson]

i'm interested in what makes you believe that, because i don't see anything that can possibly justify that conclusion as you've written it. can you point to any law or something in roe decision that implies this?

From a supreme court document I think:

One particular example is obvious. The right to bodily integrity recognized in Casey and Roe protects not only the right of all people to choose to terminate a pregnancy, but also the right of all people to choose to carry one to term. And restricting the former inherently threatens the latter – especially for persons with disabilities, who have long been targeted. As Casey warned, “f . . . the woman’s interest in deciding whether to bear and beget a child had not been recognized . . . , the state might as readily restrict a woman’s right to choose to carry a pregnancy to term as to terminate it, to further asserted state interests in population control, or eugenics, for example.” 505 U.S. at 859. Thus, when, barely more than a generation ago, state officials allegedly coerced a girl thought to have sickle cell trait into sterilization, the Fourth Circuit depended on Roe’s guarantee of control over “the right of procreation,” to reverse a grant of summary judgment to those officials. Avery v. Cnty. of Burke, 660 F.2d 111, 115 (4th Cir. 1981); see also, e.g., In re Guardianship of Moe, 960 N.E.2d 350, 353 (Mass. App. Ct. 2012) (reversing order of involuntary sterilization and vacating order of involuntary abortion to be performed on person with schizophrenia in light of “fundamental” “right” to determine “whether to bear or beget a child”) (citation omitted).

In short, people with disabilities have long been denied control over their own bodies, in both reproductive and non-reproductive contexts. Decimating core precedents defending bodily integrity would pose unique dangers to them.​

 

[TheMeInTeam]

nothing in the Constitution about a right to have babies, the state decides

good luck enforcing that.

and by "good luck", i mean "how does the state deprive someone of life in the literal sense" and nevertheless make a valid claim that such an action is consistent with due process? the state must either conclude the fetus is not a person, and thus literally part of the mother...or that it is a person, and thus protected constitutionally.

the latter is constitutionally protected, so we will focus on the former here. the process of compelled abortion implies actions that would normally constitute assault. thus, a state can no more or less "decide a right to have babies" than it can "decide a right to randomly kneecap people". besides, if the fetus isn't a person yet, then privacy and searches actually *do* come into play as well.

Thus, when, barely more than a generation ago, state officials allegedly coerced a girl thought to have sickle cell trait into sterilization, the Fourth Circuit depended on Roe’s guarantee of control over “the right of procreation,”

the court need not "depend" on bad law to do this, for the reasons above. it can instead depend on the premise of "states can't legalize random assaults" and "killing a fetus that is legally a person is murder", depending on how far along the pregnancy is.

In short, people with disabilities have long been denied control over their own bodies, in both reproductive and non-reproductive contexts. Decimating core precedents defending bodily integrity would pose unique dangers to them.

i mean, i don't trust scotus. but these are obviously illegal regardless. forced sterilization/abortions imply some combination of illegal search, illegal seizure, murder, assault, and denial of liberty (without due process). i guess a state could try it, but a state could also try to just make political disagreements illegal and arrest people for that too...the basis for/against doing that would be functionally identical to compelled abortion.

i get that none of this has any meaning if the people in question don't uphold the piece of paper. the constitution says you can't be randomly clapped by police, but the guys out there with a gun can still pull the trigger illegally, and they will pull it without consequence unless we continue to uphold the strength of that piece of paper.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Perhaps women will need "permission to get pregnant". From their husbands? From the state?

 

[Samson]

the state must either conclude the fetus is not a person, and thus literally part of the mother...or that it is a person, and thus protected constitutionally.

I do not see that this is really true. The heLa cell line is neither part of a person nor a peron in its own right.

i mean, i don't trust scotus. but these are obviously illegal regardless. forced sterilization/abortions imply some combination of illegal search, illegal seizure, murder, assault, and denial of liberty (without due process). i guess a state could try it, but a state could also try to just make political disagreements illegal and arrest people for that too...the basis for/against doing that would be functionally identical to compelled abortion.

Did not you point out the Buck v. Bell is still law/current interpretation of law by the SCOTUS?

 

[Hygro]

trump did not criminalize abortion.

He promised to do it and appointed two justices that did it. That's how one criminalizes abortion.

 

[sophie]

i mean, i don't trust scotus. but these are obviously illegal regardless. forced sterilization/abortions imply some combination of illegal search, illegal seizure, murder, assault, and denial of liberty (without due process). i guess a state could try it, but a state could also try to just make political disagreements illegal and arrest people for that too...the basis for/against doing that would be functionally identical to compelled abortion.

SCOTUS ruled forcible sterilization to be constitutional in 1928. The only caveat made to that ruling since is that you can't sterilize "habitual criminals" (and even that judgment was only made on equal protection grounds, as the original law made an exception for white collar criminals)

And the federal government sterilized Indian women either by force or spuriously coerced consent as a matter of policy all the way into the mid-70s. 150 women in Californian prisons were found to have been sterilized without consent in the years 2006-2010.

 

[Farm Boy]

He promised to do it and appointed two justices that did it. That's how one criminalizes abortion.

That's being done by elected legislatures piecemeal all over the country. If you want to cut it fine like this.

 

[Birdjaguar]

He promised to do it and appointed two justices that did it. That's how one criminalizes abortion.

And McConnell was complicit.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I wonder if there is a civil case to be made against the state legislators who introduced (or a governor who signed) a state law that prohibits abortion and thereby forces a woman to carry a pregnancy to term to sue for child support from those as individuals.

 

[choxorn]

i wouldn't put it past texas or something, but it's not going to work. it's not even going to kind of work. i doubt any state other than maybe texas or louisiana will try it, and maybe not even them. the "states rights" thing they tout would look massively hypocritical if they start trying to act like feds regulating activity in other states.

And? Do you think they care about looking massively hypocritical? If they did, they wouldn't have held one supreme court seat hostage for a year because of an upcoming election, then appointed another supreme court justice when a seat became vacant two months before an election.

They know they're being massive hypocrites. They. Do. Not. Care.

depends on the timing of the ban how popular it is. but note that scotus did not "ban abortions". that's objectively not a thing that happened.

Not directly no, but they did make it legal for states to ban abortions, and several of them had laws on the books immediately banning abortion. So in those states they effectively did.

He promised to do it and appointed two justices that did it. That's how one criminalizes abortion.

Three justices.

 

[Estebonrober]

The problem is moderate voters, basically. What mobilizes the left-wing of the Democratic base either turns off the moderates or actually drives them to vote Republican. And without the moderates the progressives don't have the numbers to carry anything at the federal level.

The Republicans have this problem much less because their coalition in practice is less ideologically diverse than the Democrats'. You have lunatics who are single-issue anti-abortion voters, lunatics who are single-issue pro-gun voters, etc. These people are never on the fence and will never be driven to vote for the other party as long as the Republicans side with them on their single issue. Plus as we've discussed in the spinoff thread from this thread the minority-rule aspects of the Constitutional system translate into deep structural advantages for the Republicans.

These factors combine to make it virtually impossible to imagine substantive change coming from inside the Constitutional system.

@Birdjaguar and @AmazonQueen, are the Democratic Senators willing to abolish the filibuster to pack the court? Because that's what we're going to need for voting to make a difference. A filibuster-proof majority is pointless when the Supreme Court can strike down any law (and has a right-wing legal apparatus which includes both civil society groups to bring suits and the far-right judges appointed by Trump to the federal bench for the purpose of creating splits among the appelate and circuit courts that the Supreme Court can then rule on).

Unless and until 51 Democratic Senators commit to abolishing the filibuster for the purpose of packing the court, telling us to vote Democratic if we want to fix this is frankly insulting to our intelligence.

Edit: I should add that by all appearances the actual Democrats are happy to have this issue as a fundraising ask; I've received about a dozen texts in the last 48 hours asking for money

The whole "get out and vote!" thing is pretty hollow when they're telling you to get out and vote in literally rigged electoral congressional districts, first-past-the-post senate races and an "electoral college", all done by voting on ballots with heavily curtailed access to non-major parties. And of course, only if you haven't been spuriously deregistered from the electoral rolls, can get out of work that Tuesday, can stand in line for 5 hours in heavily populated non white districts, and haven't been convicted of minor racially enforced drug offences taking away your right to vote.

Like yes it's trivially true that enough voting would put enough Democrats into the legislature to pause the creeping unraveling, but that's not a lot of hope. And with these pious exhortations to vote, tone deaf fundraising emails, poetry readings etc, they honestly don't even seem to show understanding of what's wrong with the very electoral playing field, much less fight to reverse it. They've had their chances to restore more of a real franchise to more people and haven't done it. So voting for them is merely a grim defensive act in a busted shell of a system, it's not really much hope for fixing things.

I've been getting hit up pretty hard by Dems too. I will only give money to the DSA or Dems with a proven history of worker support. That includes most of the broad spectrum of things considered leftist across the world. We should be fighting over getting housing for everyone with some dignity of life for everyone, not rights that were settled 50-150 years ago.

I believe America is capable of redemption, but it is more likely it follows through on its horrible behavior and this continues until blood runs. Democrats are only slightly less guilty than the Republicans.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Did not you point out the Buck v. Bell is still law/current interpretation of law by the SCOTUS?

no, i pointed out that law relevant to "covid mandate justification" led to buck v. bell in the context of those threads. that those were bad rulings/should not be considered good law or consistent with the constitution is nothing new to my position. i still hold that stuff as bad ruling, regardless of roe. i don't think current scotus considers buck v bell good law though?

also i don't see how forcibly altering something inside someone's body can be anything but assault, and would be interested in hearing functional rationale otherwise.

explain to me how compelled abortion by states would be meaningfully different from compelled amputation (even when not medically indicated) by states. not only do i not think you can, i also don't think scotus or legislatures could do so in a self-consistent fashion.

He promised to do it and appointed two justices that did it. That's how one criminalizes abortion.

scotus did not, in any way, "criminalize" abortion, period. that's flat out misinformation. if you are aware of the scotus ruling in full, it is lying.

state legislatures can, and some will. there is no current federal law against abortion, though there is a risk a future president will try if there's some established basis for personhood.

SCOTUS ruled forcible sterilization to be constitutional in 1928. The only caveat made to that ruling since is that you can't sterilize "habitual criminals" (and even that judgment was only made on equal protection grounds, as the original law made an exception for white collar criminals)

And the federal government sterilized Indian women either by force or spuriously coerced consent as a matter of policy all the way into the mid-70s.

i meant it when i said "i don't trust scotus". that said, these things are all violations of the constitution. they happened before roe, and they happened after roe. saying the repeal of roe is an important factor in whether scotus will arbitrarily decide actual constitutional rights exist or don't doesn't hold up to scrutiny. it's like saying a repeal of roe will influence asset forfeiture law.

That's being done by elected legislatures piecemeal all over the country. If you want to cut it fine like this.

this distinction is not trivial!

I wonder if there is a civil case to be made against the state legislators who introduced (or a governor who signed) a state law that prohibits abortion and thereby forces a woman to carry a pregnancy to term to sue for child support from those as individuals.

this already happens to men regardless of whether they want the child, and in some cases merely because they didn't contest whether it was theirs fast enough. i don't see why legislatures should be immune when they compel the woman, if men are otherwise not immune when women are not.

i also expect lawsuits derived from pregnancy complications if the woman is denied an abortion, and imo they should have no trouble surviving motion to dismiss in states that attempt to ban abortion entirely.

And? Do you think they care about looking massively hypocritical?

in some cases, they will. in others, they won't. that's how it usually goes.

They know they're being massive hypocrites. They. Do. Not. Care.

states rights is going to be a critical talking point for them in very near future, not to mention wrt abortion specifically. it's not a legally functional argument to argue for state's rights and then deny other states their rights.

we're in a clown world, so someone might try it, for similar reasons that a portion of the democratic party claimed scotus illegitimate lol.

 

[Hygro]

scotus did not, in any way, "criminalize" abortion, period. that's flat out misinformation. if you are aware of the scotus ruling in full, it is lying.

Roe vs Wade overturned re-allows existing laws that criminalize abortion, as well as invites new ones. They know full well what they are doing. Do you? No? Or are you the liar who calls others liars?

 

[Birdjaguar]

this already happens to men regardless of whether they want the child, and in some cases merely because they didn't contest whether it was theirs fast enough. i don't see why legislatures should be immune when they compel the woman, if men are otherwise not immune when women are not.

i also expect lawsuits derived from pregnancy complications if the woman is denied an abortion, and imo they should have no trouble surviving motion to dismiss in states that attempt to ban abortion entirely.

And if the child is afflicted with Down's syndrome or some other ailment, the cost of upbringing is significantly higher.

 

[Zardnaar]

Roe vs Wade overturned re-allows existing laws that criminalize abortion, as well as invites new ones. They know full well what they are doing. Do you? No? Or are you the liar who calls others liars?

He is Technically right it doesn't criminalize abortion.

It does open the door for areas to criminalize it.

 

[GenMarshall]

He is Technically right it doesn't criminalize abortion.

It does open the door for areas to criminalize it.

I've already caught wind that there are laws in Southern and Midwestern states that have trigger laws that would activate in various degrees from activating the microsecond it's overturned, a grace period of a month or so before being active, or to be brought up to the state's legislature.

 

[Hygro]

He is Technically right it doesn't criminalize abortion.

It does open the door for areas to criminalize it.

“Did not, in any way…”

no drunknar, he is not technically right. And he is certainly not generally right.