Roe vs Wade overturned

[TheMeInTeam]

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?

i know what they are doing, and i know what you are doing.

allowing something to happen is not the same thing as doing it. this is why the uvalde police are not charged with murder, and why you/i are not charged with theft.

overturning bad case precedent is not an endorsement of law. "criminalizing abortion" isn't even a thing scotus can possibly do. when you say they did so, it is not reality, and it seems you are aware of the fact that it is not reality. if your complaint were that the decision invites law you don't agree with, or that it places undue risk on x happening, i wouldn't have quoted you. but what i quoted was a factually/objectively false statement.

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

we are in agreement on this. just because i agree with scotus that roe is bad law does not mean i agree with draconian abortion policy. and i suspect scotus is not done dealing with abortion cases, not by a long shot. i don't see how they can avoid getting cases where defendant claims the fetus was not a person, forcing the issue back onto either scotus or federal legislature.

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

wrt whether scotus "criminalized abortion", i am both, and that isn't a matter of opinion. if you want to say they were unethical or w/e that's different, but in claiming they "criminalized abortion" it's misinformation at best, and on a topic that is quite emotionally charged. bad practice.

 

[Sommerswerd]

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.

Governmental immunity alone is probably sufficient to protect legislators and/or governors from anything like that.

Plus, as I've mentioned before, you're going to also get the argument that the various forms of welfare and child support laws already provide support to mothers who need it to care for the children they are being forced to carry to term.

 

[Hygro]

i know what they are doing, and i know what you are doing.

allowing something to happen is not the same thing as doing it. this is why the uvalde police are not charged with murder, and why you/i are not charged with theft.

overturning bad case precedent is not an endorsement of law. "criminalizing abortion" isn't even a thing scotus can possibly do. when you say they did so, it is not reality, and it seems you are aware of the fact that it is not reality. if your complaint were that the decision invites law you don't agree with, or that it places undue risk on x happening, i wouldn't have quoted you. but what i quoted was a factually/objectively false statement.



we are in agreement on this. just because i agree with scotus that roe is bad law does not mean i agree with draconian abortion policy. and i suspect scotus is not done dealing with abortion cases, not by a long shot. i don't see how they can avoid getting cases where defendant claims the fetus was not a person, forcing the issue back onto either scotus or federal legislature.



wrt whether scotus "criminalized abortion", i am both, and that isn't a matter of opinion. if you want to say they were unethical or w/e that's different, but in claiming they "criminalized abortion" it's misinformation at best, and on a topic that is quite emotionally charged. bad practice.

Enjoy your fantasy.

 

[Zardnaar]

“Did not, in any way…”

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

SCOTUS doesn't write the laws though. And that's basically what he said.
It does enable those who write the laws though but it doesn't make abortion billehal.

It allows those who would to enable it at certain locations.

Distinction yes and functionally no different in those areas.

Inquiries for immigration have doubled anyway.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national...ux-of-us-doctors-after-abortion-ruling-agency

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Governmental immunity alone is probably sufficient to protect legislators and/or governors from anything like that.

governmental immunity shouldn't be a thing to the degree it is for the same reason that qualified immunity shouldn't be a thing to the degree it is.

you're going to also get the argument that the various forms of welfare and child support laws already provide support to mothers who need it to care for the children they are being forced to carry to term.

definitely true. i bet you'd see that argument within a few moments of the idea being proposed.

Enjoy your fantasy.

that's my line.

Distinction yes and functionally no different in those areas.

there are important functional differences. chief among them is that local legislatures are a lot more beholden to people who live with them than scotus is beholden to those same people.

 

[Zardnaar]

governmental immunity shouldn't be a thing to the degree it is for the same reason that qualified immunity shouldn't be a thing to the degree it is.



definitely true. i bet you'd see that argument within a few moments of the idea being proposed.



that's my line.



there are important functional differences. chief among them is that local legislatures are a lot more beholden to people who live with them than scotus is beholden to those same people.

I would be a bit more sympathetic to local concerns if they didn't use things like gerrymandering.

If you have a decentralized federal system where different states can enable different laws you probably need an independent electoral commission in those states to draw the boundaries etc as well.

American system top to bottom is insane to me but it's what you have. Enjoy.

 

[Edmund Ironside]

scotus upheld a civil right just recently (2nd amendment), but i guess this complaint counts when one doesn't agree with scotus, and not otherwise.

Arguably they continued a long tradition of misinterpreting the second amendment. Personally I think something like the Swiss model seems to be more likely what they had originally in mind.
But if you believe this is them upholding civil rights, then go for it!

 

[Takhisis]

Attributing the worst possible motivation to the supreme court judges and
pro-Life believers may have rhetorical impact, but it is not at all objective.

I am quoting actual headlines from Fox News, including ‘the liberals are crying’ and ‘liberal lunacy’.

He is Technically right it doesn't criminalize abortion.

It does open the door for areas to criminalize it.

Well, dropping somebody off a window onto the street below shouldn't count as murder because it's the floor doing the killing then.

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.

In theory there could be a window for people getting grandfathered in (e.g. abortions already booked for 100% medical reasons such as the mother's life being under direct immediate threat) but we all know that a lot of these militant anti-abortionists could simply storm the place in the name of legality and say feck everything and stall until factual circumstances changed.

 

[sophie]

Well, dropping somebody off a window onto the street below shouldn't count as murder because it's the floor doing the killing then.

Yes, and the men who drove the trains to Auschwitz can't be held liable for the million people killed there. All they did was bring the passengers to their scheduled destination.

 

[Estebonrober]

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?

TMIT is a "logic" based debate lord who can't even keep his own systems straight. His views on most things are willfully ignorant, pedantically childish, and/or inconsistent on this and on many other things.

 

[Estebonrober]

“Did not, in any way…”

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

Its already illegal here, they are already watching the clinics and rapidly working on pushing "day-after" pill bans.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Arguably they continued a long tradition of misinterpreting the second amendment. Personally I think something like the Swiss model seems to be more likely what they had originally in mind.
But if you believe this is them upholding civil rights, then go for it!

"shall not be infringed" and whatnot. but it also speaks to the concept of "government not arbitrarily denying you property" (reasonably construed as civil rights violation). and most of the laws in question are arbitrary. this isn't really the place for that though. suffice it to say, my stance on "not denying property arbitrarily" extends to concepts like "compelled abortion" and similar above.

i don't see a viable justification for abortion law outside the context of fetal personhood. i don't think the state can possibly demonstrate a compelling interest w/o that personhood defined. it *needs* that compelling interest, to offset bodily autonomy rights of the mother it *must* be protecting the life of another legal person. i will go so far as to say i believe scotus should outright strike down any case that comes to them if the state does not draw a line on personhood that is consistent with its laws otherwise. for example; whether the fetal death is caused by abortion vs an assault. it is not *legally consistent* to treat the same fetus as murdered in one context and not in the other at same stage of development...either it's legally a person or it is not. any state that treats those situations differently will fail the equal protection clause.

i suspect states won't have an easy time defining personhood under strict scrutiny (which any abortion law must pass, constitutionally) in a way that can deny contraceptives, morning after pill, or early-term abortion. mostly because the fetus is extremely similar at each of these points.

Well, dropping somebody off a window onto the street below shouldn't count as murder because it's the floor doing the killing then.

i would be interested to hear your explanation as to how this is analogous, assuming you actually believe it to be analogous.

this is more like "x didn't stop y from throwing z off the balcony", where x did not conspire with y, wasn't in the same room as y. representing x and y as equivalent is not honest, but it's the same thing as saying scotus itself criminalized abortions. that simply isn't reality, no matter how much it's repeated.

In theory there could be a window for people getting grandfathered in (e.g. abortions already booked for 100% medical reasons such as the mother's life being under direct immediate threat)

interestingly, the self-defense claim is legit under quoted circumstances. though mothers shouldn't have to be making it, the state also should have no chance of prevailing if those are the facts.

 

[El_Machinae]

And McConnell was complicit.

Honestly, I'd put McConnell as the dominant factor. Nearly all of the political kung-fu was McConnell.

 

[Takhisis]

Yes, and the men who drove the trains to Auschwitz can't be held liable for the million people killed there. All they did was bring the passengers to their scheduled destination.

You should at least credit the NSDAP with running the trains on time. Given the state of Amtrak, this really is what the US needs.

 

[Farm Boy]

You'd need people willing to ride the train first. Then again, you know those socialists. They'll put you on the train themselves.

 

[Takhisis]

Hmmm. The Nazis had red in their flag, which proves that their ideology was dangerously communistic.

 

[Arwon]

The notion of a constitution as a shopping list of very specific, detailed rights that protect nothing else but what is literally worded in there flies in the face of the very purpose of constitutional rights. It's legally deficient, intellectually suspect, and morally bankrupt, and the product of a concerted, deliberate effort to weaken civil rights undertaken for decades by American political and economic interests (the Kochs, Chevron, etc) via massive funding in support of those who advocate for that interpretation (Federalist society, etc).

The purpose - the entire point - of having human rights in a Constitution is to prevent oppression of minorities by the majority (or whatever other group holds political power). That's their entire reason for being. To prevent oppression, a constitution requires two things:

1. The flexibility to respond to new forms of oppression, otherwise the state will just come up with new ways of oppressing people that are not technically covered by the constitution
and
2. Ironclad protections that are beyond easy change at the hand of the majority (otherwise the majority will just abolish rights whenever they want).

Under a literalist/originalist reading, both cannot be true at the same time. If the constitution is limited to the strict original meaning of its framers, then either it is difficult to amend (in which case it has no flexibility and is powerless to address new forms of oppression), or it is easy to amend (in which case the protection are meaningless and easily taken away at the whim of the state).

A living reading of the constitution, where the constitutional rights are understood as general broad principles, by which state action is to be judged, on the other hand, achieves both goals (and may well be the only way to do so).

If you're going to have an originalist reading, you might as well not bother having human rights in your constitution.

Also the 13th amendment part against involuntary servitude can probably be read as being against forced birth

 

[Evie]

It could, quite a few could, but originalism is against it all (plus, you know, they were appointed for the explicit purpose of erasing the right to abortions).

 

[Lexicus]

It could, quite a few could, but originalism is against it all (plus, you know, they were appointed for the explicit purpose of erasing the right to abortions).

Should note that abortion was commonly used as a resistance tactic by slave women and they faced a draconian regime of punishment for destroying master's property when they were caught

 

[Birdjaguar]

Forced pregnancy of slaves was how owners increased their assets.