I think the recent legalization in those states is less instructive than the fact that we’re the only one going backward on women’s rights at the moment
Being personally anti-abortion but professionally pro-choice in no way signals to women that you don’t understand the issue at all, no way
It signals that he is pro-choice but would very much like to not get excommunicated. Which is kinda cowardly, but a lot of Catholics find themselves in that position. Abortion is legal in Italy, note.
Italy, Ireland, France, Mexico, Brazil, and a number of other majority Catholic nations. None of whom have had nearly as much trouble on the topic since their asshole politicians weren't using it as a racism proxy.
Really you're going to point out Ireland didn't have a problem with abortion when it didn't legalize it until 2018? Like come on man.
You could say the same about many Central and South American nations. But I didn't say it wasn't a problem. I said they have it despite being a majority Catholic nation.
Their history with abortion isn't the same as the US.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
Being personally anti-abortion but professionally pro-choice in no way signals to women that you don’t understand the issue at all, no way
It signals that he is pro-choice but would very much like to not get excommunicated. Which is kinda cowardly, but a lot of Catholics find themselves in that position. Abortion is legal in Italy, note.
Italy, Ireland, France, Mexico, Brazil, and a number of other majority Catholic nations. None of whom have had nearly as much trouble on the topic since their asshole politicians weren't using it as a racism proxy.
Really you're going to point out Ireland didn't have a problem with abortion when it didn't legalize it until 2018? Like come on man.
This is true.
But saying that they amended abortion rights into their constitution before we did (if we ever do) is also true.
Like, we never, as a country, got to where Ireland is on this issue. We got abortion rights because the Supreme Court decided we had them. We never won on that issue politically, and if we had, we'd have it enshrined in law.
Well it was in the constitution the right to privacy. Like a non right wing ideologue SCOTUS would continue to find that to be true as well. Our problem is not the laws, its the literal body deciding they aren't the laws we see.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Being personally anti-abortion but professionally pro-choice in no way signals to women that you don’t understand the issue at all, no way
It signals that he is pro-choice but would very much like to not get excommunicated. Which is kinda cowardly, but a lot of Catholics find themselves in that position. Abortion is legal in Italy, note.
Italy, Ireland, France, Mexico, Brazil, and a number of other majority Catholic nations. None of whom have had nearly as much trouble on the topic since their asshole politicians weren't using it as a racism proxy.
Really you're going to point out Ireland didn't have a problem with abortion when it didn't legalize it until 2018? Like come on man.
You could say the same about many Central and South American nations. But I didn't say it wasn't a problem. I said they have it despite being a majority Catholic nation.
Their history with abortion isn't the same as the US.
I was going to post this in the other thread, but what's Canada's response been to this today? Cause they're about to get a lot of potential asylum seekers in the near future, or people wanting Abortions, or citizenship.
edit: not a derail question, but like how would it affect the law, what's their stake in being charged if it's a Canadian doc, etc?
It's not Canada's job to enforce Texas' laws, and it's not a Canadian's duty to follow them.
But this isn't about any specific law, to be clear - the thing being overturned is the blanket protection on abortion as a right (which wasn't blanket, but come on, I'm dealing with English here, cut me some slack). The issue is that dealing with abortion will be left to the states, and a lot of states have some bad ideas.
I did know this, but thank you, it helps to hear it again so I know I'm getting good info. So would it be worth getting petitions together to the Canadian Embassy in the US? I get "pack up and move" doesn't exist for everyone, I'm not saying that. That's bad.
I am saying that the option to pack up and move is a fuck of a lot better in 2022 post pandemic than it was 20 years ago. Like now might be a good time to seek asylum, if that's how the process would work.
So I guess it was more "what can we do to get Canada to change laws if we can't get the US to, and then Canada can just let us in like one of the Purge movies"
Petitions to what?
Getting in isn't all that easy, and you can't claim asylum without a fear that you will be persecuted or killed if you stay, not being able to get an abortion won't cut it. To qualify to immigrate you need some combination of a degree, a job waiting for you, skills on the "skilled workers" list or existing ties to the country, and the process can take a while. It's no longer like in the 70s when any draft-age person could more or less show up and qualify on the spot
Now if someone were to visit and stop by a clinic on their trip, well that's their business and the out of pocket costs are quite reasonable (~500 for an early term in Ontario)
It's been brought up before that this leak is likely from a shitty conservative because the goal was to shut down any negotiations between the liberal wing of the court, Roberts and the other shithead right wingers on the court. I'd argue another reason why this was likely a conservative, is that the decision was expected in June. For many states, they usually don't have new laws kick in until sometime in June. Given how piss poor most conservatives understand the rules of government, the goal here might have very well been to allow Republican governors with a republican legislature to do special sessions to get even more anti-choice laws on the books before the decision is handed out. Hell, even if such special sessions can't get laws out that will be in effect one the decisions drops because there usually is shit that needs to be put in replace it does mean they can come online sooner.
Anyways, it really fucking hard to figure out what this means for midterms because this fuck awful decision wont' be the only thing in play. Supply shortages and inflation are likely to be a thing, I guess, would love to be wrong here. We also know that the right is running a shit ton of candidates that are insisting that the election is stolen. There are voting rights, minority rights and a shit ton of others thing play or that may come into play, some of which we don't know about yet.
I'm not convinced this is necessarily going to be favorable to the GOP in the way that they believe.
Like I get the impression that is a sizable chunk of reliable republican voters that only voted for the GOP because striking down Roe V Wade was the end all be all for their political participation and beyond that, they don't really agree with many republican positions. So those voters might not show up this fall or if they do, they might not show up for republicans. If this drops in June, we're also going to get over 5 months of horror stories and I suspect there is a decent chunk of dipshit anti-choice fuckers, that have the same mindset as anti-vaxxers. They have a mistaken belief that their shitty view is right and will end up changing their mind when reality proves them wrong in the worst possible way (reminder that a number of clergy in the US were actual in favor of letting women have access to abortion, when it was illegal, because they were appalled by the health issues that the prohibition was causing).
We also have the two wild card blocks of voters, where both grew up entirely during a time where abortion was legal. Millennials are probably the more reliable block here since many of us are finally getting enough shit stable that we'll be reliable voters and overturning Roe V Wade is incredibly unpopular. There are also the Zoomers, where conservative shit tends to do even less well, but the youth vote is notoriously fickle when it comes to showing up (no, that isn't just "but the choices suck," every democracy has struggled to get them to show the fuck up because it's just hard to get them to show the fuck up). Worth also noting that Millennials are definitely a bigger voting bloc than Boomers and Gen X combined IIRC and I wouldn't be surprised if Zoomers were of an equally large size. So if this ends up motivating both groups, it could be a bloodbath for republicans; especially, if they see a ton of voters staying home because "mission accomplished and republicans kind of suck outside of killing Roe V Wade (reminder that gerrymandering is often hinging on voter participation staying about equal to when it was done).
This also going to be a major issue for many women, who out number men. One thing that seems to often get overlooked with 2018's democratic wave, was that suburban women were a significant driver of that wave. A number of house seats that the GOP wants to flip and retain, is going to be reliant on not having that repeat this fall. Given that Roe v Wade has significant support in the public and that repeal is actually widely unpopular, this decision is likely to make that shift repeat this year. I doubt there are that many women that are going to take kindly to the idea of shithead strangers trying to tell them what they can and cannot do with their bodies and they will make that known at the polls.
Finally, abortion rights have the most support from college educated voters and those are the voters that are going to be the most reliable. Midterms are notorious for seeing a voter drop off on both sides, still worse for the left sadly. So this decision is likely going to further alienate one of the most reliable voting groups when it comes to midterm elections. This was also another group that fueled the democratic wave in 2018.
I suspect anyone that is smart, is going to be looking at this midterm implications and figuring out how they can get that to materialize into an outcome that gives them a Congress and state governments more friendly to the reproductive rights of women. After all, we knew this shitty court was going to do this and that this shitty decision was going to happen. The next move is really about both figuring out how to mitigate the damage and moving as quickly as possible to undo this shit.
I was going to post this in the other thread, but what's Canada's response been to this today? Cause they're about to get a lot of potential asylum seekers in the near future, or people wanting Abortions, or citizenship.
edit: not a derail question, but like how would it affect the law, what's their stake in being charged if it's a Canadian doc, etc?
It's not Canada's job to enforce Texas' laws, and it's not a Canadian's duty to follow them.
But this isn't about any specific law, to be clear - the thing being overturned is the blanket protection on abortion as a right (which wasn't blanket, but come on, I'm dealing with English here, cut me some slack). The issue is that dealing with abortion will be left to the states, and a lot of states have some bad ideas.
I did know this, but thank you, it helps to hear it again so I know I'm getting good info. So would it be worth getting petitions together to the Canadian Embassy in the US? I get "pack up and move" doesn't exist for everyone, I'm not saying that. That's bad.
I am saying that the option to pack up and move is a fuck of a lot better in 2022 post pandemic than it was 20 years ago. Like now might be a good time to seek asylum, if that's how the process would work.
So I guess it was more "what can we do to get Canada to change laws if we can't get the US to, and then Canada can just let us in like one of the Purge movies"
Petitions to what?
Getting in isn't all that easy, and you can't claim asylum without a fear that you will be persecuted or killed if you stay, not being able to get an abortion won't cut it. To qualify to immigrate you need some combination of a degree, a job waiting for you, skills on the "skilled workers" list or existing ties to the country, and the process can take a while. It's no longer like in the 70s when any draft-age person could more or less show up and qualify on the spot
Now if someone were to visit and stop by a clinic on their trip, well that's their business and the out of pocket costs are quite reasonable (~500 for an early term in Ontario)
I wonder if you were say, a doctor who was arrested for performing illegal abortions and then fled to Canada, if that would cut it for an asylum claim or if they would just hand you back to America.
Being personally anti-abortion but professionally pro-choice in no way signals to women that you don’t understand the issue at all, no way
It signals that he is pro-choice but would very much like to not get excommunicated. Which is kinda cowardly, but a lot of Catholics find themselves in that position. Abortion is legal in Italy, note.
Italy, Ireland, France, Mexico, Brazil, and a number of other majority Catholic nations. None of whom have had nearly as much trouble on the topic since their asshole politicians weren't using it as a racism proxy.
Really you're going to point out Ireland didn't have a problem with abortion when it didn't legalize it until 2018? Like come on man.
This is true.
But saying that they amended abortion rights into their constitution before we did (if we ever do) is also true.
Like, we never, as a country, got to where Ireland is on this issue. We got abortion rights because the Supreme Court decided we had them. We never won on that issue politically, and if we had, we'd have it enshrined in law.
Yeah, they had to do it via amendment because it had to undo the 8th amendment that banned abortions entirely that they passed in 1983, 10 years after Roe.
It’s fantastic that they came around to the correct view in 2018, but saying they didn’t have as much trouble with it as the US is a bit crazy to me.
From a 'lets be inside baseball about this' perspective. Can anyone think of any possible legal framework in which abortion should NOT be a right?
It just seems so patently obvious from the constitution that you shouldn't be allowed to make it illegal, with the ONLY way you could even start down that path being a judgment which clearly stated that fetuses were people, with full rights and privileges.
Here we are, talking about a court making a decision which is apparantly supposed to be a reflection of the law and there's no discussion in the opinion of the law. Just what Alito reckons.
Well, here we all Reckon that Washington DC should be a state etc. But that sadly doesn't make it the law.
The US Constitution is predicated on negative rights. That is, the document says what the government is allowed to do, not what the citizens are allowed to do.
By default, abortion is allowed since it's not something the law says the government can regulate. By the 9th Amendment, it's a thing that either devolves to the states or to the individuals to decide for themselves.
Why we are here: Because some states thought it would be a grand idea to limit or prevent women bodily autonomy through restricting or banning abortion throughout the 20th century. Well, it goes back even further than that with many censorship laws in the 19th century targeting books and pamphlets which contained basic sex information and topics of contraception, but I'm trying to get to a point here quickly. The problem is that men don't have to worry about pregnancy and so any such law restricting what women can do with their bodies run afoul of the idea of equal protection since it's pretty clear that you can't tell one group of people what they can't do with the body they had no choice in taking at birth. One thing leads to another and it is now suddenly a federal problem thanks to different states having different laws. And since the Constitution is silent on the matter, they have to make some shit up.
Except, wait. It's not. The 14th Amendment clearly states that this kind of discrimination is blatantly illegal. Section one says:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
There you go. It could not be any clearer. Your abortion laws either have to have the same effect on men as they do on women (which is a physical impossibility) or you can't have abortion laws. Because the Constitution is silent on the matter and because the 14th says you have to treat everyone the same no matter what, you have to allow women to make up their own minds about abortions.
However.
However, this isn't about abortion itself. If you look at the history of it, this is about white supremacy. Abortion as a controversy was ginned up by the Dixiecrats due to school equality becoming the law of the land. Again, due to that pesky 14th Amendment being pretty clear about itself, The Slaughterhouse Cases notwithstanding. Before their involvement, the evangelical christians were on the side of letting people have them. Why? Because not having abortions was a Catholic thing. This is what lead to Roe V. Wade. That decision was the compromise between the states and religion.
The legal framework is there and has been since the 1860s. The problem isn't not having the laws on the side of pro-choice. The problem is that abortion is a stand in subject for racism.
Which is why the leak of Alito's opinion is pretty massive since it rips the mask of that part of the political theater going on. He says outright that anti-racism laws, anti-discrimination laws, and all kinds of other explicit recognition of the 14th and 15th Amendment are on the chopping block right now.
The problem isn't the law.
The problem is the court itself. What it stands for, what it means, and how we go about putting people on it.
If the law is clear and (in this case at least) also correct, how do we deal with this situation as a party who (for many who support it) has a big part of its party platform "The US should be a place where the government respects the law, and people are allowed to select their own government and rules"
How do we fix cheaters, who are legally allowed to cheat, when not cheating is important?
I mean, given the choice between not cheating and 10's of thousands of women dead, I'll tell Biden to just appoint 12 justices, declare DC a state etc, but, is there anything we can do which isn't 'cheating'.
It seems that the law has come to the point where us getting what we want requires 'cheating'. Because the law says that being fair is cheating.
Is it just the end? I guess you could say that if we could JUST scrape out 3 more senators, we could remove the filibuster, pass a new voting rights act, and then appoint 4 more justices and all of that is 'not' cheating in the actual law. But, if the entire other side would say it WAS cheating, does it matter that it isn't? If your opponent will always be convinced you are cheating, do we not just need to cheat enough to get new opponents who actually want to govern a country?
Our system of checks and balances doesn't actually exist, if only one of the branches of government is able to check the others with impunity.
The check on the judiciary is, in theory, nomination by the President and confirmation by the senate. Rs spent two decades degenerating both of those routes
The other check is congress’ authority to reshape the court, to limit its appellate jurisdiction, and to pass laws that abrogate decisions short of constitutional ones. By the same mechanism, Rs have degraded this option as well
The antecedent right to all other rights is the right to vote. It is the right “preservative of all other rights.” Which is why it was important that the court dismantled the modern architecture of electoral politics first.
Your vote doesn’t matter because both parties are venal/corrupt/corporate stooges/feckless idiots/do-nothing wastrels. Your vote, especially if you are black or Hispanic and liberal, does not matter because the the court has approved of every ratfucking experiment to distort electoral representation along geographic and racial lines, has enshrined in constitutional law a perverse colorblind theory of the 14th amendment that says that even thinking about race in map-drawing to bring black voters representation something close to proportional (a filthy word) is tantamount to racist maps intentionally disenfranchising voters of “color” (that color is white). And separate from that, this coalition is aided by the distorted effects of the electoral college, which until Bush v. Gore seemed like a natural idiosyncrasy of our aging constitutional before the Court decided to nudge the outcome of a presidential election on its first opportunity to do so.
That’s it. That’s the story. There isn’t a magic way out of this. It’s not enough to vote for a 50% margin in the two houses of congress. The only way out is massive incontrovertible political victories that can’t be plausibly fiddled with or leave Manchins and Sinemas as the fickle kingmakers. Just “ok” wins are going to be insufficient. Obviously, that’s not going to happen.
I think this is all accurate and the follow through leads to some awful places. What happens when the rule of law is used to empower evil? What happens when democratic rule is subverted? What happens when there is critical mass of fascist such that they do what they want?
Well it was in the constitution the right to privacy. Like a non right wing ideologue SCOTUS would continue to find that to be true as well. Our problem is not the laws, its the literal body deciding they aren't the laws we see.
That's not an actually enumerated right. It was created from an interpretation of the Constitution so its not really surprising that it can be not created by a different interpretation. Ignoring precedent to do so is probably a bigger issue from a legitimacy perspective.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Being personally anti-abortion but professionally pro-choice in no way signals to women that you don’t understand the issue at all, no way
It signals that he is pro-choice but would very much like to not get excommunicated. Which is kinda cowardly, but a lot of Catholics find themselves in that position. Abortion is legal in Italy, note.
Italy, Ireland, France, Mexico, Brazil, and a number of other majority Catholic nations. None of whom have had nearly as much trouble on the topic since their asshole politicians weren't using it as a racism proxy.
Really you're going to point out Ireland didn't have a problem with abortion when it didn't legalize it until 2018? Like come on man.
This is true.
But saying that they amended abortion rights into their constitution before we did (if we ever do) is also true.
Like, we never, as a country, got to where Ireland is on this issue. We got abortion rights because the Supreme Court decided we had them. We never won on that issue politically, and if we had, we'd have it enshrined in law.
Yeah, they had to do it via amendment because it had to undo the 8th amendment that banned abortions entirely that they passed in 1983, 10 years after Roe.
It’s fantastic that they came around to the correct view in 2018, but saying they didn’t have as much trouble with it as the US is a bit crazy to me.
I'm not saying they didn't take a while or that we didn't legalize it sooner.
I'm saying that we never really did legalize it explicitly and that our un-elected judicial branch ruling one way vs another was the only reason we ever had abortion rights. Politically speaking, it's an issue we've never actually won, to this day.
In Ireland, be it as it may that they took until 2018 to come around, they actually came around. The US still hasn't. Will be very, very, happy to be wrong come mid-terms.
I was going to post this in the other thread, but what's Canada's response been to this today? Cause they're about to get a lot of potential asylum seekers in the near future, or people wanting Abortions, or citizenship.
edit: not a derail question, but like how would it affect the law, what's their stake in being charged if it's a Canadian doc, etc?
It's not Canada's job to enforce Texas' laws, and it's not a Canadian's duty to follow them.
But this isn't about any specific law, to be clear - the thing being overturned is the blanket protection on abortion as a right (which wasn't blanket, but come on, I'm dealing with English here, cut me some slack). The issue is that dealing with abortion will be left to the states, and a lot of states have some bad ideas.
I did know this, but thank you, it helps to hear it again so I know I'm getting good info. So would it be worth getting petitions together to the Canadian Embassy in the US? I get "pack up and move" doesn't exist for everyone, I'm not saying that. That's bad.
I am saying that the option to pack up and move is a fuck of a lot better in 2022 post pandemic than it was 20 years ago. Like now might be a good time to seek asylum, if that's how the process would work.
So I guess it was more "what can we do to get Canada to change laws if we can't get the US to, and then Canada can just let us in like one of the Purge movies"
Petitions to what?
Getting in isn't all that easy, and you can't claim asylum without a fear that you will be persecuted or killed if you stay, not being able to get an abortion won't cut it. To qualify to immigrate you need some combination of a degree, a job waiting for you, skills on the "skilled workers" list or existing ties to the country, and the process can take a while. It's no longer like in the 70s when any draft-age person could more or less show up and qualify on the spot
Now if someone were to visit and stop by a clinic on their trip, well that's their business and the out of pocket costs are quite reasonable (~500 for an early term in Ontario)
I wonder if you were say, a doctor who was arrested for performing illegal abortions and then fled to Canada, if that would cut it for an asylum claim or if they would just hand you back to America.
Doctors wishing to immigrate to Canada are considered skilled workers and have expedited approval. It isn't guaranteed but it's comparatively simple.
Aside from that, I think a doctor probably could make a good case for asylum if deportation meant unjust and harsh punishment that's likely going to significantly increase after this decision and future decisions.
Well it was in the constitution the right to privacy. Like a non right wing ideologue SCOTUS would continue to find that to be true as well. Our problem is not the laws, its the literal body deciding they aren't the laws we see.
That's not an actually enumerated right. It was created from an interpretation of the Constitution so its not really surprising that it can be not created by a different interpretation. Ignoring precedent to do so is probably a bigger issue from a legitimacy perspective.
I mean its the same thing for the second amendments current interpretation and people act like that's the holy given right of the god of guns.
The problem is the judges not the law, if there was a law that said Abortion is legal, they'd find a reason to say its not, as they've done for other laws like the VRA.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Being personally anti-abortion but professionally pro-choice in no way signals to women that you don’t understand the issue at all, no way
It signals that he is pro-choice but would very much like to not get excommunicated. Which is kinda cowardly, but a lot of Catholics find themselves in that position. Abortion is legal in Italy, note.
Italy, Ireland, France, Mexico, Brazil, and a number of other majority Catholic nations. None of whom have had nearly as much trouble on the topic since their asshole politicians weren't using it as a racism proxy.
Really you're going to point out Ireland didn't have a problem with abortion when it didn't legalize it until 2018? Like come on man.
This is true.
But saying that they amended abortion rights into their constitution before we did (if we ever do) is also true.
Like, we never, as a country, got to where Ireland is on this issue. We got abortion rights because the Supreme Court decided we had them. We never won on that issue politically, and if we had, we'd have it enshrined in law.
Yeah, they had to do it via amendment because it had to undo the 8th amendment that banned abortions entirely that they passed in 1983, 10 years after Roe.
It’s fantastic that they came around to the correct view in 2018, but saying they didn’t have as much trouble with it as the US is a bit crazy to me.
I'm not saying they didn't take a while or that we didn't legalize it sooner.
I'm saying that we never really did legalize it explicitly and that our un-elected judicial branch ruling one way vs another was the only reason we ever had abortion rights. Politically speaking, it's an issue we've never actually won, to this day.
In Ireland, be it as it may that they took until 2018 to come around, they actually came around. The US still hasn't. Will be very, very, happy to be wrong come mid-terms.
The US couldn't pass legislation legalizing it a few months ago. I'm unsure if it could have passed back in the 70s, 80s, 90s, etc. My bet would be no for anything after the 70s but that's a guess.
This phenomenon is why the SCOTUS's role has been misinterpreted by many and why the GOP became so focused on it. For a brief period the courts were securing rights and other victories in a way the legislature couldn't or wouldn't.
Well it was in the constitution the right to privacy. Like a non right wing ideologue SCOTUS would continue to find that to be true as well. Our problem is not the laws, its the literal body deciding they aren't the laws we see.
That's not an actually enumerated right. It was created from an interpretation of the Constitution so its not really surprising that it can be not created by a different interpretation. Ignoring precedent to do so is probably a bigger issue from a legitimacy perspective.
I mean its the same thing for the second amendments current interpretation and people act like that's the holy given right of the god of guns.
The problem is the judges not the law, if there was a law that said Abortion is legal, they'd find a reason to say its not, as they've done for other laws like the VRA.
I don't think anyone's arguing the opposite of this. If we codified abortion rights into an amendment, I fully agree that this SC would declare it unconstitutional and strike down the amendment.
However, we've also never done it.
Ireland has. Therefore, they're ahead of us on the issue. They wanted it, and by popular demand, they got it.
This also going to be a major issue for many women, who out number men. One thing that seems to often get overlooked with 2018's democratic wave, was that suburban women were a significant driver of that wave. A number of house seats that the GOP wants to flip and retain, is going to be reliant on not having that repeat this fall. Given that Roe v Wade has significant support in the public and that repeal is actually widely unpopular, this decision is likely to make that shift repeat this year. I doubt there are that many women that are going to take kindly to the idea of shithead strangers trying to tell them what they can and cannot do with their bodies and they will make that known at the polls.
Finally, abortion rights have the most support from college educated voters and those are the voters that are going to be the most reliable. Midterms are notorious for seeing a voter drop off on both sides, still worse for the left sadly. So this decision is likely going to further alienate one of the most reliable voting groups when it comes to midterm elections. This was also another group that fueled the democratic wave in 2018.
I suspect anyone that is smart, is going to be looking at this midterm implications and figuring out how they can get that to materialize into an outcome that gives them a Congress and state governments more friendly to the reproductive rights of women. After all, we knew this shitty court was going to do this and that this shitty decision was going to happen. The next move is really about both figuring out how to mitigate the damage and moving as quickly as possible to undo this shit.
Yeah, one of the things that this getting leaked early does help with, is it provides the motivation (which would also apply when it dropped in July/August), but also the time.
People in thread have mentioned that the rage might not be sustainable to November. And it might not. But that rage doesn't mean much for the election, if people don't have sufficient time to properly register.
Hopefully some of the rage is channeled into getting every person who is angry at this decision, and is eligible to be registered, gets to do so. Given the roadblocks that some states have put in place (closing/reduction of hours at registration sites, paperwork/ID requirements, registration deadlines etc), an extra couple months to make sure that people have the sufficient capacity to register, can help, and that organizations can assist in getting that information out to voters (and helping voters in states where that's still legal).
Well it was in the constitution the right to privacy. Like a non right wing ideologue SCOTUS would continue to find that to be true as well. Our problem is not the laws, its the literal body deciding they aren't the laws we see.
That's not an actually enumerated right. It was created from an interpretation of the Constitution so its not really surprising that it can be not created by a different interpretation. Ignoring precedent to do so is probably a bigger issue from a legitimacy perspective.
I mean its the same thing for the second amendments current interpretation and people act like that's the holy given right of the god of guns.
The problem is the judges not the law, if there was a law that said Abortion is legal, they'd find a reason to say its not, as they've done for other laws like the VRA.
I don't think anyone's arguing the opposite of this. If we codified abortion rights into an amendment, I fully agree that this SC would declare it unconstitutional and strike down the amendment.
However, we've also never done it.
Ireland has. Therefore, they're ahead of us on the issue. They wanted it, and by popular demand, they got it.
Ireland didn't make abortion legal in their constitution. They just removed the amendment making it *illegal*. So, exactly the situation we would be in with Ror codified.
Well it was in the constitution the right to privacy. Like a non right wing ideologue SCOTUS would continue to find that to be true as well. Our problem is not the laws, its the literal body deciding they aren't the laws we see.
That's not an actually enumerated right. It was created from an interpretation of the Constitution so its not really surprising that it can be not created by a different interpretation. Ignoring precedent to do so is probably a bigger issue from a legitimacy perspective.
I mean its the same thing for the second amendments current interpretation and people act like that's the holy given right of the god of guns.
The problem is the judges not the law, if there was a law that said Abortion is legal, they'd find a reason to say its not, as they've done for other laws like the VRA.
I don't think anyone's arguing the opposite of this. If we codified abortion rights into an amendment, I fully agree that this SC would declare it unconstitutional and strike down the amendment.
However, we've also never done it.
Ireland has. Therefore, they're ahead of us on the issue. They wanted it, and by popular demand, they got it.
I really don't buy that even this SC would do that. But also if the political climate existed to pass such an amendment this SC wouldn't exist.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
0
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
Well it was in the constitution the right to privacy. Like a non right wing ideologue SCOTUS would continue to find that to be true as well. Our problem is not the laws, its the literal body deciding they aren't the laws we see.
That's not an actually enumerated right. It was created from an interpretation of the Constitution so its not really surprising that it can be not created by a different interpretation. Ignoring precedent to do so is probably a bigger issue from a legitimacy perspective.
I mean its the same thing for the second amendments current interpretation and people act like that's the holy given right of the god of guns.
The problem is the judges not the law, if there was a law that said Abortion is legal, they'd find a reason to say its not, as they've done for other laws like the VRA.
I don't think anyone's arguing the opposite of this. If we codified abortion rights into an amendment, I fully agree that this SC would declare it unconstitutional and strike down the amendment.
However, we've also never done it.
Ireland has. Therefore, they're ahead of us on the issue. They wanted it, and by popular demand, they got it.
I really don't buy that even this SC would do that. But also if the political climate existed to pass such an amendment this SC wouldn't exist.
they literally did it with voting rights.
this is why it's been so frustrating to see/hear/read the "Supreme Court doesn't matter" arguments over the years. Yeah, it sure does.
I was going to post this in the other thread, but what's Canada's response been to this today? Cause they're about to get a lot of potential asylum seekers in the near future, or people wanting Abortions, or citizenship.
edit: not a derail question, but like how would it affect the law, what's their stake in being charged if it's a Canadian doc, etc?
It's not Canada's job to enforce Texas' laws, and it's not a Canadian's duty to follow them.
But this isn't about any specific law, to be clear - the thing being overturned is the blanket protection on abortion as a right (which wasn't blanket, but come on, I'm dealing with English here, cut me some slack). The issue is that dealing with abortion will be left to the states, and a lot of states have some bad ideas.
I did know this, but thank you, it helps to hear it again so I know I'm getting good info. So would it be worth getting petitions together to the Canadian Embassy in the US? I get "pack up and move" doesn't exist for everyone, I'm not saying that. That's bad.
I am saying that the option to pack up and move is a fuck of a lot better in 2022 post pandemic than it was 20 years ago. Like now might be a good time to seek asylum, if that's how the process would work.
So I guess it was more "what can we do to get Canada to change laws if we can't get the US to, and then Canada can just let us in like one of the Purge movies"
Petitions to what?
Getting in isn't all that easy, and you can't claim asylum without a fear that you will be persecuted or killed if you stay, not being able to get an abortion won't cut it. To qualify to immigrate you need some combination of a degree, a job waiting for you, skills on the "skilled workers" list or existing ties to the country, and the process can take a while. It's no longer like in the 70s when any draft-age person could more or less show up and qualify on the spot
Now if someone were to visit and stop by a clinic on their trip, well that's their business and the out of pocket costs are quite reasonable (~500 for an early term in Ontario)
I wonder if you were say, a doctor who was arrested for performing illegal abortions and then fled to Canada, if that would cut it for an asylum claim or if they would just hand you back to America.
No. Maybe if the death penalty was commonly sought and someone managed to escape then they could make a legitimate asylum claim but you can't just escape here because you got charged with a crime in the US even if that isn't a crime here, regardless of whether of not that thing should be a crime
Now in theory if they fled to Canada ahead of the arrest (entry would likely be denied to anyone under indictment) and entered legally I don't think we would extradite. The US would have to charge federally for one IIRC and it would have to be something like murder that is on the list and if we did extradite then we require no death penalty
I don't hate Joe Biden, but he was 100% the "please god anything but Trump" choice. His measured "lets rely on good ole American democracy and decency" late 1990's era moderate democrat response to this is not shocking in the slightest.
It's still goddamn disappointing as someone who cheerfully voted for him.
While I agree in principle, I guess my lack of abject disappointment is that I never expected a different reaction from him. This is going to take 20 to 30 years, a complete turn over of the American electorate and a lot of old white people dying off to fix. Joe Biden was never going to kill the filibuster for this and the current senate is never going to pass a codification of Roe in to law. It's why I'm focusing all my efforts on making sure my state stays pro-choice and becomes a safe harbor state because right now I think it's all that's honestly possible with how much the GOP has rigged American national politics for at least the next 20 years.
I agree with your timeline, but I was expecting a bit more raging against the dying of the light, not rolling over and playing dead.
Sorry to just get back to this today, but if you take this as rolling over and playing dead you've misread me terribly. I'm doing no such thing. I'm admitting that currently the national battle is likely lost and just throwing proverbial bodies at the hill isn't going to change that. Instead I'm focusing my energy and time at the local level where my voice is much louder. I'm using my political energy to make sure my state never passes abortion bans and hopefully becomes a medical safe harbor state for women. That is something I can have an impact on right now while we work to fix the larger American electorate over the coming decades.
Well it was in the constitution the right to privacy. Like a non right wing ideologue SCOTUS would continue to find that to be true as well. Our problem is not the laws, its the literal body deciding they aren't the laws we see.
That's not an actually enumerated right. It was created from an interpretation of the Constitution so its not really surprising that it can be not created by a different interpretation. Ignoring precedent to do so is probably a bigger issue from a legitimacy perspective.
I mean its the same thing for the second amendments current interpretation and people act like that's the holy given right of the god of guns.
The problem is the judges not the law, if there was a law that said Abortion is legal, they'd find a reason to say its not, as they've done for other laws like the VRA.
I don't think anyone's arguing the opposite of this. If we codified abortion rights into an amendment, I fully agree that this SC would declare it unconstitutional and strike down the amendment.
However, we've also never done it.
Ireland has. Therefore, they're ahead of us on the issue. They wanted it, and by popular demand, they got it.
I really don't buy that even this SC would do that. But also if the political climate existed to pass such an amendment this SC wouldn't exist.
they literally did it with voting rights.
this is why it's been so frustrating to see/hear/read the "Supreme Court doesn't matter" arguments over the years. Yeah, it sure does.
No they didn't. The VRA is not an amendment and pre-clearance is no where in the text of the 15th. Saying that Congress has the power to enforce it via appropriate legislation explicitly means there can be inappropriate legislation that it does not.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Well it was in the constitution the right to privacy. Like a non right wing ideologue SCOTUS would continue to find that to be true as well. Our problem is not the laws, its the literal body deciding they aren't the laws we see.
That's not an actually enumerated right. It was created from an interpretation of the Constitution so its not really surprising that it can be not created by a different interpretation. Ignoring precedent to do so is probably a bigger issue from a legitimacy perspective.
I mean its the same thing for the second amendments current interpretation and people act like that's the holy given right of the god of guns.
The problem is the judges not the law, if there was a law that said Abortion is legal, they'd find a reason to say its not, as they've done for other laws like the VRA.
I don't think anyone's arguing the opposite of this. If we codified abortion rights into an amendment, I fully agree that this SC would declare it unconstitutional and strike down the amendment.
However, we've also never done it.
Ireland has. Therefore, they're ahead of us on the issue. They wanted it, and by popular demand, they got it.
Ireland didn't make abortion legal in their constitution. They just removed the amendment making it *illegal*. So, exactly the situation we would be in with Ror codified.
I'm so confused, so you agree with me that Ireland is ahead of us on abortion rights? I don't get it.
I don't think I'm even saying anything controversial here on the back of us losing abortion rights. Two of you have responded to my posts now re-affirming that we've never been able to codify this into law and that even if we did, this SC would strike it down, which is the same shit I keep saying.
All I'm adding to that is that Ireland is ahead of us on the issue. This thread got made because our SC is planning to overturn our abortion rights! Literally any country who has legalized abortion is ahead of us on this shit! It's okay to admit that right now!
Well it was in the constitution the right to privacy. Like a non right wing ideologue SCOTUS would continue to find that to be true as well. Our problem is not the laws, its the literal body deciding they aren't the laws we see.
That's not an actually enumerated right. It was created from an interpretation of the Constitution so its not really surprising that it can be not created by a different interpretation. Ignoring precedent to do so is probably a bigger issue from a legitimacy perspective.
I mean its the same thing for the second amendments current interpretation and people act like that's the holy given right of the god of guns.
The problem is the judges not the law, if there was a law that said Abortion is legal, they'd find a reason to say its not, as they've done for other laws like the VRA.
I don't think anyone's arguing the opposite of this. If we codified abortion rights into an amendment, I fully agree that this SC would declare it unconstitutional and strike down the amendment.
However, we've also never done it.
Ireland has. Therefore, they're ahead of us on the issue. They wanted it, and by popular demand, they got it.
I really don't buy that even this SC would do that. But also if the political climate existed to pass such an amendment this SC wouldn't exist.
they literally did it with voting rights.
this is why it's been so frustrating to see/hear/read the "Supreme Court doesn't matter" arguments over the years. Yeah, it sure does.
Frankly I've been saying the Senate is the most important race for a long ass time now and I was really frustrated when Mitch McConnell showed everyone just how important it was and they still focused on the Presidential. They get to confirm SC Justices, they get to impeach SC Justices, they hold all the cards, just as intended.
I've been kind of reading and trying to get an idea of what this means.
Two things I keep coming back to and I need to understand.
What's different from this ruling and telling black people they can't marry white people?
Is it crazy to feel like this is the legal fuckery and injustice that Dredd Scott was? It sure seems like the states going all in on this are leaning into thinking that's a good ruling. (philosophically if not in practical terms)
Freedoms are being taken away and I feel like I'm on crazy pills. I'm a straight white man with no kids who had a vasectomy fairly young and I don't know how people around me can just shrug and assume it's no big deal.
This literally can't affect me personally any less, but how can these fucking clowns be so devoid of empathy?
I've been kind of reading and trying to get an idea of what this means.
Two things I keep coming back to and I need to understand.
What's different from this ruling and telling black people they can't marry white people?
Is it crazy to feel like this is the legal fuckery and injustice that Dredd Scott was? It sure seems like the states going all in on this are leaning into thinking that's a good ruling. (philosophically if not in practical terms)
Freedoms are being taken away and I feel like I'm on crazy pills. I'm a straight white man with no kids who had a vasectomy fairly young and I don't know how people around me can just shrug and assume it's no big deal. This literally can't affect me personally any less, but how can these fucking clowns be so devoid of empathy?
Its a horrible decision they look to piggyback and strip other rights based off of it. Like gay marriage, interracial marriage and contraception. If the US survives this, it will be looked at the same way we look at dredd scott
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I've been kind of reading and trying to get an idea of what this means.
Two things I keep coming back to and I need to understand.
What's different from this ruling and telling black people they can't marry white people?
Is it crazy to feel like this is the legal fuckery and injustice that Dredd Scott was? It sure seems like the states going all in on this are leaning into thinking that's a good ruling. (philosophically if not in practical terms)
Freedoms are being taken away and I feel like I'm on crazy pills. I'm a straight white man with no kids who had a vasectomy fairly young and I don't know how people around me can just shrug and assume it's no big deal. This literally can't affect me personally any less, but how can these fucking clowns be so devoid of empathy?
Its a horrible decision they look to piggyback and strip other rights based off of it. Like gay marriage, interracial marriage and contraception. If the US survives this, it will be looked at the same way we look at dredd scott
Well it was in the constitution the right to privacy. Like a non right wing ideologue SCOTUS would continue to find that to be true as well. Our problem is not the laws, its the literal body deciding they aren't the laws we see.
That's not an actually enumerated right. It was created from an interpretation of the Constitution so its not really surprising that it can be not created by a different interpretation. Ignoring precedent to do so is probably a bigger issue from a legitimacy perspective.
I mean its the same thing for the second amendments current interpretation and people act like that's the holy given right of the god of guns.
The problem is the judges not the law, if there was a law that said Abortion is legal, they'd find a reason to say its not, as they've done for other laws like the VRA.
I don't think anyone's arguing the opposite of this. If we codified abortion rights into an amendment, I fully agree that this SC would declare it unconstitutional and strike down the amendment.
However, we've also never done it.
Ireland has. Therefore, they're ahead of us on the issue. They wanted it, and by popular demand, they got it.
Ireland didn't make abortion legal in their constitution. They just removed the amendment making it *illegal*. So, exactly the situation we would be in with Ror codified.
I'm so confused, so you agree with me that Ireland is ahead of us on abortion rights? I don't get it.
I don't think I'm even saying anything controversial here on the back of us losing abortion rights. Two of you have responded to my posts now re-affirming that we've never been able to codify this into law and that even if we did, this SC would strike it down, which is the same shit I keep saying.
All I'm adding to that is that Ireland is ahead of us on the issue. This thread got made because our SC is planning to overturn our abortion rights! Literally any country who has legalized abortion is ahead of us on this shit! It's okay to admit that right now!
Ireland has nationalized healthcare, so women can get safe access to any procedure which is deemed necessary and legal wherever they live. No part of Ireland is allowed to ban a safe and legal medical procedure, nor are they allowed to prevent capable clinics and doctors from performing it.
Something which is 'not illegal' in Ireland from a medical perspective is the same as something which is a federal law compelling all providers to offer, with very low costs, to anyone in the US. It's not QUITE as strong as something which is a constitutional right, because it could specifically be made illegal again, but its very close.
No one is saying Ireland isn’t ahead of us now, they have The Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act 2018 protecting the right.
I think the primary contention is that Ireland is being held up as a Catholic/Christian country that “didnt nearly as much trouble on the topic” when they very clearly did until only 4 years ago, and it still took 6 years after the death of Savita Halappanavar for that to happen.
I've been kind of reading and trying to get an idea of what this means.
Two things I keep coming back to and I need to understand.
What's different from this ruling and telling black people they can't marry white people?
Is it crazy to feel like this is the legal fuckery and injustice that Dredd Scott was? It sure seems like the states going all in on this are leaning into thinking that's a good ruling. (philosophically if not in practical terms)
Freedoms are being taken away and I feel like I'm on crazy pills. I'm a straight white man with no kids who had a vasectomy fairly young and I don't know how people around me can just shrug and assume it's no big deal. This literally can't affect me personally any less, but how can these fucking clowns be so devoid of empathy?
Its a horrible decision they look to piggyback and strip other rights based off of it. Like gay marriage, interracial marriage and contraception. If the US survives this, it will be looked at the same way we look at dredd scott
I still think its more likely that the most horrific aspects of the opinion are there for horse trading with Roberts to try and get him to sign on. Abortion is so EASY for them to attack, because the vast majority of Americans don't need an abortion right now. The vast majority of people who get abortions don't love having to get one, and the vast majority of people who GET abortions want to forget about it and move on.
This isn't true AT ALL for gay marriage, interracial marriage and contraception.
We should concern ourselves with the tens of thousands of people that will be killed, and the hundreds of thousands of lives which will be ruined, and the tens of billions of dollars which will be wasted by what they are actually doing right now rather than worrying about what other horrible things they might do.
I've been kind of reading and trying to get an idea of what this means.
Two things I keep coming back to and I need to understand.
What's different from this ruling and telling black people they can't marry white people?
Is it crazy to feel like this is the legal fuckery and injustice that Dredd Scott was? It sure seems like the states going all in on this are leaning into thinking that's a good ruling. (philosophically if not in practical terms)
Freedoms are being taken away and I feel like I'm on crazy pills. I'm a straight white man with no kids who had a vasectomy fairly young and I don't know how people around me can just shrug and assume it's no big deal. This literally can't affect me personally any less, but how can these fucking clowns be so devoid of empathy?
Its a horrible decision they look to piggyback and strip other rights based off of it. Like gay marriage, interracial marriage and contraception. If the US survives this, it will be looked at the same way we look at dredd scott
I still think its more likely that the most horrific aspects of the opinion are there for horse trading with Roberts to try and get him to sign on. Abortion is so EASY for them to attack, because the vast majority of Americans don't need an abortion right now. The vast majority of people who get abortions don't love having to get one, and the vast majority of people who GET abortions want to forget about it and move on.
This isn't true AT ALL for gay marriage, interracial marriage and contraception.
We should concern ourselves with the tens of thousands of people that will be killed, and the hundreds of thousands of lives which will be ruined, and the tens of billions of dollars which will be wasted by what they are actually doing right now rather than worrying about what other horrible things they might do.
Why would they care about Roberts? For gay rights/marriage and contraception, all they have to do is convince Gorsuch and Kavanagh.
I've been kind of reading and trying to get an idea of what this means.
Two things I keep coming back to and I need to understand.
What's different from this ruling and telling black people they can't marry white people?
Is it crazy to feel like this is the legal fuckery and injustice that Dredd Scott was? It sure seems like the states going all in on this are leaning into thinking that's a good ruling. (philosophically if not in practical terms)
Freedoms are being taken away and I feel like I'm on crazy pills. I'm a straight white man with no kids who had a vasectomy fairly young and I don't know how people around me can just shrug and assume it's no big deal. This literally can't affect me personally any less, but how can these fucking clowns be so devoid of empathy?
Its a horrible decision they look to piggyback and strip other rights based off of it. Like gay marriage, interracial marriage and contraception. If the US survives this, it will be looked at the same way we look at dredd scott
I still think its more likely that the most horrific aspects of the opinion are there for horse trading with Roberts to try and get him to sign on. Abortion is so EASY for them to attack, because the vast majority of Americans don't need an abortion right now. The vast majority of people who get abortions don't love having to get one, and the vast majority of people who GET abortions want to forget about it and move on.
This isn't true AT ALL for gay marriage, interracial marriage and contraception.
We should concern ourselves with the tens of thousands of people that will be killed, and the hundreds of thousands of lives which will be ruined, and the tens of billions of dollars which will be wasted by what they are actually doing right now rather than worrying about what other horrible things they might do.
This feels very much like the post-2016 "Eh they won't overturn Roe don't worry". Alito is very clearly gunning for those things.
I've been kind of reading and trying to get an idea of what this means.
Two things I keep coming back to and I need to understand.
What's different from this ruling and telling black people they can't marry white people?
Is it crazy to feel like this is the legal fuckery and injustice that Dredd Scott was? It sure seems like the states going all in on this are leaning into thinking that's a good ruling. (philosophically if not in practical terms)
Freedoms are being taken away and I feel like I'm on crazy pills. I'm a straight white man with no kids who had a vasectomy fairly young and I don't know how people around me can just shrug and assume it's no big deal. This literally can't affect me personally any less, but how can these fucking clowns be so devoid of empathy?
Its a horrible decision they look to piggyback and strip other rights based off of it. Like gay marriage, interracial marriage and contraception. If the US survives this, it will be looked at the same way we look at dredd scott
I still think its more likely that the most horrific aspects of the opinion are there for horse trading with Roberts to try and get him to sign on. Abortion is so EASY for them to attack, because the vast majority of Americans don't need an abortion right now. The vast majority of people who get abortions don't love having to get one, and the vast majority of people who GET abortions want to forget about it and move on.
This isn't true AT ALL for gay marriage, interracial marriage and contraception.
We should concern ourselves with the tens of thousands of people that will be killed, and the hundreds of thousands of lives which will be ruined, and the tens of billions of dollars which will be wasted by what they are actually doing right now rather than worrying about what other horrible things they might do.
Why would they care about Roberts? For gay rights/marriage and contraception, all they have to do is convince Gorsuch and Kavanagh.
The shift we're probably just starting to see with this court is because Roberts now kinda doesn't matter. It seems like with Roberts no longer being the swing vote Alito feels like he's running the show now.
I've been kind of reading and trying to get an idea of what this means.
Two things I keep coming back to and I need to understand.
What's different from this ruling and telling black people they can't marry white people?
Is it crazy to feel like this is the legal fuckery and injustice that Dredd Scott was? It sure seems like the states going all in on this are leaning into thinking that's a good ruling. (philosophically if not in practical terms)
Freedoms are being taken away and I feel like I'm on crazy pills. I'm a straight white man with no kids who had a vasectomy fairly young and I don't know how people around me can just shrug and assume it's no big deal. This literally can't affect me personally any less, but how can these fucking clowns be so devoid of empathy?
Its a horrible decision they look to piggyback and strip other rights based off of it. Like gay marriage, interracial marriage and contraception. If the US survives this, it will be looked at the same way we look at dredd scott
I still think its more likely that the most horrific aspects of the opinion are there for horse trading with Roberts to try and get him to sign on. Abortion is so EASY for them to attack, because the vast majority of Americans don't need an abortion right now. The vast majority of people who get abortions don't love having to get one, and the vast majority of people who GET abortions want to forget about it and move on.
This isn't true AT ALL for gay marriage, interracial marriage and contraception.
We should concern ourselves with the tens of thousands of people that will be killed, and the hundreds of thousands of lives which will be ruined, and the tens of billions of dollars which will be wasted by what they are actually doing right now rather than worrying about what other horrible things they might do.
We are saying it is setting up stripping away those rights as well because they are explicitly cited in the draft alongside abortion as examples of so--called phony rights without historical standing and Constitutional protection.
As an aside about fleeing to Canada, I can't guarantee people can successfully apply for asylum, but you won't be extradited back to the States - the extradition treaty requires the crime to be recognized as a crime in both countries.
What's different from this ruling and telling black people they can't marry white people?
There are two differences. One a legality and one a practicality. Legally it’s because in terms of what the law is Roe rests on privacy and Loving rests on equal protection… it’s unlikely equal protection goes but it could.
The practicality is that few states have trigger bans in place in case Loving is overturned. So even if it was I doubt people would rush to change that. Buuut loving rests on a lot of other equal protection law so if it were to go it would be pretty bad in lots of other ways
The actual cases you want to look at are obergefell and Lawrence. Those rest on privacy and now that privacy is dead are legally in hot water. In that they could be challenged and would likely be overturned*. And if they were not overturned then the court would have to do some pretty amazing gymnastics to reconcile it with this discussion.
*basically a judge who wanted to would easily make it happen and an honest judge would probably have a hard time finding Lawrence still held given that Roe and the hundreds of years of law before Roe had just been overturned.
Edit: legally; Gay marriage, contraception, sodomy, and a host of other preventions are effectively up in the air. The legal basis for preventing federal, local and state governments from legislating them are gone as of when the decision is delivered. If they come up (and some of them will) conservative courts will use this overturn them and liberal courts will probably respect the clear directive of SCOTUS as to the underlying law (and so may rule either way)
I've been kind of reading and trying to get an idea of what this means.
Two things I keep coming back to and I need to understand.
What's different from this ruling and telling black people they can't marry white people?
Is it crazy to feel like this is the legal fuckery and injustice that Dredd Scott was? It sure seems like the states going all in on this are leaning into thinking that's a good ruling. (philosophically if not in practical terms)
Freedoms are being taken away and I feel like I'm on crazy pills. I'm a straight white man with no kids who had a vasectomy fairly young and I don't know how people around me can just shrug and assume it's no big deal. This literally can't affect me personally any less, but how can these fucking clowns be so devoid of empathy?
Its a horrible decision they look to piggyback and strip other rights based off of it. Like gay marriage, interracial marriage and contraception. If the US survives this, it will be looked at the same way we look at dredd scott
I still think its more likely that the most horrific aspects of the opinion are there for horse trading with Roberts to try and get him to sign on. Abortion is so EASY for them to attack, because the vast majority of Americans don't need an abortion right now. The vast majority of people who get abortions don't love having to get one, and the vast majority of people who GET abortions want to forget about it and move on.
This isn't true AT ALL for gay marriage, interracial marriage and contraception.
We should concern ourselves with the tens of thousands of people that will be killed, and the hundreds of thousands of lives which will be ruined, and the tens of billions of dollars which will be wasted by what they are actually doing right now rather than worrying about what other horrible things they might do.
Nah according to Fox News (Pirro…) there are 63 million abortions done annually in the US
I've been kind of reading and trying to get an idea of what this means.
Two things I keep coming back to and I need to understand.
What's different from this ruling and telling black people they can't marry white people?
Is it crazy to feel like this is the legal fuckery and injustice that Dredd Scott was? It sure seems like the states going all in on this are leaning into thinking that's a good ruling. (philosophically if not in practical terms)
Freedoms are being taken away and I feel like I'm on crazy pills. I'm a straight white man with no kids who had a vasectomy fairly young and I don't know how people around me can just shrug and assume it's no big deal. This literally can't affect me personally any less, but how can these fucking clowns be so devoid of empathy?
Its a horrible decision they look to piggyback and strip other rights based off of it. Like gay marriage, interracial marriage and contraception. If the US survives this, it will be looked at the same way we look at dredd scott
I still think its more likely that the most horrific aspects of the opinion are there for horse trading with Roberts to try and get him to sign on. Abortion is so EASY for them to attack, because the vast majority of Americans don't need an abortion right now. The vast majority of people who get abortions don't love having to get one, and the vast majority of people who GET abortions want to forget about it and move on.
This isn't true AT ALL for gay marriage, interracial marriage and contraception.
We should concern ourselves with the tens of thousands of people that will be killed, and the hundreds of thousands of lives which will be ruined, and the tens of billions of dollars which will be wasted by what they are actually doing right now rather than worrying about what other horrible things they might do.
Nah according to Fox News (Pirro…) there are 63 million abortions done annually in the US
Keep in mind conservatives are fucking insane and consider things abortions that very clearly are not. Like birth control.
Posts
You could say the same about many Central and South American nations. But I didn't say it wasn't a problem. I said they have it despite being a majority Catholic nation.
Their history with abortion isn't the same as the US.
This is true.
But saying that they amended abortion rights into their constitution before we did (if we ever do) is also true.
Like, we never, as a country, got to where Ireland is on this issue. We got abortion rights because the Supreme Court decided we had them. We never won on that issue politically, and if we had, we'd have it enshrined in law.
pleasepaypreacher.net
The relevant issue I think is shown here:
The reason the US has such an issue with this issue is evangelicals. Catholics are basically the same on this issue as the population overall.
Petitions to what?
Getting in isn't all that easy, and you can't claim asylum without a fear that you will be persecuted or killed if you stay, not being able to get an abortion won't cut it. To qualify to immigrate you need some combination of a degree, a job waiting for you, skills on the "skilled workers" list or existing ties to the country, and the process can take a while. It's no longer like in the 70s when any draft-age person could more or less show up and qualify on the spot
Now if someone were to visit and stop by a clinic on their trip, well that's their business and the out of pocket costs are quite reasonable (~500 for an early term in Ontario)
Anyways, it really fucking hard to figure out what this means for midterms because this fuck awful decision wont' be the only thing in play. Supply shortages and inflation are likely to be a thing, I guess, would love to be wrong here. We also know that the right is running a shit ton of candidates that are insisting that the election is stolen. There are voting rights, minority rights and a shit ton of others thing play or that may come into play, some of which we don't know about yet.
I'm not convinced this is necessarily going to be favorable to the GOP in the way that they believe.
Like I get the impression that is a sizable chunk of reliable republican voters that only voted for the GOP because striking down Roe V Wade was the end all be all for their political participation and beyond that, they don't really agree with many republican positions. So those voters might not show up this fall or if they do, they might not show up for republicans. If this drops in June, we're also going to get over 5 months of horror stories and I suspect there is a decent chunk of dipshit anti-choice fuckers, that have the same mindset as anti-vaxxers. They have a mistaken belief that their shitty view is right and will end up changing their mind when reality proves them wrong in the worst possible way (reminder that a number of clergy in the US were actual in favor of letting women have access to abortion, when it was illegal, because they were appalled by the health issues that the prohibition was causing).
We also have the two wild card blocks of voters, where both grew up entirely during a time where abortion was legal. Millennials are probably the more reliable block here since many of us are finally getting enough shit stable that we'll be reliable voters and overturning Roe V Wade is incredibly unpopular. There are also the Zoomers, where conservative shit tends to do even less well, but the youth vote is notoriously fickle when it comes to showing up (no, that isn't just "but the choices suck," every democracy has struggled to get them to show the fuck up because it's just hard to get them to show the fuck up). Worth also noting that Millennials are definitely a bigger voting bloc than Boomers and Gen X combined IIRC and I wouldn't be surprised if Zoomers were of an equally large size. So if this ends up motivating both groups, it could be a bloodbath for republicans; especially, if they see a ton of voters staying home because "mission accomplished and republicans kind of suck outside of killing Roe V Wade (reminder that gerrymandering is often hinging on voter participation staying about equal to when it was done).
This also going to be a major issue for many women, who out number men. One thing that seems to often get overlooked with 2018's democratic wave, was that suburban women were a significant driver of that wave. A number of house seats that the GOP wants to flip and retain, is going to be reliant on not having that repeat this fall. Given that Roe v Wade has significant support in the public and that repeal is actually widely unpopular, this decision is likely to make that shift repeat this year. I doubt there are that many women that are going to take kindly to the idea of shithead strangers trying to tell them what they can and cannot do with their bodies and they will make that known at the polls.
Finally, abortion rights have the most support from college educated voters and those are the voters that are going to be the most reliable. Midterms are notorious for seeing a voter drop off on both sides, still worse for the left sadly. So this decision is likely going to further alienate one of the most reliable voting groups when it comes to midterm elections. This was also another group that fueled the democratic wave in 2018.
I suspect anyone that is smart, is going to be looking at this midterm implications and figuring out how they can get that to materialize into an outcome that gives them a Congress and state governments more friendly to the reproductive rights of women. After all, we knew this shitty court was going to do this and that this shitty decision was going to happen. The next move is really about both figuring out how to mitigate the damage and moving as quickly as possible to undo this shit.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
I wonder if you were say, a doctor who was arrested for performing illegal abortions and then fled to Canada, if that would cut it for an asylum claim or if they would just hand you back to America.
Yeah, they had to do it via amendment because it had to undo the 8th amendment that banned abortions entirely that they passed in 1983, 10 years after Roe.
It’s fantastic that they came around to the correct view in 2018, but saying they didn’t have as much trouble with it as the US is a bit crazy to me.
If the law is clear and (in this case at least) also correct, how do we deal with this situation as a party who (for many who support it) has a big part of its party platform "The US should be a place where the government respects the law, and people are allowed to select their own government and rules"
How do we fix cheaters, who are legally allowed to cheat, when not cheating is important?
I mean, given the choice between not cheating and 10's of thousands of women dead, I'll tell Biden to just appoint 12 justices, declare DC a state etc, but, is there anything we can do which isn't 'cheating'.
It seems that the law has come to the point where us getting what we want requires 'cheating'. Because the law says that being fair is cheating.
Is it just the end? I guess you could say that if we could JUST scrape out 3 more senators, we could remove the filibuster, pass a new voting rights act, and then appoint 4 more justices and all of that is 'not' cheating in the actual law. But, if the entire other side would say it WAS cheating, does it matter that it isn't? If your opponent will always be convinced you are cheating, do we not just need to cheat enough to get new opponents who actually want to govern a country?
I think this is all accurate and the follow through leads to some awful places. What happens when the rule of law is used to empower evil? What happens when democratic rule is subverted? What happens when there is critical mass of fascist such that they do what they want?
That's not an actually enumerated right. It was created from an interpretation of the Constitution so its not really surprising that it can be not created by a different interpretation. Ignoring precedent to do so is probably a bigger issue from a legitimacy perspective.
I'm not saying they didn't take a while or that we didn't legalize it sooner.
I'm saying that we never really did legalize it explicitly and that our un-elected judicial branch ruling one way vs another was the only reason we ever had abortion rights. Politically speaking, it's an issue we've never actually won, to this day.
In Ireland, be it as it may that they took until 2018 to come around, they actually came around. The US still hasn't. Will be very, very, happy to be wrong come mid-terms.
Doctors wishing to immigrate to Canada are considered skilled workers and have expedited approval. It isn't guaranteed but it's comparatively simple.
Aside from that, I think a doctor probably could make a good case for asylum if deportation meant unjust and harsh punishment that's likely going to significantly increase after this decision and future decisions.
I mean its the same thing for the second amendments current interpretation and people act like that's the holy given right of the god of guns.
The problem is the judges not the law, if there was a law that said Abortion is legal, they'd find a reason to say its not, as they've done for other laws like the VRA.
pleasepaypreacher.net
This is why we northerners should have executed more southern slave owners during reconstruction
The US couldn't pass legislation legalizing it a few months ago. I'm unsure if it could have passed back in the 70s, 80s, 90s, etc. My bet would be no for anything after the 70s but that's a guess.
This phenomenon is why the SCOTUS's role has been misinterpreted by many and why the GOP became so focused on it. For a brief period the courts were securing rights and other victories in a way the legislature couldn't or wouldn't.
I don't think anyone's arguing the opposite of this. If we codified abortion rights into an amendment, I fully agree that this SC would declare it unconstitutional and strike down the amendment.
However, we've also never done it.
Ireland has. Therefore, they're ahead of us on the issue. They wanted it, and by popular demand, they got it.
Yeah, one of the things that this getting leaked early does help with, is it provides the motivation (which would also apply when it dropped in July/August), but also the time.
People in thread have mentioned that the rage might not be sustainable to November. And it might not. But that rage doesn't mean much for the election, if people don't have sufficient time to properly register.
Hopefully some of the rage is channeled into getting every person who is angry at this decision, and is eligible to be registered, gets to do so. Given the roadblocks that some states have put in place (closing/reduction of hours at registration sites, paperwork/ID requirements, registration deadlines etc), an extra couple months to make sure that people have the sufficient capacity to register, can help, and that organizations can assist in getting that information out to voters (and helping voters in states where that's still legal).
Ireland didn't make abortion legal in their constitution. They just removed the amendment making it *illegal*. So, exactly the situation we would be in with Ror codified.
I really don't buy that even this SC would do that. But also if the political climate existed to pass such an amendment this SC wouldn't exist.
they literally did it with voting rights.
this is why it's been so frustrating to see/hear/read the "Supreme Court doesn't matter" arguments over the years. Yeah, it sure does.
No. Maybe if the death penalty was commonly sought and someone managed to escape then they could make a legitimate asylum claim but you can't just escape here because you got charged with a crime in the US even if that isn't a crime here, regardless of whether of not that thing should be a crime
Now in theory if they fled to Canada ahead of the arrest (entry would likely be denied to anyone under indictment) and entered legally I don't think we would extradite. The US would have to charge federally for one IIRC and it would have to be something like murder that is on the list and if we did extradite then we require no death penalty
Sorry to just get back to this today, but if you take this as rolling over and playing dead you've misread me terribly. I'm doing no such thing. I'm admitting that currently the national battle is likely lost and just throwing proverbial bodies at the hill isn't going to change that. Instead I'm focusing my energy and time at the local level where my voice is much louder. I'm using my political energy to make sure my state never passes abortion bans and hopefully becomes a medical safe harbor state for women. That is something I can have an impact on right now while we work to fix the larger American electorate over the coming decades.
No they didn't. The VRA is not an amendment and pre-clearance is no where in the text of the 15th. Saying that Congress has the power to enforce it via appropriate legislation explicitly means there can be inappropriate legislation that it does not.
I'm so confused, so you agree with me that Ireland is ahead of us on abortion rights? I don't get it.
I don't think I'm even saying anything controversial here on the back of us losing abortion rights. Two of you have responded to my posts now re-affirming that we've never been able to codify this into law and that even if we did, this SC would strike it down, which is the same shit I keep saying.
All I'm adding to that is that Ireland is ahead of us on the issue. This thread got made because our SC is planning to overturn our abortion rights! Literally any country who has legalized abortion is ahead of us on this shit! It's okay to admit that right now!
Frankly I've been saying the Senate is the most important race for a long ass time now and I was really frustrated when Mitch McConnell showed everyone just how important it was and they still focused on the Presidential. They get to confirm SC Justices, they get to impeach SC Justices, they hold all the cards, just as intended.
Two things I keep coming back to and I need to understand.
What's different from this ruling and telling black people they can't marry white people?
Is it crazy to feel like this is the legal fuckery and injustice that Dredd Scott was? It sure seems like the states going all in on this are leaning into thinking that's a good ruling. (philosophically if not in practical terms)
Freedoms are being taken away and I feel like I'm on crazy pills. I'm a straight white man with no kids who had a vasectomy fairly young and I don't know how people around me can just shrug and assume it's no big deal.
This literally can't affect me personally any less, but how can these fucking clowns be so devoid of empathy?
Its a horrible decision they look to piggyback and strip other rights based off of it. Like gay marriage, interracial marriage and contraception. If the US survives this, it will be looked at the same way we look at dredd scott
pleasepaypreacher.net
yeah, if
Ireland has nationalized healthcare, so women can get safe access to any procedure which is deemed necessary and legal wherever they live. No part of Ireland is allowed to ban a safe and legal medical procedure, nor are they allowed to prevent capable clinics and doctors from performing it.
Something which is 'not illegal' in Ireland from a medical perspective is the same as something which is a federal law compelling all providers to offer, with very low costs, to anyone in the US. It's not QUITE as strong as something which is a constitutional right, because it could specifically be made illegal again, but its very close.
Sadism is a kind of empathy.
I think the primary contention is that Ireland is being held up as a Catholic/Christian country that “didnt nearly as much trouble on the topic” when they very clearly did until only 4 years ago, and it still took 6 years after the death of Savita Halappanavar for that to happen.
I still think its more likely that the most horrific aspects of the opinion are there for horse trading with Roberts to try and get him to sign on. Abortion is so EASY for them to attack, because the vast majority of Americans don't need an abortion right now. The vast majority of people who get abortions don't love having to get one, and the vast majority of people who GET abortions want to forget about it and move on.
This isn't true AT ALL for gay marriage, interracial marriage and contraception.
We should concern ourselves with the tens of thousands of people that will be killed, and the hundreds of thousands of lives which will be ruined, and the tens of billions of dollars which will be wasted by what they are actually doing right now rather than worrying about what other horrible things they might do.
Why would they care about Roberts? For gay rights/marriage and contraception, all they have to do is convince Gorsuch and Kavanagh.
This feels very much like the post-2016 "Eh they won't overturn Roe don't worry". Alito is very clearly gunning for those things.
The shift we're probably just starting to see with this court is because Roberts now kinda doesn't matter. It seems like with Roberts no longer being the swing vote Alito feels like he's running the show now.
We are saying it is setting up stripping away those rights as well because they are explicitly cited in the draft alongside abortion as examples of so--called phony rights without historical standing and Constitutional protection.
As an aside about fleeing to Canada, I can't guarantee people can successfully apply for asylum, but you won't be extradited back to the States - the extradition treaty requires the crime to be recognized as a crime in both countries.
There are two differences. One a legality and one a practicality. Legally it’s because in terms of what the law is Roe rests on privacy and Loving rests on equal protection… it’s unlikely equal protection goes but it could.
The practicality is that few states have trigger bans in place in case Loving is overturned. So even if it was I doubt people would rush to change that. Buuut loving rests on a lot of other equal protection law so if it were to go it would be pretty bad in lots of other ways
The actual cases you want to look at are obergefell and Lawrence. Those rest on privacy and now that privacy is dead are legally in hot water. In that they could be challenged and would likely be overturned*. And if they were not overturned then the court would have to do some pretty amazing gymnastics to reconcile it with this discussion.
*basically a judge who wanted to would easily make it happen and an honest judge would probably have a hard time finding Lawrence still held given that Roe and the hundreds of years of law before Roe had just been overturned.
Edit: legally; Gay marriage, contraception, sodomy, and a host of other preventions are effectively up in the air. The legal basis for preventing federal, local and state governments from legislating them are gone as of when the decision is delivered. If they come up (and some of them will) conservative courts will use this overturn them and liberal courts will probably respect the clear directive of SCOTUS as to the underlying law (and so may rule either way)
Nah according to Fox News (Pirro…) there are 63 million abortions done annually in the US
Keep in mind conservatives are fucking insane and consider things abortions that very clearly are not. Like birth control.