32 ms·

Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

108 points by IdEntities 4y ago

xyzzy4747 4y ago
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  Yikes. Preventing abortions brings unwanted children into the world and pushes abortion underground, where they’ll just be less safe abortions. Do you know how unwanted children are treated? I volunteer as a guardian ad litem for children who need a court appointed advocate, and I support abortion fully having seen the alternative suffering, not to mention anti abortion proponents supporting life right up until birth, and then it’s “good luck champ, this is America, find those bootstraps.” Ask your anti abortion proponent how many unwanted children they’ve fostered or adopted. Anti abortion in America isn’t about pro life, it’s about giving a certain political subset control over womens’ reproductive rights. Edit: this will also accelerate women obtaining permanent birth control (a tubal ligation or a bisalp, which is 100% covered by the ACA as preventive care) who are sitting in the fence or have firmly decided in being child free. Can’t take chances if you could be stuck with a child you didn’t want for 18 years.
  - xyzzy4747 4y ago
    So it’s better for them not to exist? Would be nice to at least give them a chance to live.
    - voltagex_ 4y ago
    - toomuchtodo 4y ago
      Parents who don’t want to be parents should be able to elect not to be parents. Forcing them to have children they don’t want and won’t want to or be able to provide for does a disservice to everyone. I’m not going to parrot out bodily autonomy, it wouldn’t matter anyway to anti abortionists; they have their belief system, and it is rigid (religion, politics, whatever). The battle is won on other fronts (robust access to Plan B and abortion pills, logistical networks to get those who need an abortion to medical providers).
    - autoexec 4y ago
      > So it’s better for them not to exist? Obviously yes. If you don't want children, or can't afford a child, or aren't fit to be a parent it's far far better if you don't give birth to a child in the first place.
      - xyzzy4747 4y ago
        Better for who? It’s not better for the child. If the child doesn’t like life, suicide is always an option. But let them choose for themselves.
        autoexec 4y ago
        Better for everyone who has actually been born, and yes, even better for the would-be child who now doesn't have to needlessly suffer.
        jakeinspace 4y ago
        By this logic, the production of hypothetical future people should be maximized right? Every man and woman on earth should be spending every moment attempting to create more children in this world.
    - klyrs 4y ago
      "Would be nice" enough that you'd be willing to carry your father's child to term?
  - TheFreim 4y ago
    > Preventing abortions brings unwanted children into the world and pushes abortion underground, where they’ll just be less safe abortions. If someone believes that abortion is killing an innocent human being, and thus immoral worthy of being illegal, this line of argument won't do anything. It would be like saying, "if we ban murder for hire that will push all of the hitmen under ground!". I understand you don't believe that is what abortion is, but I think if you look at it from the pro-life point of view it will show why this line of reasoning doesn't seem convincing. > Do you know how unwanted children are treated? I volunteer as a guardian ad litem for children who need a court appointed advocate, and I support abortion fully having seen the alternative suffering, not to mention anti abortion proponents supporting life right up until birth, and then it’s “good luck champ, this is America, find those bootstraps.” This isn't an argument for abortion, its an argument for better child care services and child protection. Most pro-lifers are very supportive of giving support to children and parents who are in tough situations, just recently a local community raised a large amount of money and materials to provide support. > Anti abortion in America isn’t about pro life, it’s about giving a certain political subset control over womens’ reproductive rights. This is a false characterization. The difference in view between pro-life and pro-choice is not "womans rights vs. no womans rights" or something like that, its a difference philosophical and moral view of what the unborn /are/. Does what I say make sense? Please let me know if you need clarifications, I am typing quickly and can't proof read as much as I would like to.
    - toomuchtodo 4y ago
      What you say makes sense, and I believe it’s a fundamental gap that can’t be closed. I simply cannot put myself in the shoes and mental model of someone who is pro life (and I’ve tried; otherwise how can I have a reasonable debate with the opposition), and I’m sure the feeling is mutual. Therefore, both sides are to remain in tension until a point comes where democracy overrides through cohort turnover [1] (but at a cost of suffering between now and then). [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opini...
      - TheFreim 4y ago
  - esotericimpl 4y ago
- ttyprintk 4y ago
  It could always be ruled the other way. Over 300 Supreme Court decisions overrule another one. Abortion predates Roe by at least 3500 years. This just pushes it geographically and socioeconomically.
- ggm 4y ago
  - thrwObviouR 4y ago
    Well dude, you obviously don't care who sees it, because you have the PC opinion. I'm also pro womens right to choose, but I'm not religious, and I don't believe that I should be forcing my beliefs on highly Christian states that I've never been to if they want to do things differently. But you see, THAT'S not PC, hence why I have no choice but to use a throwaway.
- kccoder 4y ago
  Should states also be allowed to legislate contraceptives, premarital sex, sex between same sex couples, ...? After all, none of those are guaranteed by the constitution either. What "rights" do you enjoy that aren't expressly guaranteed in the constitution that others might want to let states legislate away from you?
  - autoexec 4y ago
    This is all I can imagine we'll end up with. Some states are going to force religious laws on their population and others will not. People will flee to states that don't oppress them and those states under religious law will continue to decline. The same way states that push abstinence only sex-ed see higher rates of teenage pregnancy those states that push fundamentalist religious law on the people will see more suffering and death, higher rates of poverty and violence, etc.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > People will flee to states that don't oppress them and those states will continue to decline. People with resources will be able to evade the bans relatively easily or flee if they can't Those with fewer resources will be less able to leave. > those states that push fundamentalist religious law on the people will see more suffering and death, higher rates of poverty and violence, etc. And they'll continue to be overrepresented in Congress and maintain federal funding formulas that extract money from successful states to subsidize themselves on account of their failure.
      - autoexec 4y ago
        > And they'll continue to be overrepresented in Congress and maintain federal funding formulas that extract money from successful states to subsidize themselves on account of their failure. Maybe this is something that will have to change. It all does risk bringing us closer to going back to when we were "these untied states" instead of "the untied states" though.
    - spoils19 4y ago
- fzeroracer 4y ago
  The constitution also has no right to privacy, but I'm willing to bet given that you're posting on a throwaway account that you believe privacy is rather important. Or would you be okay with the Supreme Court completely eroding all privacy laws because it doesn't exist in the constitution? The right to abortion is something that was ruled as something between a woman and her doctor to decide. Not the federal government, and not state agencies. Frankly there are already plenty of laws and guidance in place that the drum beating against Roe v Wade is purely powered by hysteria and not facts or logic.
  - cato_the_elder 4y ago
    > The constitution also has no right to privacy I think it has that, actually. That's generally how the Fourth Amendment is interpreted. [1] Interestingly, the right to privacy was the main argument in the Roe v. Wade decision. [2] Also, to your credit, the concept of unenumerated rights [3] supports your argument. Hamilton (the favourite founding father among the left-wingers) actually opposed the Bill of Rights because "he feared it might later be interpreted as a list of the only rights that people had". [4] [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_Unit... [2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade [3]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unenumerated_rights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unenumerated_rights [4]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._84 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._84
threatofrain 4y ago
States ought not ban medical procedures which are mainstream in major countries around the world on the basis of religious ideology, but unfortunately that's what's happening in states like Texas. This is a private matter between any individual and their doctor. Of course rich individuals will still be able to fly to countries like UK or Germany to receive mainstream medicine backed by mainstream science.
- xyzzy4747 4y ago
  - autoexec 4y ago
    By that "logic" birth control does too.
    - xyzzy4747 4y ago
      - philistine 4y ago
        Do you realize the egregiousness of what you're saying? Any child at any cost under any circumstance is not in any shape or form a net good that can be said without any proof. Could you point to a country that has gotten better after reversing the freedom to receive an abortion?
        xyzzy4747 4y ago
        Better for who? The children who are alive and otherwise wouldn’t be are doing better. It also increases the total population and GDP so it’s better on a geopolitical level.
        Bancakes 4y ago
        How does it increase GDP? If people aren't having kids because the living conditions are shit, or the kids they had emigrated for better opportunities, then having kids was a net waste.
cato_the_elder 4y ago
If SCOTUS indeed overturns Roe v. Wade, it would be a great day for human dignity and sanctity of innocent lives in the US.
- kccoder 4y ago
  What about the dignity of rape victims forced to carry, deliver, and raise the children of their rapists?
  - triyambakam 4y ago
    Don't most people hold that "two wrongs don't make a right"? In Hindu view abortion no matter the reason, except to save the mother's life, incurs strong negative karma.
    - kccoder 4y ago
      Everyone agrees that rape is wrong, whereas ~80% of the US believes that abortion is okay under some circumstances (~30% under ANY circumstance). The reality is that this won't stop abortion, just safe abortions, so now we are going to have rape victims attempting to end their daily reminder of their rape, end up with a crooked back-alley doc butchering them. Many would consider that a wrong as well.
      - TheFreim 4y ago
        If abortion is the killing of an innocent human being, which is what the pro-life side asserts, there is no such thing as a "safe" abortion. Its important to understand where opponents of your view are coming from otherwise there will be a communication disconnect which helps noone.
        kccoder 4y ago
        I'm aware that many pro-life proponents anchor their beliefs in the idea life begins at conception, and therefore abortion is murder, but many (more?) people believe differently. I'm sympathetic to the concept that "abortion is murder" and anyone with that viewpoint should be 100% on board for doing everything we can to reduce the need for abortion, such as robust sex-education starting at an appropriate age (12 or 13), availability of contraception and counseling to discuss concerns, ... (these measures reduced abortions in Colorado). Unfortunately, many pro-lifers are also against contraception and sex education, and other measures which would reduce the need for abortions, which muddies their underlying intentions, and leads many to believe that their primary concern has more to do with controlling women and inflicting their religious beliefs on others.
t-3 4y ago
Abortion is absolutely an issue of personal autonomy which deserves Constitutional protection. I hope this ruling can help serve as an impetus for reform. We really need a Constitutional Convention, but an amendment would be progress.
- itbeho 4y ago
  Do you feel the same protection of personal autonomy extends to vaccine mandates as well?
  - t-3 4y ago
    Of course. I'm not even vaccinated.
    - encryptluks2 4y ago
      That is refreshing as most people screaming my body my choice were some of the first demanding forced vaccinations.
      - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
        > That is refreshing as most people screaming my body my choice were some of the first demanding forced vaccinations. because the two issues are not even remotely linked. You get vaccinated for the community, it's a "bigger than you" problem, it's for "the greater good". Women that want to get an abortion most of the time didn't want the baby they are carrying, they were forced to. So it's reversed: if someone forced you to get COVID using violence but the supreme court blocked you from getting the vaccine, it would be right to scream "my body my choice". Clearer now?
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        chucksta 4y ago
        No because they use the same argument, the child is bigger than "you", or us, it is against the religion that is above "all of us".
bilegeek 4y ago
>No draft decision in the modern history of the court has been disclosed publicly while a case was still pending. >Justices can and sometimes do change their votes as draft opinions circulate Despite the possibility of second thoughts, this is still very worrying for constitutional rights in general. The chances of other important cases for individual rights like Griswold v. Connecticut being overturned just increased greatly.
georgia_peach 4y ago
Not sure this makes much of a difference. With the hurdles put in place by many state legislatures, it's kind of been in "states rights" territory for some time now.
- autoexec 4y ago
  Most of the those hurdles have been being shot down as unconstitutional until now. The loss of roe v wade could cause us to lose a lot of other rights too. Gay marriage may be next on the chopping block.
  - georgia_peach 4y ago
    I don't have strong opinions about roe or gay marriage. I do have strong opinions against kritarchy. Right or wrong, I don't like the idea of the Yale law school sharia council overriding the will of the electorate. It may have worked for you in recent history, but as they say, "past performance is not indicative of future results."
    - ausbah 4y ago
      eh, there are things that shouldn't be up for debate just because a majority of people wish it to be so. the issue is "what is a right and what isn't"
      - georgia_peach 4y ago
        Elite lawyers may be cleverer than the peasants, but that does not make them righteous or just. As I've already written, just because the court had taken a leftward tack in the recent past does not guarantee that it will continue to do so. Left or right, it would be best not to have that much power in so few hands. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/07/469478098/the-supreme-court-ruling-that-led-to-70-000-forced-sterilizations https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/07/4694780...
        4y ago
juanani 4y ago
ausbah 4y ago
why is this flagged?
- vdfs 4y ago
- glasshug 4y ago
  > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic. And, to editorialize: news orgs, your favorite political blogs, and even Twitter will have better commentary than HN. Edit: for example, the joking sibling comment.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- TigeriusKirk 4y ago
  Zero good discussion will happen here. That's why I flagged it.
  - mhh__ 4y ago
    I prefer to downvote the discussion since I'd estimate 80% of flagged but highly upvoted threads I've read in my time on hackernews have actually been ok.
- version_five 4y ago
  Look at the discussion that happens in response to a story like this. I don't see any novel or "curious" conversation, not to say there are not a lot of valid arguments, but they are old and don't really bring anything to the site. If HN was just this sort of polarizing topic, it would lose its appeal pretty fast. I don't actually know what the [flagged] tag adds to the story, though I think it's the right policy to let it play out so people can have their say while "burying" it so it doesn't dominate the front page and attract too much attention.
TrispusAttucks 4y ago
FYI: This just takes abortion out of the purview of the federal government and makes it a states issue, as the constitution intended.
- jdkee 4y ago
  This cannot be overstated enough.
- autoexec 4y ago
  You say "just" but the fact is that no matter where in the country you are, being an American citizen should guarantee a person certain rights, such as access to critical medical care, or not being forced to give birth to your rapist's child. Several states have already demonstrated that they don't want their population to have those rights and even before this women's lives were endangered by their attempts to close clinics and limit their reproductive freedoms. What we're bound to end up with are entire states of second class citizens who don't have the rights and protections of the rest of the nation. Where traveling within the country puts some of your most basic freedoms in question every time you cross a state border. Where your legal actions in one state can get you arrested or charged with a crime in another. There are very good reasons to have federal laws to keep a baseline standard of what rights and freedoms an American citizen has. That this right has been overturned at a federal level will absolutely cause more suffering than it prevents. Even in those states where people will now be forced to live under religious law abortion will continue to take place just as it always has. The wealthy will simply fly to where it's accessible with little risk and the poor will resort to more dangerous methods just as they did before the right to seek an abortion was protected by federal law.
  - TrispusAttucks 4y ago
    Fortunately our nation is founded on a constitution and rule of law so that what "should" and "shouldn't" can be codified appropriately by the people.
    - autoexec 4y ago
allears 4y ago
If you're a man, you have no right to have an opinion about abortion. Only a woman can truly understand what it means to be pregnant, to give birth, to bring a new life into being. A man might have a possessive, proprietary attitude about it, but it's a removed and intellectual understanding at best. A woman understands it from her gut, from her body. To hear men pontificating about how women should behave is ludicrous, and sad.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- cato_the_elder 4y ago
  > If you're a man, you have no right to have an opinion about abortion. That's an egregious argument. It's like saying if you are not a Ukrainian (or Russian), you don't get to have an opinion about the conflict.
  - version_five 4y ago
    It's hard to interpret the root comment as anything but trolling here. Better to just ignore it
- autoexec 4y ago
  > If you're a man, you have no right to have an opinion about abortion. Yeah, no. The roles of men and women in reproduction are different, but that doesn't exclude either one from the conversation. The real issue is that before being born, the would-be child is literally feeding on the mother like a parasite. No one should be forced to endure that against their will. That needs to be a voluntary act of sacrifice on the part of the mother. I don't think we'll have a real solution to any part of the abortion debate until we have artificial wombs where we can remove the burden from the unwilling mother entirely. That still won't satisfy the religious extremists who will still rage against miscarriages and birth control and 'women doing things we don't like', but it would solve the problem of fathers who want their child to live while mothers refuse to carry it.
metadat 4y ago
tamaharbor 4y ago
I don’t think any man should mandate any woman what to do with her body.
- cato_the_elder 4y ago
  Contrary to the popular belief, there isn't a huge gender gap on this issue: https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abortion-trends-gender.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abortion-trends-gender.a...
- 5678909787 4y ago
  I don’t think any person should mandate any person what to do with their body. This would not have been any less wrong if it was done entirely by women. Women don't have any more right to control other women's bodies than men do.
mystique 4y ago
Can someone explain in non-legal way why the court believes an individual has right to decide whether they can wear a mask or not but not whether they can have a medical procedure or not? What's the main difference between these two?
- drewbug01 4y ago
  The court has rapidly given itself over to partisanship in the last few years. That framework lends understanding to the seeming contradiction in their decisions.
  - mystique 4y ago
    Sure that may be the case but there is still some argument applied to both decisions. What's the main difference between one vs. the other that makes decision to get a medical procedure not legal but decision to not wear a mask legal?
    - cato_the_elder 4y ago
      Well, not everyone sees abortion as merely a medical procedure. The rights of the fetus and the father are the major concerns. How to balance these is, of course, controversial. Similar issues exist about masks too. (e.g. concerns of immunocompromised people)
    - throwawaygh 4y ago
      Your understanding of the mask cases is incorrect. There is no "right not to mask". A right not to mask would mean that such a law would not be enforceable. But the court found no such right. It simply found that the executive was interpreting a statute incorrectly. Specifically, the Biden administration believed that a piece of legislation gave them the authority to mandate masks in certain workplaces. The court disagreed except for in the case of medical facilities. In particular, the court said nothing about what would happen if, hypothetically, Congress were to pass a law clarifying that OSHA does indeed have the authority to mandate masking. The SCOTUS decisions regarding masking/vaccines were not cases of constitutional law or individual rights. Rather, SCOTUS was simply ruling on the meaning of a statute passed by the legislature and enforced by the executive. Individual constitutional rights were not in play. By contrast, Roe v Wade establishes a constitutional right to abortion. What this means is that even if Congress or a state passed a law outlawing abortion, that law would not be enforceable unless SCOTUS overturned Roe. I don't think there is a single justice on the court who believes that the constitution provides a right not to mask. The court is hopelessly political, and on hot-button issues it's best to think about the court reasoning backward from decisions rather than forward for law, but "a constitutional right not to mask" is not how the conservative justices currently on the court would ever go about justifying striking down a mask policy. Comparing the mask/vaccine decisions to the Roe decision doesn't make much sense.
rizoma_dev 4y ago
As has been said several times: you can't prevent abortions from happening by outlawing them, you only make those that occur less safe
- yucky 4y ago
  This is the same argument used against gun control.
  - rizoma_dev 4y ago
    Come on, there is a qualitative difference between buying an object and a medical procedure
    - laverya 4y ago
      Yeah, it's a lot easier to make the object yourself at home safely.
- scarecrowbob 4y ago
  Many activists I know are moving to the idea that if we can't have safe, legal abortions then we will settle for safe.
esotericimpl 4y ago
swayvil 4y ago
Suddenly everybody has a reason to vote Democrat. What a remarkable coincidence.

108 points by IdEntities 4y ago

toomuchtodo 4y ago
Yikes. Preventing abortions brings unwanted children into the world and pushes abortion underground, where they’ll just be less safe abortions. Do you know how unwanted children are treated? I volunteer as a guardian ad litem for children who need a court appointed advocate, and I support abortion fully having seen the alternative suffering, not to mention anti abortion proponents supporting life right up until birth, and then it’s “good luck champ, this is America, find those bootstraps.” Ask your anti abortion proponent how many unwanted children they’ve fostered or adopted. Anti abortion in America isn’t about pro life, it’s about giving a certain political subset control over womens’ reproductive rights. Edit: this will also accelerate women obtaining permanent birth control (a tubal ligation or a bisalp, which is 100% covered by the ACA as preventive care) who are sitting in the fence or have firmly decided in being child free. Can’t take chances if you could be stuck with a child you didn’t want for 18 years.
- xyzzy4747 4y ago
  So it’s better for them not to exist? Would be nice to at least give them a chance to live.
  - voltagex_ 4y ago
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    Parents who don’t want to be parents should be able to elect not to be parents. Forcing them to have children they don’t want and won’t want to or be able to provide for does a disservice to everyone. I’m not going to parrot out bodily autonomy, it wouldn’t matter anyway to anti abortionists; they have their belief system, and it is rigid (religion, politics, whatever). The battle is won on other fronts (robust access to Plan B and abortion pills, logistical networks to get those who need an abortion to medical providers).
  - autoexec 4y ago
    > So it’s better for them not to exist? Obviously yes. If you don't want children, or can't afford a child, or aren't fit to be a parent it's far far better if you don't give birth to a child in the first place.
    - xyzzy4747 4y ago
      Better for who? It’s not better for the child. If the child doesn’t like life, suicide is always an option. But let them choose for themselves.
      - autoexec 4y ago
        Better for everyone who has actually been born, and yes, even better for the would-be child who now doesn't have to needlessly suffer.
      - jakeinspace 4y ago
        By this logic, the production of hypothetical future people should be maximized right? Every man and woman on earth should be spending every moment attempting to create more children in this world.
  - klyrs 4y ago
    "Would be nice" enough that you'd be willing to carry your father's child to term?
- TheFreim 4y ago
  > Preventing abortions brings unwanted children into the world and pushes abortion underground, where they’ll just be less safe abortions. If someone believes that abortion is killing an innocent human being, and thus immoral worthy of being illegal, this line of argument won't do anything. It would be like saying, "if we ban murder for hire that will push all of the hitmen under ground!". I understand you don't believe that is what abortion is, but I think if you look at it from the pro-life point of view it will show why this line of reasoning doesn't seem convincing. > Do you know how unwanted children are treated? I volunteer as a guardian ad litem for children who need a court appointed advocate, and I support abortion fully having seen the alternative suffering, not to mention anti abortion proponents supporting life right up until birth, and then it’s “good luck champ, this is America, find those bootstraps.” This isn't an argument for abortion, its an argument for better child care services and child protection. Most pro-lifers are very supportive of giving support to children and parents who are in tough situations, just recently a local community raised a large amount of money and materials to provide support. > Anti abortion in America isn’t about pro life, it’s about giving a certain political subset control over womens’ reproductive rights. This is a false characterization. The difference in view between pro-life and pro-choice is not "womans rights vs. no womans rights" or something like that, its a difference philosophical and moral view of what the unborn /are/. Does what I say make sense? Please let me know if you need clarifications, I am typing quickly and can't proof read as much as I would like to.
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    What you say makes sense, and I believe it’s a fundamental gap that can’t be closed. I simply cannot put myself in the shoes and mental model of someone who is pro life (and I’ve tried; otherwise how can I have a reasonable debate with the opposition), and I’m sure the feeling is mutual. Therefore, both sides are to remain in tension until a point comes where democracy overrides through cohort turnover [1] (but at a cost of suffering between now and then). [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opini...
    - TheFreim 4y ago
- esotericimpl 4y ago
ttyprintk 4y ago
It could always be ruled the other way. Over 300 Supreme Court decisions overrule another one. Abortion predates Roe by at least 3500 years. This just pushes it geographically and socioeconomically.
ggm 4y ago
- thrwObviouR 4y ago
  Well dude, you obviously don't care who sees it, because you have the PC opinion. I'm also pro womens right to choose, but I'm not religious, and I don't believe that I should be forcing my beliefs on highly Christian states that I've never been to if they want to do things differently. But you see, THAT'S not PC, hence why I have no choice but to use a throwaway.
kccoder 4y ago
Should states also be allowed to legislate contraceptives, premarital sex, sex between same sex couples, ...? After all, none of those are guaranteed by the constitution either. What "rights" do you enjoy that aren't expressly guaranteed in the constitution that others might want to let states legislate away from you?
- autoexec 4y ago
  This is all I can imagine we'll end up with. Some states are going to force religious laws on their population and others will not. People will flee to states that don't oppress them and those states under religious law will continue to decline. The same way states that push abstinence only sex-ed see higher rates of teenage pregnancy those states that push fundamentalist religious law on the people will see more suffering and death, higher rates of poverty and violence, etc.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > People will flee to states that don't oppress them and those states will continue to decline. People with resources will be able to evade the bans relatively easily or flee if they can't Those with fewer resources will be less able to leave. > those states that push fundamentalist religious law on the people will see more suffering and death, higher rates of poverty and violence, etc. And they'll continue to be overrepresented in Congress and maintain federal funding formulas that extract money from successful states to subsidize themselves on account of their failure.
    - autoexec 4y ago
      > And they'll continue to be overrepresented in Congress and maintain federal funding formulas that extract money from successful states to subsidize themselves on account of their failure. Maybe this is something that will have to change. It all does risk bringing us closer to going back to when we were "these untied states" instead of "the untied states" though.
  - spoils19 4y ago
fzeroracer 4y ago
The constitution also has no right to privacy, but I'm willing to bet given that you're posting on a throwaway account that you believe privacy is rather important. Or would you be okay with the Supreme Court completely eroding all privacy laws because it doesn't exist in the constitution? The right to abortion is something that was ruled as something between a woman and her doctor to decide. Not the federal government, and not state agencies. Frankly there are already plenty of laws and guidance in place that the drum beating against Roe v Wade is purely powered by hysteria and not facts or logic.
- cato_the_elder 4y ago
  > The constitution also has no right to privacy I think it has that, actually. That's generally how the Fourth Amendment is interpreted. [1] Interestingly, the right to privacy was the main argument in the Roe v. Wade decision. [2] Also, to your credit, the concept of unenumerated rights [3] supports your argument. Hamilton (the favourite founding father among the left-wingers) actually opposed the Bill of Rights because "he feared it might later be interpreted as a list of the only rights that people had". [4] [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_Unit... [2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade [3]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unenumerated_rights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unenumerated_rights [4]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._84 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._84

States ought not ban medical procedures which are mainstream in major countries around the world on the basis of religious ideology, but unfortunately that's what's happening in states like Texas. This is a private matter between any individual and their doctor. Of course rich individuals will still be able to fly to countries like UK or Germany to receive mainstream medicine backed by mainstream science.

xyzzy4747 4y ago
- autoexec 4y ago
  By that "logic" birth control does too.
  - xyzzy4747 4y ago
    - philistine 4y ago
      Do you realize the egregiousness of what you're saying? Any child at any cost under any circumstance is not in any shape or form a net good that can be said without any proof. Could you point to a country that has gotten better after reversing the freedom to receive an abortion?
      - xyzzy4747 4y ago
        Better for who? The children who are alive and otherwise wouldn’t be are doing better. It also increases the total population and GDP so it’s better on a geopolitical level.
        Bancakes 4y ago
        How does it increase GDP? If people aren't having kids because the living conditions are shit, or the kids they had emigrated for better opportunities, then having kids was a net waste.

cato_the_elder 4y ago

If SCOTUS indeed overturns Roe v. Wade, it would be a great day for human dignity and sanctity of innocent lives in the US.

kccoder 4y ago
What about the dignity of rape victims forced to carry, deliver, and raise the children of their rapists?
- triyambakam 4y ago
  Don't most people hold that "two wrongs don't make a right"? In Hindu view abortion no matter the reason, except to save the mother's life, incurs strong negative karma.
  - kccoder 4y ago
    Everyone agrees that rape is wrong, whereas ~80% of the US believes that abortion is okay under some circumstances (~30% under ANY circumstance). The reality is that this won't stop abortion, just safe abortions, so now we are going to have rape victims attempting to end their daily reminder of their rape, end up with a crooked back-alley doc butchering them. Many would consider that a wrong as well.
    - TheFreim 4y ago
      If abortion is the killing of an innocent human being, which is what the pro-life side asserts, there is no such thing as a "safe" abortion. Its important to understand where opponents of your view are coming from otherwise there will be a communication disconnect which helps noone.
      - kccoder 4y ago
        I'm aware that many pro-life proponents anchor their beliefs in the idea life begins at conception, and therefore abortion is murder, but many (more?) people believe differently. I'm sympathetic to the concept that "abortion is murder" and anyone with that viewpoint should be 100% on board for doing everything we can to reduce the need for abortion, such as robust sex-education starting at an appropriate age (12 or 13), availability of contraception and counseling to discuss concerns, ... (these measures reduced abortions in Colorado). Unfortunately, many pro-lifers are also against contraception and sex education, and other measures which would reduce the need for abortions, which muddies their underlying intentions, and leads many to believe that their primary concern has more to do with controlling women and inflicting their religious beliefs on others.

t-3 4y ago

Abortion is absolutely an issue of personal autonomy which deserves Constitutional protection. I hope this ruling can help serve as an impetus for reform. We really need a Constitutional Convention, but an amendment would be progress.

itbeho 4y ago
Do you feel the same protection of personal autonomy extends to vaccine mandates as well?
- t-3 4y ago
  Of course. I'm not even vaccinated.
  - encryptluks2 4y ago
    That is refreshing as most people screaming my body my choice were some of the first demanding forced vaccinations.
    - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
      > That is refreshing as most people screaming my body my choice were some of the first demanding forced vaccinations. because the two issues are not even remotely linked. You get vaccinated for the community, it's a "bigger than you" problem, it's for "the greater good". Women that want to get an abortion most of the time didn't want the baby they are carrying, they were forced to. So it's reversed: if someone forced you to get COVID using violence but the supreme court blocked you from getting the vaccine, it would be right to scream "my body my choice". Clearer now?
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - chucksta 4y ago
        No because they use the same argument, the child is bigger than "you", or us, it is against the religion that is above "all of us".

bilegeek 4y ago

>No draft decision in the modern history of the court has been disclosed publicly while a case was still pending. >Justices can and sometimes do change their votes as draft opinions circulate Despite the possibility of second thoughts, this is still very worrying for constitutional rights in general. The chances of other important cases for individual rights like Griswold v. Connecticut being overturned just increased greatly.

georgia_peach 4y ago

Not sure this makes much of a difference. With the hurdles put in place by many state legislatures, it's kind of been in "states rights" territory for some time now.

autoexec 4y ago
Most of the those hurdles have been being shot down as unconstitutional until now. The loss of roe v wade could cause us to lose a lot of other rights too. Gay marriage may be next on the chopping block.
- georgia_peach 4y ago
  I don't have strong opinions about roe or gay marriage. I do have strong opinions against kritarchy. Right or wrong, I don't like the idea of the Yale law school sharia council overriding the will of the electorate. It may have worked for you in recent history, but as they say, "past performance is not indicative of future results."
  - ausbah 4y ago
    eh, there are things that shouldn't be up for debate just because a majority of people wish it to be so. the issue is "what is a right and what isn't"
    - georgia_peach 4y ago
      Elite lawyers may be cleverer than the peasants, but that does not make them righteous or just. As I've already written, just because the court had taken a leftward tack in the recent past does not guarantee that it will continue to do so. Left or right, it would be best not to have that much power in so few hands. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/07/469478098/the-supreme-court-ruling-that-led-to-70-000-forced-sterilizations https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/07/4694780...
      - 4y ago

juanani 4y ago

ausbah 4y ago

why is this flagged?

vdfs 4y ago
glasshug 4y ago
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic. And, to editorialize: news orgs, your favorite political blogs, and even Twitter will have better commentary than HN. Edit: for example, the joking sibling comment.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
TigeriusKirk 4y ago
Zero good discussion will happen here. That's why I flagged it.
- mhh__ 4y ago
  I prefer to downvote the discussion since I'd estimate 80% of flagged but highly upvoted threads I've read in my time on hackernews have actually been ok.
version_five 4y ago
Look at the discussion that happens in response to a story like this. I don't see any novel or "curious" conversation, not to say there are not a lot of valid arguments, but they are old and don't really bring anything to the site. If HN was just this sort of polarizing topic, it would lose its appeal pretty fast. I don't actually know what the [flagged] tag adds to the story, though I think it's the right policy to let it play out so people can have their say while "burying" it so it doesn't dominate the front page and attract too much attention.

TrispusAttucks 4y ago

FYI: This just takes abortion out of the purview of the federal government and makes it a states issue, as the constitution intended.

jdkee 4y ago
This cannot be overstated enough.
autoexec 4y ago
You say "just" but the fact is that no matter where in the country you are, being an American citizen should guarantee a person certain rights, such as access to critical medical care, or not being forced to give birth to your rapist's child. Several states have already demonstrated that they don't want their population to have those rights and even before this women's lives were endangered by their attempts to close clinics and limit their reproductive freedoms. What we're bound to end up with are entire states of second class citizens who don't have the rights and protections of the rest of the nation. Where traveling within the country puts some of your most basic freedoms in question every time you cross a state border. Where your legal actions in one state can get you arrested or charged with a crime in another. There are very good reasons to have federal laws to keep a baseline standard of what rights and freedoms an American citizen has. That this right has been overturned at a federal level will absolutely cause more suffering than it prevents. Even in those states where people will now be forced to live under religious law abortion will continue to take place just as it always has. The wealthy will simply fly to where it's accessible with little risk and the poor will resort to more dangerous methods just as they did before the right to seek an abortion was protected by federal law.
- TrispusAttucks 4y ago
  Fortunately our nation is founded on a constitution and rule of law so that what "should" and "shouldn't" can be codified appropriately by the people.
  - autoexec 4y ago

allears 4y ago

If you're a man, you have no right to have an opinion about abortion. Only a woman can truly understand what it means to be pregnant, to give birth, to bring a new life into being. A man might have a possessive, proprietary attitude about it, but it's a removed and intellectual understanding at best. A woman understands it from her gut, from her body. To hear men pontificating about how women should behave is ludicrous, and sad.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
cato_the_elder 4y ago
> If you're a man, you have no right to have an opinion about abortion. That's an egregious argument. It's like saying if you are not a Ukrainian (or Russian), you don't get to have an opinion about the conflict.
- version_five 4y ago
  It's hard to interpret the root comment as anything but trolling here. Better to just ignore it
autoexec 4y ago
> If you're a man, you have no right to have an opinion about abortion. Yeah, no. The roles of men and women in reproduction are different, but that doesn't exclude either one from the conversation. The real issue is that before being born, the would-be child is literally feeding on the mother like a parasite. No one should be forced to endure that against their will. That needs to be a voluntary act of sacrifice on the part of the mother. I don't think we'll have a real solution to any part of the abortion debate until we have artificial wombs where we can remove the burden from the unwilling mother entirely. That still won't satisfy the religious extremists who will still rage against miscarriages and birth control and 'women doing things we don't like', but it would solve the problem of fathers who want their child to live while mothers refuse to carry it.

metadat 4y ago

tamaharbor 4y ago

I don’t think any man should mandate any woman what to do with her body.

cato_the_elder 4y ago
Contrary to the popular belief, there isn't a huge gender gap on this issue: https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abortion-trends-gender.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abortion-trends-gender.a...
5678909787 4y ago
I don’t think any person should mandate any person what to do with their body. This would not have been any less wrong if it was done entirely by women. Women don't have any more right to control other women's bodies than men do.

mystique 4y ago

Can someone explain in non-legal way why the court believes an individual has right to decide whether they can wear a mask or not but not whether they can have a medical procedure or not? What's the main difference between these two?

drewbug01 4y ago
The court has rapidly given itself over to partisanship in the last few years. That framework lends understanding to the seeming contradiction in their decisions.
- mystique 4y ago
  Sure that may be the case but there is still some argument applied to both decisions. What's the main difference between one vs. the other that makes decision to get a medical procedure not legal but decision to not wear a mask legal?
  - cato_the_elder 4y ago
    Well, not everyone sees abortion as merely a medical procedure. The rights of the fetus and the father are the major concerns. How to balance these is, of course, controversial. Similar issues exist about masks too. (e.g. concerns of immunocompromised people)
  - throwawaygh 4y ago
    Your understanding of the mask cases is incorrect. There is no "right not to mask". A right not to mask would mean that such a law would not be enforceable. But the court found no such right. It simply found that the executive was interpreting a statute incorrectly. Specifically, the Biden administration believed that a piece of legislation gave them the authority to mandate masks in certain workplaces. The court disagreed except for in the case of medical facilities. In particular, the court said nothing about what would happen if, hypothetically, Congress were to pass a law clarifying that OSHA does indeed have the authority to mandate masking. The SCOTUS decisions regarding masking/vaccines were not cases of constitutional law or individual rights. Rather, SCOTUS was simply ruling on the meaning of a statute passed by the legislature and enforced by the executive. Individual constitutional rights were not in play. By contrast, Roe v Wade establishes a constitutional right to abortion. What this means is that even if Congress or a state passed a law outlawing abortion, that law would not be enforceable unless SCOTUS overturned Roe. I don't think there is a single justice on the court who believes that the constitution provides a right not to mask. The court is hopelessly political, and on hot-button issues it's best to think about the court reasoning backward from decisions rather than forward for law, but "a constitutional right not to mask" is not how the conservative justices currently on the court would ever go about justifying striking down a mask policy. Comparing the mask/vaccine decisions to the Roe decision doesn't make much sense.

rizoma_dev 4y ago

As has been said several times: you can't prevent abortions from happening by outlawing them, you only make those that occur less safe

yucky 4y ago
This is the same argument used against gun control.
- rizoma_dev 4y ago
  Come on, there is a qualitative difference between buying an object and a medical procedure
  - laverya 4y ago
    Yeah, it's a lot easier to make the object yourself at home safely.
scarecrowbob 4y ago
Many activists I know are moving to the idea that if we can't have safe, legal abortions then we will settle for safe.

esotericimpl 4y ago

swayvil 4y ago

Suddenly everybody has a reason to vote Democrat. What a remarkable coincidence.