4 ms·

You have to either be extremely naive or totally oblivious of the current political climate in the US to think this ends with only a ban on abortions after 24 w

by slg 5y ago

You have to either be extremely naive or totally oblivious of the current political climate in the US to think this ends with only a ban on abortions after 24 weeks.

rayiner 5y ago
No, I think “this ends up” the same way as Europe: most places get a ban at the end of the first trimester, when the fetus has a face and can suck its thumb. Some states ban it or near ban it, like Poland or Ireland until a couple of years ago. A handful of blue states end up with abortion until birth.
- parrellel 5y ago
  Alito is literally calling out gay marriage and contraception as on the chopping block in that thing. I think this ends up someplace very very ugly very quickly.
  - spoils19 5y ago
    This just reads like the slippery-slope fallacy. At no point will gay marriage and contraception be on the chopping block. I just talked to some conservative gay couples who align with this draft ruling, and they have no fears whatsoever.
    - ModernMech 5y ago
      The thing is that the current makeup of the court has been engineered for decades. It was a project that took so long because the exact right conditions needed to be in place: namely the death of a liberal justice while Republicans controlled the Senate and Presidency. In some ways the current court is a bit of a perfect storm. And what have they been saying they would do for the past 20 years? Get rid of Roe vs. Wade. And what happens as soon as they get control of the court? As fast as they humanly could they tested Roe in front of their new court, and now they've overturned the entire decision in the most brazen way possible. That was item 1 on their list. In the intervening 20 years there have been other items added to the list as reasons for wanting control of the Supreme Court. Gay marriage has been absolutely listed as a top target since 2015. Given how they've stated they want to overturn Roe and they followed through, why do you consider the idea that they will go after gay marriage a slippery slope? They've told us they want to do it. Why are we not to take them at their word at this point?
      - spoils19 5y ago
        A few points: * It reads like an incredible conspiracy theory that the makeup of the court has been engineered. In addition, abortion has been hotly contested and debated, even from just looking at this site. Gay marriage is far less so, and I'm willing to bet that even the most conservative poster on this site would not be against gay marriage. There isn't simply a reason to be against it. * Even if it were true, same-sex rights are not deeply rooted in history, as is stated in the leaked ruling. The law and rulings should be made without bias of public pressure, and with the knowledge that citizens who votes for these representatives who voted for these justices are getting what they voted for. Who are we to say what is legally right or wrong, without morals?
        ModernMech 5y ago
        > It reads like an incredible conspiracy theory that the makeup of the court has been engineered. It's not a conspiracy theory or a theory at all. You just had to listen and watch what they were doing for the past 20 years. It's not a conspiracy to have a long term project that you telegraph to everyone by campaigning on it. That's called a political platform. It's not some shadowy thing they've done in private; they've done it in the open, slowly, but deliberately. I don't think this is even a question, so I'm surprised you're pushing back on that point unless you don't pay attention to politics. I'm not giving them credit for anything they haven't already taken credit for. And although I say engineering, it wasn't something they could entirely control. But what they did do was exercise power in pretty craven ways to end up at this 6/3 split (I'm thinking precisely of McConnell holding a seat open with the argument that the people should decide through the upcoming election; and then filling the next vacancy at lightning speed despite being even closer to an election than the last opening). > I'm willing to bet that even the most conservative poster on this site would not be against gay marriage. Missing from this site are the fervently religious conservatives. The objection isn't grounded in reason. They're the ones who don't want gay marriage, and they're also actually in power right now in many places. This opinion is a testament to that. > The law and rulings should be made without bias of public pressure This presumes that the actors on the court are apolitical and the opinion is grounded firmly in law and logic. I'm still reading the full opinion but my feeling so far is... not positive on that front.
    - KerrAvon 5y ago
      It’s not a fallacy of any sort to think the cons are going to do what they’ve explicitly said they will do.
    - wwweston 5y ago
      "I didn't think the leopards would eat my face!" https://www.freep.com/story/opinion/columnists/nancy-kaffer/2022/02/21/michigan-gop-birth-control-griswold-abortion-dobbs/6879282001/ https://www.freep.com/story/opinion/columnists/nancy-kaffer/... https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/republican-marriage-equality/ https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/republican-marria... https://jezebel.com/yes-republicans-are-coming-for-gay-marriage-1848759151 https://jezebel.com/yes-republicans-are-coming-for-gay-marri... https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1521296185977417732 https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1521296185977417732 https://twitter.com/notstevenwhite/status/1521294720449888256 https://twitter.com/notstevenwhite/status/152129472044988825... One of my acquaintances who's a lawyer says in particular certain personal rights to privacy/autonomy that Griswold is built around is a target of the federalist society for a variety of reasons, some of which are business related. Can't remember the details but if you combine a wealth/profit-driven interest with a social conservatives christian patriarchy, the idea that Griswold is just safe because the court wouldn't go there looks pretty thin. The courts are going to go for broke here, they've got a certain makeup that's been in the making for decades and McConnell's manipulations and Trump's victory got them across the finish line. They're not kidding around with power, they're going to use it. EDIT: Downvoters, while we're all entitled to the use of that pointy disapproval button, if you think it's fundamentally incorrect to state that Obergfell or Griswold are going to be targeted by the court, you have no idea how thrilled I'd be to be persuaded you're correct. Please, make your case.
- slg 5y ago
  >Some states ban it or near ban it Well yes, this is the part that people are most objecting to and calling a human rights violation. How do you gloss over the fact that millions of people in the US will lose a basic right that practically all the rest of western world guarantees its citizens?
  - remarkEon 5y ago
    >the US will lose a basic right that practically all the rest of western world guarantees its citizens? This isn't true. The US is somewhat of an outlier in how liberal the abortion laws are here. What's likely is that, should SCOTUS not bow to the inevitable mob that will come after this leak, blue states keep their liberal abortion laws and red states don't. Most of the country will probably have abortion laws that look pretty similar to those of e.g. Germany. I don't see an issue; this is Federalism and it's by design.
    - slg 5y ago
      Please reread both my comment and your comment. Do you not see how misleading your reply is? You completely left out a portion of my original quote so you could argue against a straw man. I didn't say "the US will lose a basic right...". I said "millions of people in the US will lose a basic right...". No one thinks this will result in a federal abortion ban, but over a dozen states will immediately ban abortion upon the overturning of Roe v Wade. Those states contain millions of people who will lose the right to an abortion.
      - remarkEon 5y ago
        Sure. Do you not understand how Federalism works? Voters in some states prefer more restrictive abortion laws. I'm still not following your argument. Is it that, according to you, "millions of people who want abortions" will not be able to get them because some states that are full of people (also millions, ostensibly) who want more restrictive abortion laws are now able to enact them? Because if that's your argument it sort of gives away the game about the robustness of the Roe/Casey decision(s) in the first place.
refurb 5y ago
Interesting opinion, but totally irrelevant to the point at hand. Many people said “gay marriage won’t stop there” and that argument is irrelevant too. We don’t stop making good decisions because it might lead to bad decisions later. Edit: And the fun part about this leak? If the Court comes out differently, people will wonder if it was pressured. If anything this leak just will just HARDEN the opinion. The person who leaked probably caused the exact opposite response they wanted.

by slg 5y ago

You have to either be extremely naive or totally oblivious of the current political climate in the US to think this ends with only a ban on abortions after 24 weeks.

rayiner 5y ago

No, I think “this ends up” the same way as Europe: most places get a ban at the end of the first trimester, when the fetus has a face and can suck its thumb. Some states ban it or near ban it, like Poland or Ireland until a couple of years ago. A handful of blue states end up with abortion until birth.

parrellel 5y ago
Alito is literally calling out gay marriage and contraception as on the chopping block in that thing. I think this ends up someplace very very ugly very quickly.
- spoils19 5y ago
  This just reads like the slippery-slope fallacy. At no point will gay marriage and contraception be on the chopping block. I just talked to some conservative gay couples who align with this draft ruling, and they have no fears whatsoever.
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    The thing is that the current makeup of the court has been engineered for decades. It was a project that took so long because the exact right conditions needed to be in place: namely the death of a liberal justice while Republicans controlled the Senate and Presidency. In some ways the current court is a bit of a perfect storm. And what have they been saying they would do for the past 20 years? Get rid of Roe vs. Wade. And what happens as soon as they get control of the court? As fast as they humanly could they tested Roe in front of their new court, and now they've overturned the entire decision in the most brazen way possible. That was item 1 on their list. In the intervening 20 years there have been other items added to the list as reasons for wanting control of the Supreme Court. Gay marriage has been absolutely listed as a top target since 2015. Given how they've stated they want to overturn Roe and they followed through, why do you consider the idea that they will go after gay marriage a slippery slope? They've told us they want to do it. Why are we not to take them at their word at this point?
    - spoils19 5y ago
      A few points: * It reads like an incredible conspiracy theory that the makeup of the court has been engineered. In addition, abortion has been hotly contested and debated, even from just looking at this site. Gay marriage is far less so, and I'm willing to bet that even the most conservative poster on this site would not be against gay marriage. There isn't simply a reason to be against it. * Even if it were true, same-sex rights are not deeply rooted in history, as is stated in the leaked ruling. The law and rulings should be made without bias of public pressure, and with the knowledge that citizens who votes for these representatives who voted for these justices are getting what they voted for. Who are we to say what is legally right or wrong, without morals?
      - ModernMech 5y ago
        > It reads like an incredible conspiracy theory that the makeup of the court has been engineered. It's not a conspiracy theory or a theory at all. You just had to listen and watch what they were doing for the past 20 years. It's not a conspiracy to have a long term project that you telegraph to everyone by campaigning on it. That's called a political platform. It's not some shadowy thing they've done in private; they've done it in the open, slowly, but deliberately. I don't think this is even a question, so I'm surprised you're pushing back on that point unless you don't pay attention to politics. I'm not giving them credit for anything they haven't already taken credit for. And although I say engineering, it wasn't something they could entirely control. But what they did do was exercise power in pretty craven ways to end up at this 6/3 split (I'm thinking precisely of McConnell holding a seat open with the argument that the people should decide through the upcoming election; and then filling the next vacancy at lightning speed despite being even closer to an election than the last opening). > I'm willing to bet that even the most conservative poster on this site would not be against gay marriage. Missing from this site are the fervently religious conservatives. The objection isn't grounded in reason. They're the ones who don't want gay marriage, and they're also actually in power right now in many places. This opinion is a testament to that. > The law and rulings should be made without bias of public pressure This presumes that the actors on the court are apolitical and the opinion is grounded firmly in law and logic. I'm still reading the full opinion but my feeling so far is... not positive on that front.
  - KerrAvon 5y ago
    It’s not a fallacy of any sort to think the cons are going to do what they’ve explicitly said they will do.
  - wwweston 5y ago
    "I didn't think the leopards would eat my face!" https://www.freep.com/story/opinion/columnists/nancy-kaffer/2022/02/21/michigan-gop-birth-control-griswold-abortion-dobbs/6879282001/ https://www.freep.com/story/opinion/columnists/nancy-kaffer/... https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/republican-marriage-equality/ https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/republican-marria... https://jezebel.com/yes-republicans-are-coming-for-gay-marriage-1848759151 https://jezebel.com/yes-republicans-are-coming-for-gay-marri... https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1521296185977417732 https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1521296185977417732 https://twitter.com/notstevenwhite/status/1521294720449888256 https://twitter.com/notstevenwhite/status/152129472044988825... One of my acquaintances who's a lawyer says in particular certain personal rights to privacy/autonomy that Griswold is built around is a target of the federalist society for a variety of reasons, some of which are business related. Can't remember the details but if you combine a wealth/profit-driven interest with a social conservatives christian patriarchy, the idea that Griswold is just safe because the court wouldn't go there looks pretty thin. The courts are going to go for broke here, they've got a certain makeup that's been in the making for decades and McConnell's manipulations and Trump's victory got them across the finish line. They're not kidding around with power, they're going to use it. EDIT: Downvoters, while we're all entitled to the use of that pointy disapproval button, if you think it's fundamentally incorrect to state that Obergfell or Griswold are going to be targeted by the court, you have no idea how thrilled I'd be to be persuaded you're correct. Please, make your case.
slg 5y ago
>Some states ban it or near ban it Well yes, this is the part that people are most objecting to and calling a human rights violation. How do you gloss over the fact that millions of people in the US will lose a basic right that practically all the rest of western world guarantees its citizens?
- remarkEon 5y ago
  >the US will lose a basic right that practically all the rest of western world guarantees its citizens? This isn't true. The US is somewhat of an outlier in how liberal the abortion laws are here. What's likely is that, should SCOTUS not bow to the inevitable mob that will come after this leak, blue states keep their liberal abortion laws and red states don't. Most of the country will probably have abortion laws that look pretty similar to those of e.g. Germany. I don't see an issue; this is Federalism and it's by design.
  - slg 5y ago
    Please reread both my comment and your comment. Do you not see how misleading your reply is? You completely left out a portion of my original quote so you could argue against a straw man. I didn't say "the US will lose a basic right...". I said "millions of people in the US will lose a basic right...". No one thinks this will result in a federal abortion ban, but over a dozen states will immediately ban abortion upon the overturning of Roe v Wade. Those states contain millions of people who will lose the right to an abortion.
    - remarkEon 5y ago
      Sure. Do you not understand how Federalism works? Voters in some states prefer more restrictive abortion laws. I'm still not following your argument. Is it that, according to you, "millions of people who want abortions" will not be able to get them because some states that are full of people (also millions, ostensibly) who want more restrictive abortion laws are now able to enact them? Because if that's your argument it sort of gives away the game about the robustness of the Roe/Casey decision(s) in the first place.

refurb 5y ago

Interesting opinion, but totally irrelevant to the point at hand. Many people said “gay marriage won’t stop there” and that argument is irrelevant too. We don’t stop making good decisions because it might lead to bad decisions later. Edit: And the fun part about this leak? If the Court comes out differently, people will wonder if it was pressured. If anything this leak just will just HARDEN the opinion. The person who leaked probably caused the exact opposite response they wanted.