6 ms·

Abortion hasn't been (and won't be) made illegal. It's been "delegated^" back to the states where the decision belongs. There are always going to be liberal sta

by usrn 4y ago

Abortion hasn't been (and won't be) made illegal. It's been "delegated^" back to the states where the decision belongs. There are always going to be liberal states where it's legal. The structure of the US as independent states coordinated by the federal government means people can hold mutually exclusive ideas about law and morality without having to live in separate nations. ^The states really delegate a small number of powers to the federal government, things like murder and abortion aren't among those. This is really the way it was supposed to be and Roe vs Wade was a mistake that undermined the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. So delegation is really the wrong word for this but a surprising number of people here seem to have almost no understanding of American civics. EDIT, I'm out of quota, here's my reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31304544 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31304544 : > How do you know it won't be made illegal? This ruling says the federal government has no say in abortion rights. That prevents the federal government from legislating on it. It actually protects your rights from populist right wing mobs on the other side of the continent. > Why do you assert that it was never under the mandate of the federal government? Obviously it's a contended issue. All of the powers the federal government has are delegated to it in the Constitution. Show me where this one is. >- why do you assert anyone who disagree with you is ignorant? Perhaps they listen to the very loud lobby of anti abortion goals, and view this milestone as part of a trend and extrapolate? Regardless of how they got confused it's not an accurate view of how American government works and thinking that way is harmful to both sides EDIT 2, my reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31304674 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31304674: >Here are 13 states that have "trigger laws" Right, the population there wants it banned, the population in California does not. Now both groups get what they want. It won't be banned in California and, in fact, this ruling makes it harder for republicans to ban it in states like California. This protects your rights if you live in a liberal state.

ilrwbwrkhv 4y ago
Two dozen states and territories would ban it immediately, and 13 have “trigger laws” waiting for the ruling.
- usrn 4y ago
  It's still not nationally banned. You won't have to leave the country to get an abortion and if you care strongly about it you can get involved in state level politics or move. Having discussions about it at the federal level just wasted everyone's time since it's too complex to find consensus on and allowed the politicians to get away with other things because of Arrow's Theorem. EDIT: I'm out of quota, here's my reply: I don't care if it's free'd up legislative time. Because of this precedent the federal legislatures can legislate all they want but it won't be meaningful. What I do care about is that it means people can hold federal politicians more accountable for other things since they don't have to care about their stance on abortion one way or the other since nothing can be changed from the federal level.
  - fnord77 4y ago
    if the Rs take the house/senate in the midterms, a national ban is on the table https://thehill.com/news/senate/3480725-mcconnell-says-national-abortion-ban-possible/ https://thehill.com/news/senate/3480725-mcconnell-says-natio...
  - evan_ 4y ago
    Mitch McConnell is doing press hits saying the republicans are going to enact a federal law against abortion when they retake Congress. Hard to imagine this Supreme Court having a problem with that, given what we’ve all read in the leaked opinion. It sure doesn’t seem like opponents of abortion have any issues talking about it at the federal level.
    - usrn 4y ago
      That would be overreach and hopefully the Supreme Court would strike it down. The precedent from this ruling actually protects you from that sort of thing, without it the Republicans would be more capable of pushing the states to do whatever they want. I'm totally shocked at the degree to which people are upset by this since it helps both sides. The only explanation I have is that no one really understands what's going on and they're just "fighting for their tribe." EDIT: I'm out of quota, here's my reply: This isn't politicization, they're literally interpreting the constitution. Anything other than this would be politicization that would allow populist mobs to run over the states. They're not banning anything, they're giving the power back to you where it belongs.
mola 4y ago
- How do you know it won't be made illegal? - Why do you assert that it was never under the mandate of the federal government? Obviously it's a contended issue. - why do you assert anyone who disagree with you is ignorant? Perhaps they listen to the very loud lobby of anti abortion goals, and view this milestone as part of a trend and extrapolate?
cronix 4y ago
> Abortion hasn't been (and won't be) made illegal. Here are 13 states that have "trigger laws" that get enacted the instant upon Roe being overruled. > Idaho’s trigger law, for example, would make performing an abortion a felony 30 days after the “issuance of the judgment in any decision of the United States supreme court that restores to the states their authority to prohibit abortion.” The law states that the offense would be punishable by a prison sentence of 2 to 5 years in prison. https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/map-trigger-law-states-ban-abortion-only-roe-overturned-rcna27119 https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/map-trigger-law-states...
kevin_b_er 4y ago
Here's an open declaration that it would be if they get the chance: https://www.businessinsider.com/mitch-mcconnell-national-abortion-ban-possible-roe-v-wade-overturned-2022-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/mitch-mcconnell-national-abo... Your view that the Republicans will follow the constitution is flawed. They follow power. > Right, the population there wants it banned, the population in California does not. This is an incorrect statement. Gerrymandering ensures those populations do not get what they want. They do not have real representation.
- usrn 4y ago
  Sure the legislator can decide to do that, it doesn't matter though. The court would be taking two directly incompatible rulings in sequence. No one would tolerate that and it would completely undermine their legitimacy. This ruling protects you from what the Republicans are trying to do, without it they could actually ban abortion nationally.
UnpossibleJim 4y ago
Here's the problem, Roe v. Wade isn't just about abortion. Birth control legality, gay sex being legal and gay marriage being legal all henge on decisions based on Roe v. Wade. In one fell swoop, the religious right has thrown their religious ideology into the face of a nation that some 80% (I'm not sure of the exact number) of a population doesn't want enforced on the whole of the rest of the population, whether they agree with it or not. We're sliding back towards some back water theocracy that bans books and spies on our population. https://www.npr.org/2022/05/05/1096732347/roe-v-wade-implications-beyond-abortion https://www.npr.org/2022/05/05/1096732347/roe-v-wade-implica...
- hedora 4y ago
  The leaked opinion also makes it clear that Congress can now regulate abortion if it wants to. They're rolling back a raft of rights that we, as a society, decided follow from the constitution fifty years ago. A large majority of the population supports having those rights, but the justices were mostly appointed by minority elected presidents. Given demographic trends, the senate will represent a narrowing minority of the population over time. The supreme court has also rolled back many voters rights and election integrity rules in the last few years. Given that, it's likely we won't have a Democrat controlled senate for the forseeable future. If the Republicans control the house and presidency for a hot second, they'll be able to pass a national abortion (and gay rights, civil rights, and probably privacy) ban, and that will be the end of the US as a Democratic nation. Because of the elctoral college math and existing court corruption, they'll be able to do this with under 40% of the vote.
  - UnpossibleJim 4y ago
    I hate to be one of those "both party" people (clearly, the Dems are a lesser extreme, even though both have slid towards conservative positions) but both parties have represented less and less of the population and seem to actively stoke political disenfranchisement in the nation, playing towards a fervent party base who don't examine passed policy but only look at talking points. This can be seen in both foreign policy and the filibuster legislation, as well as previous promises of codifying Roe v. Wade. I'd like to say this is a sad "day" but this slide truly started during the Reagan era, quickened during the Gingrich era and Clinton turned the Democrats into the center right party in a lot of their practical policies(foreign policy, military budget, corporate spending, corporate rights). And while the center right policy might actual message well to a lot of America, they try to sell to a fringe left for some reason.

by usrn 4y ago

ilrwbwrkhv 4y ago

Two dozen states and territories would ban it immediately, and 13 have “trigger laws” waiting for the ruling.

usrn 4y ago
It's still not nationally banned. You won't have to leave the country to get an abortion and if you care strongly about it you can get involved in state level politics or move. Having discussions about it at the federal level just wasted everyone's time since it's too complex to find consensus on and allowed the politicians to get away with other things because of Arrow's Theorem. EDIT: I'm out of quota, here's my reply: I don't care if it's free'd up legislative time. Because of this precedent the federal legislatures can legislate all they want but it won't be meaningful. What I do care about is that it means people can hold federal politicians more accountable for other things since they don't have to care about their stance on abortion one way or the other since nothing can be changed from the federal level.
- fnord77 4y ago
  if the Rs take the house/senate in the midterms, a national ban is on the table https://thehill.com/news/senate/3480725-mcconnell-says-national-abortion-ban-possible/ https://thehill.com/news/senate/3480725-mcconnell-says-natio...
- evan_ 4y ago
  Mitch McConnell is doing press hits saying the republicans are going to enact a federal law against abortion when they retake Congress. Hard to imagine this Supreme Court having a problem with that, given what we’ve all read in the leaked opinion. It sure doesn’t seem like opponents of abortion have any issues talking about it at the federal level.
  - usrn 4y ago
    That would be overreach and hopefully the Supreme Court would strike it down. The precedent from this ruling actually protects you from that sort of thing, without it the Republicans would be more capable of pushing the states to do whatever they want. I'm totally shocked at the degree to which people are upset by this since it helps both sides. The only explanation I have is that no one really understands what's going on and they're just "fighting for their tribe." EDIT: I'm out of quota, here's my reply: This isn't politicization, they're literally interpreting the constitution. Anything other than this would be politicization that would allow populist mobs to run over the states. They're not banning anything, they're giving the power back to you where it belongs.

mola 4y ago

- How do you know it won't be made illegal? - Why do you assert that it was never under the mandate of the federal government? Obviously it's a contended issue. - why do you assert anyone who disagree with you is ignorant? Perhaps they listen to the very loud lobby of anti abortion goals, and view this milestone as part of a trend and extrapolate?

cronix 4y ago

> Abortion hasn't been (and won't be) made illegal. Here are 13 states that have "trigger laws" that get enacted the instant upon Roe being overruled. > Idaho’s trigger law, for example, would make performing an abortion a felony 30 days after the “issuance of the judgment in any decision of the United States supreme court that restores to the states their authority to prohibit abortion.” The law states that the offense would be punishable by a prison sentence of 2 to 5 years in prison. https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/map-trigger-law-states-ban-abortion-only-roe-overturned-rcna27119 https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/map-trigger-law-states...

kevin_b_er 4y ago

Here's an open declaration that it would be if they get the chance: https://www.businessinsider.com/mitch-mcconnell-national-abortion-ban-possible-roe-v-wade-overturned-2022-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/mitch-mcconnell-national-abo... Your view that the Republicans will follow the constitution is flawed. They follow power. > Right, the population there wants it banned, the population in California does not. This is an incorrect statement. Gerrymandering ensures those populations do not get what they want. They do not have real representation.

usrn 4y ago
Sure the legislator can decide to do that, it doesn't matter though. The court would be taking two directly incompatible rulings in sequence. No one would tolerate that and it would completely undermine their legitimacy. This ruling protects you from what the Republicans are trying to do, without it they could actually ban abortion nationally.

UnpossibleJim 4y ago

Here's the problem, Roe v. Wade isn't just about abortion. Birth control legality, gay sex being legal and gay marriage being legal all henge on decisions based on Roe v. Wade. In one fell swoop, the religious right has thrown their religious ideology into the face of a nation that some 80% (I'm not sure of the exact number) of a population doesn't want enforced on the whole of the rest of the population, whether they agree with it or not. We're sliding back towards some back water theocracy that bans books and spies on our population. https://www.npr.org/2022/05/05/1096732347/roe-v-wade-implications-beyond-abortion https://www.npr.org/2022/05/05/1096732347/roe-v-wade-implica...

hedora 4y ago
The leaked opinion also makes it clear that Congress can now regulate abortion if it wants to. They're rolling back a raft of rights that we, as a society, decided follow from the constitution fifty years ago. A large majority of the population supports having those rights, but the justices were mostly appointed by minority elected presidents. Given demographic trends, the senate will represent a narrowing minority of the population over time. The supreme court has also rolled back many voters rights and election integrity rules in the last few years. Given that, it's likely we won't have a Democrat controlled senate for the forseeable future. If the Republicans control the house and presidency for a hot second, they'll be able to pass a national abortion (and gay rights, civil rights, and probably privacy) ban, and that will be the end of the US as a Democratic nation. Because of the elctoral college math and existing court corruption, they'll be able to do this with under 40% of the vote.
- UnpossibleJim 4y ago
  I hate to be one of those "both party" people (clearly, the Dems are a lesser extreme, even though both have slid towards conservative positions) but both parties have represented less and less of the population and seem to actively stoke political disenfranchisement in the nation, playing towards a fervent party base who don't examine passed policy but only look at talking points. This can be seen in both foreign policy and the filibuster legislation, as well as previous promises of codifying Roe v. Wade. I'd like to say this is a sad "day" but this slide truly started during the Reagan era, quickened during the Gingrich era and Clinton turned the Democrats into the center right party in a lot of their practical policies(foreign policy, military budget, corporate spending, corporate rights). And while the center right policy might actual message well to a lot of America, they try to sell to a fringe left for some reason.