3 ms·

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 p

by 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.
  - mschuster91 4y ago
    > That would be overreach and hopefully the Supreme Court would strike it down. With the way that the Supreme Court not just got politicized, but effectively taken over over the last six years, it is IMO foolish to the extreme to rely on the SC defending anything in the future.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - gonehome 4y ago
    My understanding is the underlying argument is ultimately about fetal personhood and a national ban would be about protecting constitutional rights of the unborn (and having disputes about that rise to the level of SCOTUS for a ruling). That’s the bit I think you’re missing and why it may not just be about reserved rights for the states or about congressional legislation. I believe this is also the stated goal of some of these orgs and it’s a moral belief they hold.
    - usrn 4y ago
      I'm part way through it and while it mentions recognition of fetal personhood in the past it only seems to use that to establish that there's no precedent for this idea of a right to abortion.
      - gonehome 4y ago
        For clarity I’m not talking about the text of this opinion, but the larger argument that’s happening outside of it. I think you’re probably accurate about this decision and its consequences in the short term, but I thought you were missing why this could have a bigger effect in the long term.
        gonehome 4y ago
        Outside of the edit window, but this has some of the context I’m talking about: https://apple.news/AUTfqLmWMSnC7Rz1M7QpH-Q https://apple.news/AUTfqLmWMSnC7Rz1M7QpH-Q
mschuster91 4y ago
Not yet, that is the point. The first GOP people are openly thinking about nationwide abortion bans [1], banning condoms [2] or questioning if couples should be allowed to use birth control [3]. The problem is, a lot of freedoms the US people take for granted are not backed by a constitutional amendment but by court decisions or executive orders and so they can be revoked pretty easily. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/mitch-mcconnell-national-abortion-ban-possible-roe-v-wade-overturned-2022-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/mitch-mcconnell-national-abo... [2] https://www.rawstory.com/blake-masters-2657279833/ https://www.rawstory.com/blake-masters-2657279833/ [3] https://www.newsweek.com/blackburn-says-scotus-ruling-protect-birth-control-couples-unsound-1690259 https://www.newsweek.com/blackburn-says-scotus-ruling-protec...
- usrn 4y ago
  See my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31304444 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31304444 This ruling actually prevents that.
  - monocasa 4y ago
    The ruling specifically allows for a federal level ban.
meroes 4y ago
If you think this stopped discussions about abortion or freed up legislative time I seriously question your sincerity. Now we get 50 states making their own laws and congress is now voting on it and probably will be a topic for congress more now. And you are saying with a straight face, hey now we can work on more important issues with all our free time! Actually amazing. You don’t get paid to debug right?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by usrn 4y ago

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.
- mschuster91 4y ago
  > That would be overreach and hopefully the Supreme Court would strike it down. With the way that the Supreme Court not just got politicized, but effectively taken over over the last six years, it is IMO foolish to the extreme to rely on the SC defending anything in the future.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- gonehome 4y ago
  My understanding is the underlying argument is ultimately about fetal personhood and a national ban would be about protecting constitutional rights of the unborn (and having disputes about that rise to the level of SCOTUS for a ruling). That’s the bit I think you’re missing and why it may not just be about reserved rights for the states or about congressional legislation. I believe this is also the stated goal of some of these orgs and it’s a moral belief they hold.
  - usrn 4y ago
    I'm part way through it and while it mentions recognition of fetal personhood in the past it only seems to use that to establish that there's no precedent for this idea of a right to abortion.
    - gonehome 4y ago
      For clarity I’m not talking about the text of this opinion, but the larger argument that’s happening outside of it. I think you’re probably accurate about this decision and its consequences in the short term, but I thought you were missing why this could have a bigger effect in the long term.
      - gonehome 4y ago
        Outside of the edit window, but this has some of the context I’m talking about: https://apple.news/AUTfqLmWMSnC7Rz1M7QpH-Q https://apple.news/AUTfqLmWMSnC7Rz1M7QpH-Q

mschuster91 4y ago

Not yet, that is the point. The first GOP people are openly thinking about nationwide abortion bans [1], banning condoms [2] or questioning if couples should be allowed to use birth control [3]. The problem is, a lot of freedoms the US people take for granted are not backed by a constitutional amendment but by court decisions or executive orders and so they can be revoked pretty easily. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/mitch-mcconnell-national-abortion-ban-possible-roe-v-wade-overturned-2022-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/mitch-mcconnell-national-abo... [2] https://www.rawstory.com/blake-masters-2657279833/ https://www.rawstory.com/blake-masters-2657279833/ [3] https://www.newsweek.com/blackburn-says-scotus-ruling-protect-birth-control-couples-unsound-1690259 https://www.newsweek.com/blackburn-says-scotus-ruling-protec...

usrn 4y ago
See my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31304444 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31304444 This ruling actually prevents that.
- monocasa 4y ago
  The ruling specifically allows for a federal level ban.

meroes 4y ago

If you think this stopped discussions about abortion or freed up legislative time I seriously question your sincerity. Now we get 50 states making their own laws and congress is now voting on it and probably will be a topic for congress more now. And you are saying with a straight face, hey now we can work on more important issues with all our free time! Actually amazing. You don’t get paid to debug right?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]