11 ms·
US Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade [pdf]
- Xeoncross 4y agoSide note, I never thought I would see the federal government give authority back to the states. It's almost mind-blowing considering I've spent my whole life observing the push to federalize everything: Healthcare, College, UBI, Transportation, Wages, Firearms, Infrastructure, etc...
- shakethemonkey 4y agoThis is less giving authority to the States and much more taking away from the People.
- tcmart14 4y agoPretty much. Roe V Wade took authority from the state and gave it to the individual. Repealing Roe V Wade potentially takes the choice away from the individual and gives it to the state.
- Xeoncross 4y agoIt's interesting how conflated the federal government is with 'the people' while the state is assumed to be adversarial to the people. This is what I was hinting at. The marketed solution to Americans is that local government is always bad and we need a single government entity to rule universally.
- rat87 4y agoBecause that is the common case in our nations history especially with civil rights, leaving it up to the states lets bad state governments infringe on their citizens rights
- tjnaylor 4y agoThe issue is Roe V Wade gave the federal government a negative power, not a positive one. The Fed government did not have the power to force or prevent people from getting abortions. The Fed government had the power to prevenet States from claiming the power rather than individuals regarding their choice to abortion. By removing the federal governments negative power, the states have de facto been given a positive one to decide whether people receive abortions, rather than people deciding themselves if they will get abortions. But the power to ban abortions has not been moved from the Federal government to States, because the Federal government never had that power to begin with. Rather the power to decide to have an abortion has been moved from the individual to the state.
- dane-pgp 4y ago
- shakethemonkey 4y agoThis argument would be more convincing if the rest of the law treated the unborn as people, but largely it does not. You can't even deduct an unborn child as a dependent on your taxes.
- croes 4y agoAt the stage where abortion is allowed it's hardly a child.
- throwoutway 4y agoIt’s alive though
- croes 4y agoEvery cell is alive so eating plants and animals is murder?
- nabla9 4y agoIncorrect. Roe & Wade is based on the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and recognizes a right to privacy from the government. This takes rights from people and gives it to individual States.
- islanderfun 4y agoThinking out loud what I've thought for awhile. The Supreme Court is an unelected political entity. Can this be fixed?
- pyronik19 4y agoThat's what it was when they came down with Roe originally, they are just returning to NOT being a legislative body and returning this decision to where it belongs.... the legislature.
- hackyhacky 4y agoLike it or not, ever since SCOTUS seized the unconstitutional power to overturn legislation, they have been a political entity, effectively legislating. The difference with recent rulings is that they've abandoned any pretense of political independence or legitimacy.
- pyronik19 4y agoIf that is your position, you think that when the came down with Roe V Wade that WAS political independence and legitimacy and when overturn it its not? You can't have your cake and eat it too. It's not "illegitimate" when they don't "legislate" the way YOU want. To be clear I am very moderate on abortion, I believe in the first trimester. But this is a states right issue and is a made up constitutional right.
- hackyhacky 4y agoAcknowledging that SCOTUS has always been political is not controversial. But until recently, they "legislated" in a fair way, in order to maintain the appearance of neutrality. I am specifically objecting that change away from the appearance of neutrality, starting circa 2000 in Bush v Gore.
- pyronik19 4y ago
- decremental 4y ago
- jmyeet 4y agoWelcome to Gilead.
- YPPH 4y agoDoes anyone know of a diff to the leaked draft?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- nabla9 4y agoRoe & Wade is based on the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Roe vs Wade did not happen in vacuum, it's part of a larger understanding of the Constitution that recognizes a right to privacy and recognizes that there are unwritten rights[1]. This decision overturns this whole 50-year old framework. Decisions based on 14th Amendment’s Due Process clause are now open for banning contraception, banning interracial relationships, family relationships, right to intimacy (sodomy laws), the right to personal control of medical treatment. It will even have data collection limit consequences. Some states are even more radical than current SCOTUS. They have sodomy laws considered invalid that can be activated. How Dismantling Roe Puts Interracial Marriage at Risk https://www.aclu.org/podcast/how-dismantling-roe-puts-interracial-marriage-at-risk https://www.aclu.org/podcast/how-dismantling-roe-puts-interr... --- [1]: The idea of unenumerated rights is clear and sound. The Ninth Amendment suggests that the rights enumerated in the Constitution do not exhaust “others retained by the people.”
- pyronik19 4y ago"recognizes that there are unwritten rights." Basically...legislating from the Bench. This has no place in constitutional jurisprudence.
- maratc 4y agoThat's Common Law 101 for you: rights are not "given", they are "discovered". Pretty much as Newton's laws existed before Newton, the "rights" exist regardless of the laws (so is the philosophy underlying Common Law). The legislature can "discover" these laws, or — failing that — a judge can.
- pyronik19 4y agoWell, those of us who believe in a textualist definition of the constitution believe the process for adding constitutional rights is a constitutional amendment and we control the court.
- 4y ago
- sillysaurusx 4y agoApparently it’s now illegal to get an abortion in Missouri, my state. I’ve thought a lot about this, and it does make sense for it to be up to each individual state. I don’t like it, but it’s in line with the principles that the country was founded on. It’s strange suddenly waking up one day and not being able to do a thing that you used to have an option to do.
- dane-pgp 4y ago> the principles that the country was founded on. It might be better for the country if those principles were applied to other questions, like "How should a militia be regulated?" and "Which plants can adults consume?". Unfortunately the loudest proponents of states' rights don't seem to think the principles should go quite that far.
- vkou 4y agoStates rights is the key world in this. They don't believe in the rights of the people, they believe in the rights of the states to do what they see fit to their people.
- car_analogy 4y agoBecause unlike democratically decided federal laws, state laws are unilaterally enacted by unelected dictators?
- vkou 4y agoI mean, their core argument is what you said, but the reverse. It is, of course, bullshit. And, of course, the rights that they always take issue with are when the federal government is permissive with them. Apparently, in some strange backwards logic, the federal government granting you a right is tyrrany, but the state taking it away from you is not.
- morelisp 4y agoStates have proven considerably easier to gerrymander, so, yes by degrees.
- orzig 4y agoDang will probably say this better, but: >> Remember HN's rules of etiquette << If you want to engage using different norms, there are many different places on the internet to do that.
- the_only_law 4y agoThe irony is that HN guidelines are often interpreted as loosely as constitutional amendments.
- guiriduro 4y agoTime for every equality-minded US corporation to move as much capital as it can to Canada / Canadian assets / banks. Moving HQs, even better. Politicians will notice if hundreds of billions evaporate.
- clifdweller 4y agoIf the assumption is made that abortion supporting companies were already donating to the left that would have opposite effect by empowering the right. To be effective would need to change positions/donations of right donating businesses
- mgh2 4y ago
- ChrisArchitect 4y ago[dupe] Plenty of discussion over here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31862258 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31862258
- jtthe13 4y agoDon't forget to register and vote at the next elections. That's all there is to it https://www.vote.org/ https://www.vote.org/
- mancerayder 4y agoI think there's a little bit more to it than that. The Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, based on appointments by people previously voted into office.
- jtthe13 4y agoThanks for enlightening me. /s I never said change would come fast. But if the basic act of voting at every election appears like such a burden for many progressives, there's no point in lamenting at the outcome.
- mancerayder 4y agoThere's the quite silly assumption that the non-voters are somehow magically Progressive. And that being Progressive is even a pre-requisite for voting for abortion rights. Moreover that voting is a solution to anything. As an independent, I find both parties particularly despicable. And it doesn't matter what I vote for, since with the Electoral system my vote doesn't count, and due the closed primary system and dominance of one party statistically, my vote doesn't count for local elections. Our ballot only has one party on it ranging from mayoral to city council to judge and DA elections. Blaming non-voters for all the bad decisions of government is a scapegoat.
- jtthe13 4y ago
- asah 4y agoDecades is a bit beyond the timeframe that inspires most people to vote...
- croes 4y agoSo gun carrying gets easier and abortion harder. The USA are regressing
- elforce002 4y agoI'm not American but abortions are not a constitutional right and the right to bear arms is. You can't conflate both things .
- croes 4y agoGuns are bases on the 2nd amendment. Abortions on the 14th amendment.
- elforce002 4y agoAbortions were introduced through a court precedent (which was vague based on what I read) and now it is overturned with a 200+ pages document explaining why they came to that conclusion. Now it's up to the states (people) to decide.
- croes 4y agoAbortions where derived from the right of peoples privacy. With same logic the right to bear arms doesn't mean all kind of arms. And the people are precisely those who are now no longer allowed to decide if they get an abortion. If the current decision that states may decide is not a restriction on privacy rights, then it would not be a restriction on gun rights if the same applied to the bearing of arms.
- rat87 4y agoAbortions are a constitutional right or were before this ruling As for the 2nd amendment many people think it didn't necessarily refer to an individual right
- flashgordon 4y agoNot an American so curious. Isnt this exactly the kind of thing that the president can change with an Executive Order?
- dragonwriter 4y ago> Isnt this exactly the kind of thing that the president can change with an Executive Order? No. Nor is it likely (though many are suggesting it) that Congress can effectively change it by legislation.
- thesquib 4y agoI always thought the US was about freedom of choice but this appears to be against freedoms in general. The people voting for this must love being told what to do?