5 ms·

Apparently 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

Apparently 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 ago
  States 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 ago
    Because unlike democratically decided federal laws, state laws are unilaterally enacted by unelected dictators?
    - vkou 4y ago
      I 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 ago
      States have proven considerably easier to gerrymander, so, yes by degrees.
- HelixEndeavor 4y ago
  "well-regulated militia" meant well-stocked and prepared in the parlance of the era it was written.
  - dane-pgp 4y ago
    I was worried that using the word "regulated" would clash with the term "well-regulated", as I am aware of the interpretation you mention, but I still wanted to bring the second amendment to mind. My point was that the Constitution might (or maybe just should) allow individual states to apply their own regulations to the militia within their jurisdiction, beyond the minimal Constitutional requirement/justification that the militia be readily functional.
    - HelixEndeavor 4y ago
      State supremacy is a thing, but only for matters the Constitution does not speak on. You'd have to pass a new amendment to allow something like that. Not the easiest task, especially in this climate.
- jcranmer 4y ago
  You do remind me that, when people claim that the Civil War was fought over states' rights and not slavery, I like to ask them to name three such states' rights. The more interesting follow up is to name one states' right that wasn't prohibited for states to decide by the Confederate constitution--every answer I can give for the first question was also precluded by the Confederate constitution. The primary motivation for states' rights seems to be not to actually let states decide, but to enact policies at the broadest possible level they can do so.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
vkou 4y ago
Read Thomas's opinion. He wants to overturn tolerance for homosexuality, contraception, and interracial marriage (Whoops, he left that one out, despite it being the fruit of the same tree, I wonder why...) on the same grounds as RvW. Also, Mike Pence is already calling for a national abortion ban. So much for the party of 'states rights'.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- wrycoder 4y ago
  Congress couldn’t get a supermajority to pass a national abortion rights law, and it won’t be able to get one for abortion prohibition, either. There is a compromise somewhere, but it’s a very difficult negotiation.
  - claystu 4y ago
    Congress is limited to what it can legislate with the remainder defaulting back into the jurisdiction of the states as part of the Federalism system of checks and balances. Check out Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution, which enumerates the primary law-making jurisdictions of Congress.
    - wrycoder 4y ago
      If Congress manages to pass a compromise, then SCOTUS can rule on its constitutionality. (But, I agree with you.)
mikeyouse 4y ago
That's not at all what they're doing and I'm sorry you've fallen for the propaganda. They are absolutely planning on banning abortion nationally the next time they're in power, they already have the bills written. https://twitter.com/MZanona/status/1540363376584495104 https://twitter.com/MZanona/status/1540363376584495104 They also plan on making it illegal to travel to states where abortion will be legal for the purposes of receiving one.
- mancerayder 4y ago
  I think it's almost impossible to succeed banning it nationally. First of all as a wedge issue there's a certain percentage of independent voters who wouldn't allow that to happen. Second there are Republicans who support abortion and make that a public stand.
  - clifdweller 4y ago
    It is possible they could without a direct vote. FDA just banned juul for not having adequate studies on effects of their products and how they market them. No vote, not much public discourse. Looking at that in another way they banned a drug/substance that damages cells in your body. Abortions drugs/procedures damage cells in your body. I'm sure if if someone really wanted to at fda they could start requesting abortions federally stopped until they can prove some unprovable concept.
    - mancerayder 4y ago
      Anything is possible, but I think it's a stretch that they'd use a Federal agency in that way. That would be a big uproar that would guarantee reversal in the next cycle's elections, anyway. Moreover the Republicans complain about the Federal agencies having too much power.
      - mikeyouse 4y ago
        Do you not understand that the "Federal agencies having too much power" is a superficial complaint they use when things work against them, but are happy to flip when it's in their favor? One easy example, the Trump EPA attempted to ban states from setting their own fuel economy standards via an administrative ruling: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/trump-administration-announces-one-national-program-rule-federal-preemption-state-fuel https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/trump-administration-announ.... It also went further banning other states from adopting California's standards for vehicles by unilaterally deciding that emissions rules can't apply to greenhouse gases that are emitted from cars....
sumy23 4y ago
> I’ve thought a lot about this, and it does make sense for it to be up to each individual state. Many believe, myself included, that women should have the right to control their own bodies, and access to abortions is part of that right. You don't leave rights up to the states. Rights are supposed to be guaranteed at all levels of government.
- rich_sasha 4y ago
  I'd welcome a debate on rights of mothers vs. rights of unborn humans. I feel like both sides take their argument for granted, or preach to the converted. I can see how, if you are absolutely convinced that the unborn human is a human just the same as anyone walking on the street, you'd mirror the argument you made and say, you don't leave it up to the states to protect the lives of the unborn humans, and ban abortions. I'm not taking a side here btw. I feel like the pro-life vs. pro-choice argument is low on arguments targeting the opposite side, only more and more rallying its own supporters.
  - sumy23 4y ago
    I don't see why you'd debate that. You could debate what the rights of the mother vs. the rights of the unborn baby are until you're blue in the face and you'd be unlikely to convince the other side that they're wrong. What matters is that a large group of people think the abortion is an acceptable procedure and those that disagree aren't directly impacted by the decision. That alone should be enough to enshrine it as a right. We're a free country after all, which generally means people can do as they please so long as it doesn't negatively impact others.
    - rich_sasha 4y ago
      I disagree, without taking a side in the debate. If someone truly and really believes a fetus is a human then they do have an interest in protecting them. Its like being against slavery. You could say, what's that to anyone, if you're against slavery then dont own slaves but don't stop others. And yet it's reasonable to be against other people enslaving others. Your comment suggests you think abortion is "obviously" ok and perhaps you'd agree that slavery is "obviously wrong and different". Perhaps because enslaved people are "obviously" humans with rights and fetuses are "obviously" not. I don't know of course but it seems like a reasonable guess. But so long as the debate is about what people hold as obvious and naturally correct, all you get is more polarisation.
smt88 4y ago
> it does make sense for it to be up to each individual state The same argument was made about slavery, but a large and powerful subset of the country decided that slavery was not tolerable even in neighboring states. I don't see a reason that forcing a woman to expose her medical records to the government or forcing her to carry a baby (at the risk of her own life) is not on similar moral ground. > I don’t like it, but it’s in line with the principles that the country was founded on. The country was also founded on disenfranchising women and minorities, and it's deeply undemocratic in the way that land votes rather than people. The founders strongly urged the country to allow laws to evolve and to amend the Constitution. That is also a "founding principle".
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  >The same argument was made about slavery, but a large and powerful subset of the country decided that slavery was not tolerable even in neighboring states. And they didn't do it through the Supreme Court, but through an amendment. If abortion is a right then it should be passed as an amendment declaring it as a right.
  - foogazi 4y ago
    > If abortion is a right then it should be passed as an amendment declaring it as a right. Why isn’t my bodily autonomy my right?
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      It may be a right, but I am saying you should pass an amendment to guarantee the protection of said right. If you don't then the states should decide.
      - foogazi 4y ago
        But why isn’t it already a right? Is there a constitutional amendment that recognizes the right to a vasectomy or appendectomy? Why should anyone but myself have any say in what I do with my body?
xnx 4y ago
Why stop there? Why not leave it up to individual counties, or cities, or people?
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  If the argument is "well, we have to draw a line somewhere," then pray tell, why does it happen to be in conveniently located where it leaves the most people with the least freedom?
- OneLessThing 4y ago
  Well I think there are laws that vary across counties and cities and that’s an interesting idea to apply abortion to. Having different laws for different individual people seems like a really bad idea though.
- GurnBlandston 4y ago
  Well, yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity
maratc 4y ago
> 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. I guess the former slave owners of Missouri could somewhat share your sentiment.
rat87 4y ago
It makes no sense for a state to be able to deny people their rights. Generally in this nations history leaving it up to the states has been a very bad idea

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 ago
States 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 ago
  Because unlike democratically decided federal laws, state laws are unilaterally enacted by unelected dictators?
  - vkou 4y ago
    I 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 ago
    States have proven considerably easier to gerrymander, so, yes by degrees.
HelixEndeavor 4y ago
"well-regulated militia" meant well-stocked and prepared in the parlance of the era it was written.
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  I was worried that using the word "regulated" would clash with the term "well-regulated", as I am aware of the interpretation you mention, but I still wanted to bring the second amendment to mind. My point was that the Constitution might (or maybe just should) allow individual states to apply their own regulations to the militia within their jurisdiction, beyond the minimal Constitutional requirement/justification that the militia be readily functional.
  - HelixEndeavor 4y ago
    State supremacy is a thing, but only for matters the Constitution does not speak on. You'd have to pass a new amendment to allow something like that. Not the easiest task, especially in this climate.
jcranmer 4y ago
You do remind me that, when people claim that the Civil War was fought over states' rights and not slavery, I like to ask them to name three such states' rights. The more interesting follow up is to name one states' right that wasn't prohibited for states to decide by the Confederate constitution--every answer I can give for the first question was also precluded by the Confederate constitution. The primary motivation for states' rights seems to be not to actually let states decide, but to enact policies at the broadest possible level they can do so.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

vkou 4y ago

Read Thomas's opinion. He wants to overturn tolerance for homosexuality, contraception, and interracial marriage (Whoops, he left that one out, despite it being the fruit of the same tree, I wonder why...) on the same grounds as RvW. Also, Mike Pence is already calling for a national abortion ban. So much for the party of 'states rights'.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
wrycoder 4y ago
Congress couldn’t get a supermajority to pass a national abortion rights law, and it won’t be able to get one for abortion prohibition, either. There is a compromise somewhere, but it’s a very difficult negotiation.
- claystu 4y ago
  Congress is limited to what it can legislate with the remainder defaulting back into the jurisdiction of the states as part of the Federalism system of checks and balances. Check out Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution, which enumerates the primary law-making jurisdictions of Congress.
  - wrycoder 4y ago
    If Congress manages to pass a compromise, then SCOTUS can rule on its constitutionality. (But, I agree with you.)

mikeyouse 4y ago

That's not at all what they're doing and I'm sorry you've fallen for the propaganda. They are absolutely planning on banning abortion nationally the next time they're in power, they already have the bills written. https://twitter.com/MZanona/status/1540363376584495104 https://twitter.com/MZanona/status/1540363376584495104 They also plan on making it illegal to travel to states where abortion will be legal for the purposes of receiving one.

mancerayder 4y ago
I think it's almost impossible to succeed banning it nationally. First of all as a wedge issue there's a certain percentage of independent voters who wouldn't allow that to happen. Second there are Republicans who support abortion and make that a public stand.
- clifdweller 4y ago
  It is possible they could without a direct vote. FDA just banned juul for not having adequate studies on effects of their products and how they market them. No vote, not much public discourse. Looking at that in another way they banned a drug/substance that damages cells in your body. Abortions drugs/procedures damage cells in your body. I'm sure if if someone really wanted to at fda they could start requesting abortions federally stopped until they can prove some unprovable concept.
  - mancerayder 4y ago
    Anything is possible, but I think it's a stretch that they'd use a Federal agency in that way. That would be a big uproar that would guarantee reversal in the next cycle's elections, anyway. Moreover the Republicans complain about the Federal agencies having too much power.
    - mikeyouse 4y ago
      Do you not understand that the "Federal agencies having too much power" is a superficial complaint they use when things work against them, but are happy to flip when it's in their favor? One easy example, the Trump EPA attempted to ban states from setting their own fuel economy standards via an administrative ruling: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/trump-administration-announces-one-national-program-rule-federal-preemption-state-fuel https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/trump-administration-announ.... It also went further banning other states from adopting California's standards for vehicles by unilaterally deciding that emissions rules can't apply to greenhouse gases that are emitted from cars....

sumy23 4y ago

> I’ve thought a lot about this, and it does make sense for it to be up to each individual state. Many believe, myself included, that women should have the right to control their own bodies, and access to abortions is part of that right. You don't leave rights up to the states. Rights are supposed to be guaranteed at all levels of government.

rich_sasha 4y ago
I'd welcome a debate on rights of mothers vs. rights of unborn humans. I feel like both sides take their argument for granted, or preach to the converted. I can see how, if you are absolutely convinced that the unborn human is a human just the same as anyone walking on the street, you'd mirror the argument you made and say, you don't leave it up to the states to protect the lives of the unborn humans, and ban abortions. I'm not taking a side here btw. I feel like the pro-life vs. pro-choice argument is low on arguments targeting the opposite side, only more and more rallying its own supporters.
- sumy23 4y ago
  I don't see why you'd debate that. You could debate what the rights of the mother vs. the rights of the unborn baby are until you're blue in the face and you'd be unlikely to convince the other side that they're wrong. What matters is that a large group of people think the abortion is an acceptable procedure and those that disagree aren't directly impacted by the decision. That alone should be enough to enshrine it as a right. We're a free country after all, which generally means people can do as they please so long as it doesn't negatively impact others.
  - rich_sasha 4y ago
    I disagree, without taking a side in the debate. If someone truly and really believes a fetus is a human then they do have an interest in protecting them. Its like being against slavery. You could say, what's that to anyone, if you're against slavery then dont own slaves but don't stop others. And yet it's reasonable to be against other people enslaving others. Your comment suggests you think abortion is "obviously" ok and perhaps you'd agree that slavery is "obviously wrong and different". Perhaps because enslaved people are "obviously" humans with rights and fetuses are "obviously" not. I don't know of course but it seems like a reasonable guess. But so long as the debate is about what people hold as obvious and naturally correct, all you get is more polarisation.

smt88 4y ago

> it does make sense for it to be up to each individual state The same argument was made about slavery, but a large and powerful subset of the country decided that slavery was not tolerable even in neighboring states. I don't see a reason that forcing a woman to expose her medical records to the government or forcing her to carry a baby (at the risk of her own life) is not on similar moral ground. > I don’t like it, but it’s in line with the principles that the country was founded on. The country was also founded on disenfranchising women and minorities, and it's deeply undemocratic in the way that land votes rather than people. The founders strongly urged the country to allow laws to evolve and to amend the Constitution. That is also a "founding principle".

_-david-_ 4y ago
>The same argument was made about slavery, but a large and powerful subset of the country decided that slavery was not tolerable even in neighboring states. And they didn't do it through the Supreme Court, but through an amendment. If abortion is a right then it should be passed as an amendment declaring it as a right.
- foogazi 4y ago
  > If abortion is a right then it should be passed as an amendment declaring it as a right. Why isn’t my bodily autonomy my right?
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    It may be a right, but I am saying you should pass an amendment to guarantee the protection of said right. If you don't then the states should decide.
    - foogazi 4y ago
      But why isn’t it already a right? Is there a constitutional amendment that recognizes the right to a vasectomy or appendectomy? Why should anyone but myself have any say in what I do with my body?

xnx 4y ago

Why stop there? Why not leave it up to individual counties, or cities, or people?

kelseyfrog 4y ago
If the argument is "well, we have to draw a line somewhere," then pray tell, why does it happen to be in conveniently located where it leaves the most people with the least freedom?
OneLessThing 4y ago
Well I think there are laws that vary across counties and cities and that’s an interesting idea to apply abortion to. Having different laws for different individual people seems like a really bad idea though.
GurnBlandston 4y ago
Well, yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity

maratc 4y ago

> 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. I guess the former slave owners of Missouri could somewhat share your sentiment.

rat87 4y ago

It makes no sense for a state to be able to deny people their rights. Generally in this nations history leaving it up to the states has been a very bad idea