4 ms·

Cute take but I'm going to ask the question: why did something that was in place for 50 years needs to be revisited? Is it maybe needed for the nutjobs that do

Cute take but I'm going to ask the question: why did something that was in place for 50 years needs to be revisited? Is it maybe needed for the nutjobs that do want to ban abortion to do their thing? Also, you need to ask yourself: is this about abortion? Or is it really about literally keeping the people poor, stupid and uneducated? Think about it: if you're not poor this is not an issue. If you have 5 kids instead of 1, good luck getting them the proper education. But it's cool...we can use all that almost free labor to drive our corporate empires forward.

wilsonnb3 4y ago
> why did something that was in place for 50 years needs to be revisited? Because it was poorly reasoned judicial activism and always has been. The amount of time that a decision stands should have no bearing on how good of a decision it is. One of the dissents in Casey v Planned Parenthood in 92 also wanted to overturn Roe, for the same reasons that the current court did. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg thought that Roe v Wade was poorly reasoned.
- notch656a 4y ago
  But what is baffling is why they picked Roe V Wade to overturn rather than cut it at the root, such as Wickard v Filburn which would have undone a massive swath of the kind of unconstitutional expansion of the federal government. They could have applied their logic uniformly but bizarrely singled out an abortion case.
  - bushbaba 4y ago
    Because it was roe v wade in question. Not the other case. I don’t believe the Supreme Court can issue judgment on any law they choose. It has to be relating to the court case in question
    - notch656a 4y ago
      They get to pick which case they take cert on. There is absolutely gonna be _something_ out there that would allow them to work at the root of Wickard v Filburn. Framing it as "they have to work with this one case they got" is disingenuous. They intentionally chose to go for the contradictory choice of singling out abortion while not attacking the root -- which suggests to me think this is more about judicial activism than upholding the constitution.
      - jonathanwallace 4y ago
        Disingenuous and/or incredibly naive as to how politics have been impacting cases coming before the courts.
  - throwaway17_17 4y ago
    If you want the cynical lawyer’s answer, it is simple. Wickard, as a ruling, allows the government more power and the ability to better project that power via the courts and legislature. Roe is a side-show for the government. The ability for someone to have a pregnancy terminated does nothing systemic to enhance the government’s ability to project power in a way which enhances the government. Which is why the parties will fight over abortion rights, but would never dream of trying to squash the government’s ability to regulate what a person does with material goods a la Wickard.
coryfklein 4y ago
> why did something that was in place for 50 years needs to be revisited? Ruth Bader Ginsburg made it her career to overturn precedents around women's rights that had been around far longer than 50 years.
hatware 4y ago
> why did something that was in place for 50 years needs to be revisited? Please answer the same question, but for slavery.
- mirceal 4y ago
  Do I need to remind you we had this thing called the Civil War over slavery? Setting aside political posturing: Who cannot get an abortion today? Even in deep red states, if you're wealthy the same rules do not apply to you.
  - hatware 4y ago
    > Do I need to remind you we had this thing called the Civil War over slavery? Are you saying we're going to have a second civil war over abortion? I'm not sure what the civil war has to do with applying logic consistently to see how it is fallacious.
    - mirceal 4y ago
      The Civil War was needed to overturn slavery. Do you imagine people on the wrong side of history just going: "whoops i guess it's wrong. We're gonna stop doing it"? The more I see, the more I believe a civil war is not off the table. In fact it's becoming more and more likely each day. We have 2 camps today and people are more and more divided. There used to be a time when you could... talk about the issue and use logic and arguments around facts. Not anymore. Abortion will not lead to a civil war - not on its own - but it does add extra pressure to a pressure cooker that's about to blow up.
      - vinyl7 4y ago
        Its only going to blow up because of the extreme emotional stress forced on people through the news and social media. Its a non-stop rage machine. Its not the policies that will set off a civil war, but the people who make money off causing people to become so emotionally involved in things that have no effect on them.
dang 4y ago
I'm afraid your comments in this thread have been breaking the site guidelines. Can you please make your substantive points thoughtfully? That means without fulminating and without calling names. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
lanstin 4y ago
The law in New York City was from 1905. The current court doesn’t seem to value stability so much as their own agenda for how things ought to be. Personally I think the root cause is an alliance between people with hateful beliefs and people that want the government not to tax or regulate large companies and rich families. Fine, slut shame people because they had sex and got pregnant (no matter the circumstances) and let us keep sponsoring fake research that carbon burn is good. Be openly racist again and lower those taxes even at the cost of not educating the young. Just my theory tho. Hard to know.
- mirceal 4y ago
  It is a good guess. This is not about right or wrong. This is about the rest of us being force the religious views of a minority by people who figure out it's a great way to divide and control us this way.

wilsonnb3 4y ago

> why did something that was in place for 50 years needs to be revisited? Because it was poorly reasoned judicial activism and always has been. The amount of time that a decision stands should have no bearing on how good of a decision it is. One of the dissents in Casey v Planned Parenthood in 92 also wanted to overturn Roe, for the same reasons that the current court did. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg thought that Roe v Wade was poorly reasoned.

notch656a 4y ago
But what is baffling is why they picked Roe V Wade to overturn rather than cut it at the root, such as Wickard v Filburn which would have undone a massive swath of the kind of unconstitutional expansion of the federal government. They could have applied their logic uniformly but bizarrely singled out an abortion case.
- bushbaba 4y ago
  Because it was roe v wade in question. Not the other case. I don’t believe the Supreme Court can issue judgment on any law they choose. It has to be relating to the court case in question
  - notch656a 4y ago
    They get to pick which case they take cert on. There is absolutely gonna be _something_ out there that would allow them to work at the root of Wickard v Filburn. Framing it as "they have to work with this one case they got" is disingenuous. They intentionally chose to go for the contradictory choice of singling out abortion while not attacking the root -- which suggests to me think this is more about judicial activism than upholding the constitution.
    - jonathanwallace 4y ago
      Disingenuous and/or incredibly naive as to how politics have been impacting cases coming before the courts.
- throwaway17_17 4y ago
  If you want the cynical lawyer’s answer, it is simple. Wickard, as a ruling, allows the government more power and the ability to better project that power via the courts and legislature. Roe is a side-show for the government. The ability for someone to have a pregnancy terminated does nothing systemic to enhance the government’s ability to project power in a way which enhances the government. Which is why the parties will fight over abortion rights, but would never dream of trying to squash the government’s ability to regulate what a person does with material goods a la Wickard.

coryfklein 4y ago

> why did something that was in place for 50 years needs to be revisited? Ruth Bader Ginsburg made it her career to overturn precedents around women's rights that had been around far longer than 50 years.

hatware 4y ago

> why did something that was in place for 50 years needs to be revisited? Please answer the same question, but for slavery.

mirceal 4y ago
Do I need to remind you we had this thing called the Civil War over slavery? Setting aside political posturing: Who cannot get an abortion today? Even in deep red states, if you're wealthy the same rules do not apply to you.
- hatware 4y ago
  > Do I need to remind you we had this thing called the Civil War over slavery? Are you saying we're going to have a second civil war over abortion? I'm not sure what the civil war has to do with applying logic consistently to see how it is fallacious.
  - mirceal 4y ago
    The Civil War was needed to overturn slavery. Do you imagine people on the wrong side of history just going: "whoops i guess it's wrong. We're gonna stop doing it"? The more I see, the more I believe a civil war is not off the table. In fact it's becoming more and more likely each day. We have 2 camps today and people are more and more divided. There used to be a time when you could... talk about the issue and use logic and arguments around facts. Not anymore. Abortion will not lead to a civil war - not on its own - but it does add extra pressure to a pressure cooker that's about to blow up.
    - vinyl7 4y ago
      Its only going to blow up because of the extreme emotional stress forced on people through the news and social media. Its a non-stop rage machine. Its not the policies that will set off a civil war, but the people who make money off causing people to become so emotionally involved in things that have no effect on them.

dang 4y ago

I'm afraid your comments in this thread have been breaking the site guidelines. Can you please make your substantive points thoughtfully? That means without fulminating and without calling names. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

lanstin 4y ago

The law in New York City was from 1905. The current court doesn’t seem to value stability so much as their own agenda for how things ought to be. Personally I think the root cause is an alliance between people with hateful beliefs and people that want the government not to tax or regulate large companies and rich families. Fine, slut shame people because they had sex and got pregnant (no matter the circumstances) and let us keep sponsoring fake research that carbon burn is good. Be openly racist again and lower those taxes even at the cost of not educating the young. Just my theory tho. Hard to know.

mirceal 4y ago
It is a good guess. This is not about right or wrong. This is about the rest of us being force the religious views of a minority by people who figure out it's a great way to divide and control us this way.