7 ms·

Pence just asked for federal legislation banning all abortions. So I think you are wrong to say the Republicans are trying to return it to the states, thy are t

Pence just asked for federal legislation banning all abortions. So I think you are wrong to say the Republicans are trying to return it to the states, thy are trying to ban it. Note that a man is not required to donate blood to save an adult human, even if there is no risk to him. The equal protection clause extends that right to your own body to women, and that is fairly sound constitutional reasoning. The constitution doesn’t mention a million specific things, but it protects our freedoms anyways. A democracy is a place to gradually expand equal protection of the laws to all people. Each change seems radical to the people accustomed to undemocractic flaws, but the outcome has been very successful these last few hundred years.

wilsonnb3 4y ago
> Note that a man is not required to donate blood to save an adult human, even if there is no risk to him. The equal protection clause extends that right to your own body to women, and that is fairly sound constitutional reasoning. Why did Roe v Wade rely on an unwritten right to privacy rather than the equal protection clause then?
- lanstin 4y ago
  I will defer to the explanation in chapter sixteen of https://www.amazon.com/Allow-Me-Retort-Black-Constitution-ebook/dp/B08TKKYP9L https://www.amazon.com/Allow-Me-Retort-Black-Constitution-eb... Something to do with some bad uses of substantive due process stuff in early 1900s.
  - TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
    > Note that a man is not required to donate blood to save an adult human, even if there is no risk to him. The equal protection clause extends that right to your own body to women, and that is fairly sound constitutional reasoning. Just one comment away from implying that this case is straightforward, and you're bringing up esoteric case law from 100 years ago. I don't point this out to denigrate you, but to highlight just how complicated law can be, particularly when it comes to landmark SCOTUS decisions. I thought I heard on the news that the majority opinion was 90 pages long, but I can't find a reference. However detailed it was, for the next month, literally millions of people will be on Twitter making 280-character-limited reductio ad absurdum comments about it.
    - TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
      UPDATE: The decision is 231 pages. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/read-supreme-court-opinion-overturning-roe-v-wade-pdf-00038117 https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/read-supreme-court-...
- kokanator 4y ago
  The US government can compel a man to sacrifice their entire body ( and blood ) for the greater good of other citizens should they wish. [0] [0] https://www.sss.gov/ https://www.sss.gov/
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    This is has been brought up a few times, but is largely a non-sequitur. First, if WWIII broke out, I doubt women would be exempt from a draft (e.g. see Israel where service is mandatory for women). Second, this is comparing exceptional circumstances where there is, presumably, an existential threat to the state vs. a situation that can reasonably be expected to occur in a person's lifetime (pregnancy). The draft is also a temporary measure. As with other wartime restrictions of civil liberties, like curfews or rationing, it would not be tolerated if continued outside the context of a war.
    - lovich 4y ago
      Why would you believe women wouldn’t be exempt from the draft? Do you have a historical example of that in the roughly 300 year history of the US? Do you anticipate on recent Supreme Court rulings that they will expand the idea of equality and not reinforce traditional Christian gender roles?
sophacles 4y ago
Let me guess, you're in a group that is not normally outcast for existing? Gradual expansion of equal protection only makes sense if: 1. you are already protected 2. you benefit from unequal protection. 3. You want to appear "nice"
- lanstin 4y ago
  I was arguing for expansion in opposition to restricting equal protection. It would be much better if the US protected equal protection for all people immediately in 1790 but it didn’t. I would like to argue that the Republicans are a threat to the progress made in the latter half of the twentieth century without defending the previous systems as being good, but merely good enough to enable improvements via the Civil Right movement, gay power, womens lib, labor unions, etc. If you have a plan for full equality, sign me up. I have seen some calls for a general strike on Twitter today, but I am unpersuaded that will happen this week. Here on ycombinator even getting people to understand that the value of their labor is being taken and their orgs are racist and sexist is not an easy sell.
  - irae 4y ago
    I am neither Republican or Democrat. I am Brazilian and moderate. But I would not go as far as saying any party is a threat. In society, all changes that were made too fast resulted in unexpected consequences. We might be in times of extreme polarization, but in general, having opposing views in politics forcing changes to be slower than the Democrats would want and faster than what Republicas would, benefit us all in the end.
    - lanstin 4y ago
      I would argue that the US is suffering from an inability to legislate due to the polarization. The two parties do not share the same idea of what problems we have, and they are not arguing over how to fix them. You have one side saying we should do something about global warming and the cost of education and gun deaths and the other side saying women should submit to their husbands and gays are causing social breakdown in the country and the Democrats are drinking the blood of children to live longer. The Senate allows a minority to stop the majority from tweaking the laws in an iterative process, and holds the society back from doing things that require laws, like carbon tax or cap n trade, or even fixing clear bugs in ACA. We don’t have much internet relevant laws passed in the last twenty years, yet the internet and its conflicts have changed quite a lot since Napster. We can’t change the law to let people rebuild flood destroyed buildings on higher ground. All we do is tweak the budget numbers and appoint judges. It makes prospective solutions extremely tilted compared to even a good compromise of a law.
vinay427 4y ago
> Pence just asked for federal legislation banning all abortions. So I think you are wrong to say the Republicans are trying to return it to the states, thy are trying to ban it. It’s worth mentioning that the constitutionality of such a law seems highly questionable based on the current leanings of SCOTUS. States’ rights work both ways, and (not a lawyer) I would assume an incredibly broad interpretation of interstate commerce would be needed to hold up a federal ban on abortions.
- lovich 4y ago
  Why would you assume any precedent for behavior matters from a court that’s issued a majority opinion overturning a case where multiple of the co-signing justices had declared it settled case law? They just overruled the NYC gun ban. They will pick and choose whatever they want
  - avalys 4y ago
    The US Federal constitution contains a right to bear arms, which supersedes the NYC law which stated ordinary citizens could not "bear arms" in public without justifying an exceptional need. There is no analogous constitutional right for abortion. Roe v. Wade inferred it from a "right to privacy", which also does not exist in the text.
    - lovich 4y ago
      The US Federal Constitution contains the 9th amendment which guarantees that the enumeration of specific rights in the Constitution cannot be construed to deny any other right not enumerated in there, but that doesn't matter for these courts. They have become openly partisan and will pick and choose whatever suits their political leanings. Once they got a majority on the court they no longer need to play ball with the other side
- monocasa 4y ago
  The basis of the decision wasn't ultimately in states' rights, but instead the view of a lack of constitutional protection against abortion bans. The legal theory almost explicitly allows for a federal ban in addition to the state bans that tieggered today.
i5Aj7PXGjUPy 4y ago
> The equal protection clause extends that right to your own body to women No it doesn't Here's the clause: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Where is a guaranteed right to abortion in this? You said Roe "is fairly sound constitutional reasoning", but I don't see you reading a Roe from this without some serious mental gymnastics Also: > Note that a man is not required to donate blood to save an adult human, even if there is no risk to him. The equal protection clause extends that right to your own body to women, and that is fairly sound constitutional reasoning. Donating blood != killing a fetus If you consider equating the two "fairly sound constitutional reasoning" then that speaks for itself
- ch4s3 4y ago
  > Donating blood != killing a fetus I don't think that's the argument the earlier post is making. They are arguing that you cannot be compelled to do something to save some else's life even if it won't harm you, and doubly so without due process. However, I think viewing someone's body as their own property is a better way to frame this. If you decide a fetus is trespassing in your body, where should the state intervene? The state couldn't force you to harbor someone in your home during a winter storm, even if you left your door unlocked and kicking them out would surely result in them freezing to death. If you believe that a fetus has adverse rights against the body it's growing inside of, then you need to make that case.
  - i5Aj7PXGjUPy 4y ago
    > I don't think that's the argument the earlier post is making. They are arguing that you cannot be compelled to do something to save some else's life even if it won't harm you, and doubly so without due process. Choosing not to kill a fetus != saving someone else's life Using the two interchangeably is like building a house on top of sand

wilsonnb3 4y ago

> Note that a man is not required to donate blood to save an adult human, even if there is no risk to him. The equal protection clause extends that right to your own body to women, and that is fairly sound constitutional reasoning. Why did Roe v Wade rely on an unwritten right to privacy rather than the equal protection clause then?

lanstin 4y ago
I will defer to the explanation in chapter sixteen of https://www.amazon.com/Allow-Me-Retort-Black-Constitution-ebook/dp/B08TKKYP9L https://www.amazon.com/Allow-Me-Retort-Black-Constitution-eb... Something to do with some bad uses of substantive due process stuff in early 1900s.
- TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
  > Note that a man is not required to donate blood to save an adult human, even if there is no risk to him. The equal protection clause extends that right to your own body to women, and that is fairly sound constitutional reasoning. Just one comment away from implying that this case is straightforward, and you're bringing up esoteric case law from 100 years ago. I don't point this out to denigrate you, but to highlight just how complicated law can be, particularly when it comes to landmark SCOTUS decisions. I thought I heard on the news that the majority opinion was 90 pages long, but I can't find a reference. However detailed it was, for the next month, literally millions of people will be on Twitter making 280-character-limited reductio ad absurdum comments about it.
  - TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
    UPDATE: The decision is 231 pages. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/read-supreme-court-opinion-overturning-roe-v-wade-pdf-00038117 https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/read-supreme-court-...
kokanator 4y ago
The US government can compel a man to sacrifice their entire body ( and blood ) for the greater good of other citizens should they wish. [0] [0] https://www.sss.gov/ https://www.sss.gov/
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  This is has been brought up a few times, but is largely a non-sequitur. First, if WWIII broke out, I doubt women would be exempt from a draft (e.g. see Israel where service is mandatory for women). Second, this is comparing exceptional circumstances where there is, presumably, an existential threat to the state vs. a situation that can reasonably be expected to occur in a person's lifetime (pregnancy). The draft is also a temporary measure. As with other wartime restrictions of civil liberties, like curfews or rationing, it would not be tolerated if continued outside the context of a war.
  - lovich 4y ago
    Why would you believe women wouldn’t be exempt from the draft? Do you have a historical example of that in the roughly 300 year history of the US? Do you anticipate on recent Supreme Court rulings that they will expand the idea of equality and not reinforce traditional Christian gender roles?

sophacles 4y ago

Let me guess, you're in a group that is not normally outcast for existing? Gradual expansion of equal protection only makes sense if: 1. you are already protected 2. you benefit from unequal protection. 3. You want to appear "nice"

lanstin 4y ago
I was arguing for expansion in opposition to restricting equal protection. It would be much better if the US protected equal protection for all people immediately in 1790 but it didn’t. I would like to argue that the Republicans are a threat to the progress made in the latter half of the twentieth century without defending the previous systems as being good, but merely good enough to enable improvements via the Civil Right movement, gay power, womens lib, labor unions, etc. If you have a plan for full equality, sign me up. I have seen some calls for a general strike on Twitter today, but I am unpersuaded that will happen this week. Here on ycombinator even getting people to understand that the value of their labor is being taken and their orgs are racist and sexist is not an easy sell.
- irae 4y ago
  I am neither Republican or Democrat. I am Brazilian and moderate. But I would not go as far as saying any party is a threat. In society, all changes that were made too fast resulted in unexpected consequences. We might be in times of extreme polarization, but in general, having opposing views in politics forcing changes to be slower than the Democrats would want and faster than what Republicas would, benefit us all in the end.
  - lanstin 4y ago
    I would argue that the US is suffering from an inability to legislate due to the polarization. The two parties do not share the same idea of what problems we have, and they are not arguing over how to fix them. You have one side saying we should do something about global warming and the cost of education and gun deaths and the other side saying women should submit to their husbands and gays are causing social breakdown in the country and the Democrats are drinking the blood of children to live longer. The Senate allows a minority to stop the majority from tweaking the laws in an iterative process, and holds the society back from doing things that require laws, like carbon tax or cap n trade, or even fixing clear bugs in ACA. We don’t have much internet relevant laws passed in the last twenty years, yet the internet and its conflicts have changed quite a lot since Napster. We can’t change the law to let people rebuild flood destroyed buildings on higher ground. All we do is tweak the budget numbers and appoint judges. It makes prospective solutions extremely tilted compared to even a good compromise of a law.

vinay427 4y ago

> Pence just asked for federal legislation banning all abortions. So I think you are wrong to say the Republicans are trying to return it to the states, thy are trying to ban it. It’s worth mentioning that the constitutionality of such a law seems highly questionable based on the current leanings of SCOTUS. States’ rights work both ways, and (not a lawyer) I would assume an incredibly broad interpretation of interstate commerce would be needed to hold up a federal ban on abortions.

lovich 4y ago
Why would you assume any precedent for behavior matters from a court that’s issued a majority opinion overturning a case where multiple of the co-signing justices had declared it settled case law? They just overruled the NYC gun ban. They will pick and choose whatever they want
- avalys 4y ago
  The US Federal constitution contains a right to bear arms, which supersedes the NYC law which stated ordinary citizens could not "bear arms" in public without justifying an exceptional need. There is no analogous constitutional right for abortion. Roe v. Wade inferred it from a "right to privacy", which also does not exist in the text.
  - lovich 4y ago
    The US Federal Constitution contains the 9th amendment which guarantees that the enumeration of specific rights in the Constitution cannot be construed to deny any other right not enumerated in there, but that doesn't matter for these courts. They have become openly partisan and will pick and choose whatever suits their political leanings. Once they got a majority on the court they no longer need to play ball with the other side
monocasa 4y ago
The basis of the decision wasn't ultimately in states' rights, but instead the view of a lack of constitutional protection against abortion bans. The legal theory almost explicitly allows for a federal ban in addition to the state bans that tieggered today.

i5Aj7PXGjUPy 4y ago

> The equal protection clause extends that right to your own body to women No it doesn't Here's the clause: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Where is a guaranteed right to abortion in this? You said Roe "is fairly sound constitutional reasoning", but I don't see you reading a Roe from this without some serious mental gymnastics Also: > Note that a man is not required to donate blood to save an adult human, even if there is no risk to him. The equal protection clause extends that right to your own body to women, and that is fairly sound constitutional reasoning. Donating blood != killing a fetus If you consider equating the two "fairly sound constitutional reasoning" then that speaks for itself

ch4s3 4y ago
> Donating blood != killing a fetus I don't think that's the argument the earlier post is making. They are arguing that you cannot be compelled to do something to save some else's life even if it won't harm you, and doubly so without due process. However, I think viewing someone's body as their own property is a better way to frame this. If you decide a fetus is trespassing in your body, where should the state intervene? The state couldn't force you to harbor someone in your home during a winter storm, even if you left your door unlocked and kicking them out would surely result in them freezing to death. If you believe that a fetus has adverse rights against the body it's growing inside of, then you need to make that case.
- i5Aj7PXGjUPy 4y ago
  > I don't think that's the argument the earlier post is making. They are arguing that you cannot be compelled to do something to save some else's life even if it won't harm you, and doubly so without due process. Choosing not to kill a fetus != saving someone else's life Using the two interchangeably is like building a house on top of sand