4 ms·

But the US states could already impose term limits (e.g. Texas). So why did Roe v Wade need to be overturned?

gonehome 4y ago
SCOTUS is tasked with determining if a right is constitutionally protected. There is no right to abortion in the constitution, Roe argued a path to one but it was fairly weak (https://overcast.fm/+vpWZx2bsc https://overcast.fm/+vpWZx2bsc). It was overturned because it's not the court's job to legislate policy beyond that. Part of the reason for that is it creates policy which cannot be reverted by democratic means (except by the kind of extremes we've seen recently) - that's why it's better on net if it's narrow in scope and tied to constitutional rights (imo). IANAL so this is at the edge of my knowledge, but that's my understanding. There is a path to adding things to the constitution, but that power lies with congress.
- the_mar 4y ago
  I'm confused what you're arguing for. You seem to agree, in general abortion should be an option - which is what roe v wade did. States could impose restrictions on how and when abortion is performed. I agree with you, that third trimester on-demand abortions are ludicrous btw. I however do not have that rosy of a perspective that this was overturned due to technicality and that in fact women's rights are about to be stripped the fuck away.
  - gonehome 4y ago
    Basically I'm drawing a distinction about what I personally think is good policy and what is actually a right granted by the constitution. I think broad access to abortion for women is important, but I think Roe finding that this protection exists as a constitutional right just isn't correct. If we want there to be a constitutional protection there needs to be an amendment. Short of that we need to pass legislation federally. Otherwise it's up to states and constituents within those states to fight it out democratically. I was happy with the outcome from Roe because it protected a lot of vulnerable women who will now unfairly suffer consequences, but I still intellectually think it was wrongly decided. Now we're suffering the consequences of that. Had Roe not been decided this way maybe there wouldn't have been as extreme a push to get Trump in office at all costs? It would reduce the political nature of SCOTUS and allow for relief valves - people can fight out the issues democratically. Obviously this can't happen in cases where constitutional rights are legitimately infringed, but again the finding of a constitutional right to abortion was tenuous at best. We need to get into law the things we care about - that's how the system is supposed to work.
    - the_mar 4y ago
      Ok, I will never not be amazed by how americans can reconcile two opposing views in their heads (I mean it as a compliment). But I do think that leaving abortion rights up to states will work out terribly. It's kind of like letting states decide if women should be allowed to vote
      - weezin 4y ago
        Then you have to create an amendment for abortion. Women's right to vote is explicitly given by the 19th amendment to the constitution. This is the basic function for the supreme court, states cannot impose laws that are unconstitutional.
  - puffoflogic 4y ago
    > in fact women's rights are about to be stripped the fuck away If this is your concern, shouldn't you be furious that Roe v Wade stood in the way of 50 years of progress in preventing that? The democratic process could have been improving women's rights for all that time. This is exactly what happened with LGBT rights in that time - much less than that time, in fact. Instead this judicial block was in place which was like clamping down the lid on the democratic pressure cooker, preventing any kind of progress by preventing dialogue.
    - the_mar 4y ago
      Dialogue?! As in the debate if women should have rights? Maybe I'm missing the point, but what "progress" do we need to be making? Women had access to reproductive care for the past 50 years, and now they won't. Doesn't sound like progress to me
      - puffoflogic 4y ago
        > and now they won't That doesn't sound like facts to me. When one side of the debate does nothing but spew nonsensical falsehoods, it's really easy to pick a side even when it seemed morally ambiguous before. Even easier when I'm agreeing with RBG.

SCOTUS is tasked with determining if a right is constitutionally protected. There is no right to abortion in the constitution, Roe argued a path to one but it was fairly weak (https://overcast.fm/+vpWZx2bsc https://overcast.fm/+vpWZx2bsc). It was overturned because it's not the court's job to legislate policy beyond that. Part of the reason for that is it creates policy which cannot be reverted by democratic means (except by the kind of extremes we've seen recently) - that's why it's better on net if it's narrow in scope and tied to constitutional rights (imo). IANAL so this is at the edge of my knowledge, but that's my understanding. There is a path to adding things to the constitution, but that power lies with congress.

the_mar 4y ago
I'm confused what you're arguing for. You seem to agree, in general abortion should be an option - which is what roe v wade did. States could impose restrictions on how and when abortion is performed. I agree with you, that third trimester on-demand abortions are ludicrous btw. I however do not have that rosy of a perspective that this was overturned due to technicality and that in fact women's rights are about to be stripped the fuck away.
- gonehome 4y ago
  Basically I'm drawing a distinction about what I personally think is good policy and what is actually a right granted by the constitution. I think broad access to abortion for women is important, but I think Roe finding that this protection exists as a constitutional right just isn't correct. If we want there to be a constitutional protection there needs to be an amendment. Short of that we need to pass legislation federally. Otherwise it's up to states and constituents within those states to fight it out democratically. I was happy with the outcome from Roe because it protected a lot of vulnerable women who will now unfairly suffer consequences, but I still intellectually think it was wrongly decided. Now we're suffering the consequences of that. Had Roe not been decided this way maybe there wouldn't have been as extreme a push to get Trump in office at all costs? It would reduce the political nature of SCOTUS and allow for relief valves - people can fight out the issues democratically. Obviously this can't happen in cases where constitutional rights are legitimately infringed, but again the finding of a constitutional right to abortion was tenuous at best. We need to get into law the things we care about - that's how the system is supposed to work.
  - the_mar 4y ago
    Ok, I will never not be amazed by how americans can reconcile two opposing views in their heads (I mean it as a compliment). But I do think that leaving abortion rights up to states will work out terribly. It's kind of like letting states decide if women should be allowed to vote
    - weezin 4y ago
      Then you have to create an amendment for abortion. Women's right to vote is explicitly given by the 19th amendment to the constitution. This is the basic function for the supreme court, states cannot impose laws that are unconstitutional.
- puffoflogic 4y ago
  > in fact women's rights are about to be stripped the fuck away If this is your concern, shouldn't you be furious that Roe v Wade stood in the way of 50 years of progress in preventing that? The democratic process could have been improving women's rights for all that time. This is exactly what happened with LGBT rights in that time - much less than that time, in fact. Instead this judicial block was in place which was like clamping down the lid on the democratic pressure cooker, preventing any kind of progress by preventing dialogue.
  - the_mar 4y ago
    Dialogue?! As in the debate if women should have rights? Maybe I'm missing the point, but what "progress" do we need to be making? Women had access to reproductive care for the past 50 years, and now they won't. Doesn't sound like progress to me
    - puffoflogic 4y ago
      > and now they won't That doesn't sound like facts to me. When one side of the debate does nothing but spew nonsensical falsehoods, it's really easy to pick a side even when it seemed morally ambiguous before. Even easier when I'm agreeing with RBG.