4 ms·

> The legitimate reason it is reversed _now_ is that it is _now_ when the matter is before them in court. And it's in the court now because this is the first t

by josho 4y ago

> The legitimate reason it is reversed _now_ is that it is _now_ when the matter is before them in court. And it's in the court now because this is the first time in 50 years that we've had a court regressive enough to vote it down. It hadn't been codified in law because there wasn't a need because the court's had settled the issue. To follow your analogy it's like finally removing that deprecated code after 50 years and seeing side-effects across the code base that are hugely disruptive to a tiny percent of users and anger inducing to a majority, while also making a minority of users feel smug about it finally being removed.

bmelton 4y ago
> And it's in the court now because this is the first time in 50 years that we've had a court regressive enough to vote it down. This is silly. It's basically always in the courts. This particular case has been ongoing since 2018 IIRC. Before that it was June Medical. Before that it was Whole Women's Health v Hellerstedt. > It hadn't been codified in law because there wasn't a need because the court's had settled the issue Except it had not legislatively, and it needed to have been. At the same time as Ruth Bader Ginsburg was lamenting the flaws of Roe halting legislative process that she knew still needed to happen, Joe Biden was proposing amendments to overturn Roe v Wade so that abortion could be outlawed. It is and always has been balanced on the head of a pin. Both sides have of course been using it more as a platform for fund-raising than doing anything legislatively, while warning that the other side was moments away from winning. Please donate $5, $10, or $50 to the cause.
- generj 4y ago
  It isn’t silly, the state legislatures deliberately crafted more extreme bills in the hopes of overturning Roe, then the GAs all they could to expedite them up to the Supreme Court. The boundaries of Roe v Wade have been debated for a looong time, especially as new medical technology have come out but this case only existed because conservatives believed they had a good chance of overturning Roe.

by josho 4y ago

bmelton 4y ago

> And it's in the court now because this is the first time in 50 years that we've had a court regressive enough to vote it down. This is silly. It's basically always in the courts. This particular case has been ongoing since 2018 IIRC. Before that it was June Medical. Before that it was Whole Women's Health v Hellerstedt. > It hadn't been codified in law because there wasn't a need because the court's had settled the issue Except it had not legislatively, and it needed to have been. At the same time as Ruth Bader Ginsburg was lamenting the flaws of Roe halting legislative process that she knew still needed to happen, Joe Biden was proposing amendments to overturn Roe v Wade so that abortion could be outlawed. It is and always has been balanced on the head of a pin. Both sides have of course been using it more as a platform for fund-raising than doing anything legislatively, while warning that the other side was moments away from winning. Please donate $5, $10, or $50 to the cause.

generj 4y ago
It isn’t silly, the state legislatures deliberately crafted more extreme bills in the hopes of overturning Roe, then the GAs all they could to expedite them up to the Supreme Court. The boundaries of Roe v Wade have been debated for a looong time, especially as new medical technology have come out but this case only existed because conservatives believed they had a good chance of overturning Roe.