3 ms·

I assume you're referring to the theory that legalizing abortion led to a drop in crime in ~18 years later. To be clear, this theory has merit but it's hard to

by jmyeet 4y ago

I assume you're referring to the theory that legalizing abortion led to a drop in crime in ~18 years later. To be clear, this theory has merit but it's hard to definiteily say this was a significant factor. Another competing theory is lead in gasoline, for example. But let's assume it's the case. I don't htink we'll see a noticeable spike of crime in the future because of this, for several reasons: 1. Contraception is more readily available, particularly in terms of affordability, than it was 50+ years ago. I mean the Court may well make that illegal too but we'll burn that bridge when we get to it; 2. Medical advancements, specifically various abortion pills, some of which are incredibly effective and safe. These didn't exist before Roe v. Wade. States may well try to ban their distribution but this is clearly interstate commerce, which is explicitly stated in the Constitution as a Federal power, so even this Court will have trouble coming up with a post-hoc rationalization to ban it (I hope); 3. The Federal government can (currently at least and of course subject to review) codify access to abortion at a Federal level. The Freedom of Choice Act was something Obama campaigned on that he would sign on his first day in office yet immediately decided it wasn't a priority after taking office. He had a supermajority in the Senate then and wasted it. The Democrats have had many opportunities to override a filibuster. We shouldn't forget that. The current Senate could do this by simply eliminating the filibuster if they chose to. I guarantee you the first Republican Senate will do this immediately when it serves their needs; 4. The Federal government has the nuclear option available of being able to provide access to abortions if they so chose. Where? On Federal land (including military bases). Hell, you may even be able to do this on Native lands. The concern here isn't just overturning Roe and Casey. Obviously that's dire but the real issue is what this portends. The impact of this Evangelical Taliban court didn't end on Friday. It's only just beginning.

mlyle 4y ago
> 2. Medical advancements, specifically various abortion pills, some of which are incredibly effective and safe. These didn't exist before Roe v. Wade. States may well try to ban their distribution but this is clearly interstate commerce, which is explicitly stated in the Constitution as a Federal power, so even this Court will have trouble coming up with a post-hoc rationalization to ban it (I hope); States restrict commerce in all kinds of goods and already have different laws about medications in practice. The question is likely-- to what extent is that authority preempted by FDA regulation?
- jmyeet 4y ago
  Obviously states can restrict certain kinds of commerce but you might be surprised how limited that power is. The Federal government has pre-eminence when it comes to not only interstate commerce but issues that affect interstate commerce. I present to you Wickard v. Filburn [1]. A farmer (Filburn) was growing wheat on his own property to use as animal feed. Said wheat wasn't being sold or transported across state lines. > The Court decided that Filburn's wheat-growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for animal feed on the open market, which is traded nationally, is thus interstate, and is therefore within the scope of the Commerce Clause. I personally think this decision is overreach because it technically means almost anything falls under the Commerce Clause but hey, that's the settled law of the land (until it isn't like Roe and Casey). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
  - mlyle 4y ago
    Yes, I'm familiar with Wickard v. Filburn. This established that a farmer growing wheat on his own property for use on his property was subject to federal regulation of commerce... not that his own state could not also regulate things about wheat sold in the state. There are powers reserved exclusively to the federal government; there are powers reserved exclusively to the states. And there are things in-between, where we have laws from both. States choose all kinds of goods that are sold in interstate commerce to be legal or not legal. The big question here is, the Fed gov't has a large regulatory and oversight operation for drugs. Does it completely preempt state action? For e.g. securities, we have both Federal SEC and state "blue sky" laws. For drugs, we've not really had a great test case to find out.
Overtonwindow 4y ago
That's a really good analysis but I look at it from another angle that you might consider. With Roe, the Supreme Court granted "rights" that were not explicitly in the constitution, nor in any federal statute. You may have also noticed that a Miranda ruling came down that also clarified that a "Miranda warning" is not a right granted under the constitution, or in federal law. I am pro-choice but I think what the court did was right because now it forces politicians to make tough decisions. I only hope that the people realize that because of the Roe decision, it's back to the policymakers to pass law, not for the court to create it.
- mcphage 4y ago
  > I look at it from another angle that you might consider. With Roe, the Supreme Court granted "rights" that were not explicitly in the constitution That's an important point, I wonder if there should be an amendment to the constitution stating that "just because we didn't mention a right, doesn't mean you don't have it". It seems important, maybe we should give it a low amendment number. I'd say top 10 at least, are there any numbers not being used? Hmm, 9 seems to be free I guess?
- ModernMech 4y ago
  > I am pro-choice but I think what the court did was right because now it forces politicians to make tough decisions. Let me guess, you’re male and don’t have any women in your life who would have their life threatened by this ruling. If not, how do you explain to them you support this decision which jeopardizes their lives and relegates them to second-class citizenship?

by jmyeet 4y ago

mlyle 4y ago

> 2. Medical advancements, specifically various abortion pills, some of which are incredibly effective and safe. These didn't exist before Roe v. Wade. States may well try to ban their distribution but this is clearly interstate commerce, which is explicitly stated in the Constitution as a Federal power, so even this Court will have trouble coming up with a post-hoc rationalization to ban it (I hope); States restrict commerce in all kinds of goods and already have different laws about medications in practice. The question is likely-- to what extent is that authority preempted by FDA regulation?

jmyeet 4y ago
Obviously states can restrict certain kinds of commerce but you might be surprised how limited that power is. The Federal government has pre-eminence when it comes to not only interstate commerce but issues that affect interstate commerce. I present to you Wickard v. Filburn [1]. A farmer (Filburn) was growing wheat on his own property to use as animal feed. Said wheat wasn't being sold or transported across state lines. > The Court decided that Filburn's wheat-growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for animal feed on the open market, which is traded nationally, is thus interstate, and is therefore within the scope of the Commerce Clause. I personally think this decision is overreach because it technically means almost anything falls under the Commerce Clause but hey, that's the settled law of the land (until it isn't like Roe and Casey). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
- mlyle 4y ago
  Yes, I'm familiar with Wickard v. Filburn. This established that a farmer growing wheat on his own property for use on his property was subject to federal regulation of commerce... not that his own state could not also regulate things about wheat sold in the state. There are powers reserved exclusively to the federal government; there are powers reserved exclusively to the states. And there are things in-between, where we have laws from both. States choose all kinds of goods that are sold in interstate commerce to be legal or not legal. The big question here is, the Fed gov't has a large regulatory and oversight operation for drugs. Does it completely preempt state action? For e.g. securities, we have both Federal SEC and state "blue sky" laws. For drugs, we've not really had a great test case to find out.

Overtonwindow 4y ago

That's a really good analysis but I look at it from another angle that you might consider. With Roe, the Supreme Court granted "rights" that were not explicitly in the constitution, nor in any federal statute. You may have also noticed that a Miranda ruling came down that also clarified that a "Miranda warning" is not a right granted under the constitution, or in federal law. I am pro-choice but I think what the court did was right because now it forces politicians to make tough decisions. I only hope that the people realize that because of the Roe decision, it's back to the policymakers to pass law, not for the court to create it.

mcphage 4y ago
> I look at it from another angle that you might consider. With Roe, the Supreme Court granted "rights" that were not explicitly in the constitution That's an important point, I wonder if there should be an amendment to the constitution stating that "just because we didn't mention a right, doesn't mean you don't have it". It seems important, maybe we should give it a low amendment number. I'd say top 10 at least, are there any numbers not being used? Hmm, 9 seems to be free I guess?
ModernMech 4y ago
> I am pro-choice but I think what the court did was right because now it forces politicians to make tough decisions. Let me guess, you’re male and don’t have any women in your life who would have their life threatened by this ruling. If not, how do you explain to them you support this decision which jeopardizes their lives and relegates them to second-class citizenship?