4 ms·

Today's innocuous data is tomorrow's political target. I don't want law enforcement having _any_ of my health/medical data. Without an even playing field this

Today's innocuous data is tomorrow's political target. I don't want law enforcement having _any_ of my health/medical data. Without an even playing field this can turn into another "privacy for me but not for thee" situation.

nerdponx 4y ago
It's clear that Congress doesn't want to solve the bigger problems here. This is token legislation that will not be passed anyway, so the fact that it's only limited to reproductive rights and not all data (not to mention, like, federally legalizing abortion?) indicates that they aren't even interested in token gestures beyond the absolute bare minimum to grab a headline.
jstarfish 4y ago
My wife had a (legal at the time, medically-administered) abortion as a teenager, which effectively put her on a List of Fetal Murderers. She is now terrified that abortion will be made retroactively illegal and she will be captured by bounty hunters. Her family's generational experiences with other Lists didn't end so well for them. I'd tell her the retroactive thing is silly and has never happened before, but precedent no longer seems to be a factor in Supreme Court decisions so I can't help but feel I'm telling a German Jew in 1935 that she's being silly and there's nothing to worry about.
- rgbrenner 4y ago
  retroactive legislation is unconstitutional... article 1: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C3-2/ALDE_00001089/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C3-2/... Here's a pdf by the congressional research service discussing the nuances: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IF11293.pdf https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IF11293.pdf
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    Just make it a civil matter instead of criminal, where the state itself is not one of the litigants. Ta-da! What Constitution?
  - jstarfish 4y ago
    I slept through political science, but I'm awake enough to notice that what's been going on in other contexts lately is that a state will pass a law (constitutional or not) and just start acting on it. For its constitutionality to be challenged, it has to be escalated all the way to the Supreme Court. This can take years, does not happen for free, and in the end, the trolls who sit on the Supreme Court retain the right to refuse to hear it. The system appears to be very broken.
    - civilized 4y ago
      Roe vs Wade has been in legal conservative crosshairs since it was decided. There is no movement by anyone to undermine the prohibition on ex post facto laws. These two things are very, very different in how legally well-founded they are in the eyes of conservatives. I know this decision is awful for many people and has created justified anger, but this isn't the Anschluss. The people who did this aren't trying to destroy every venerated legal structure in the country to impose their will. Not saying it's 100% impossible for some crazy thing to happen, your wife's anxiety is understandable, but I think a bit of perspective could help avoid needless panic. I would also remember that Trump's bid to disregard the election was shut down in part by judges he appointed. Legal conservatives do actually want to conserve the legal traditions of the country, for the most part.
      - roflyear 4y ago
        Have you been following other insane SCOTUS decisions?
        civilized 4y ago
        I haven't seen any that would suggest I should see the current SCOTUS as an arbitrary monster with no respect for any legal structure. Are we able to draw a distinction between people who have a perspective we profoundly disagree with - even despise - and utterly ruthless, insane monsters?
        4y ago
  - pavon 4y ago
    That prevents new laws from being applied retroactively. What would happen if a state law against abortion already existed before Roe vs Wade. It has been unenforceable, but was never repealed by state legislature. Would it be legal to retroactively enforce that law now? I know my state had such laws, and there was a push to get them repealed after Barrett was appointed. Don't know if retroactive enforcement was a concern or just future enforcement.
- mminer237 4y ago
  Congress is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution. The states are prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 1 of Article I, Section 10. Precedence has never been binding on the Supreme Court: https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overruled/ https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overru... If it was, we'd still be under Plessy v. Ferguson. But unlike abortion, protection from ex post facto laws wasn't determined by a judge to be a right. It's written very plainly in the Constitution itself, and I'm very confident that won't change within my lifetime.
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    Texas recently showed us how to make a law that gets around the Constitution. I don't think I'd feel safe quoting phrases from the Constitution and assuming they actually protect anyone.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

nerdponx 4y ago

It's clear that Congress doesn't want to solve the bigger problems here. This is token legislation that will not be passed anyway, so the fact that it's only limited to reproductive rights and not all data (not to mention, like, federally legalizing abortion?) indicates that they aren't even interested in token gestures beyond the absolute bare minimum to grab a headline.

jstarfish 4y ago

My wife had a (legal at the time, medically-administered) abortion as a teenager, which effectively put her on a List of Fetal Murderers. She is now terrified that abortion will be made retroactively illegal and she will be captured by bounty hunters. Her family's generational experiences with other Lists didn't end so well for them. I'd tell her the retroactive thing is silly and has never happened before, but precedent no longer seems to be a factor in Supreme Court decisions so I can't help but feel I'm telling a German Jew in 1935 that she's being silly and there's nothing to worry about.

rgbrenner 4y ago
retroactive legislation is unconstitutional... article 1: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C3-2/ALDE_00001089/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C3-2/... Here's a pdf by the congressional research service discussing the nuances: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IF11293.pdf https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IF11293.pdf
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  Just make it a civil matter instead of criminal, where the state itself is not one of the litigants. Ta-da! What Constitution?
- jstarfish 4y ago
  I slept through political science, but I'm awake enough to notice that what's been going on in other contexts lately is that a state will pass a law (constitutional or not) and just start acting on it. For its constitutionality to be challenged, it has to be escalated all the way to the Supreme Court. This can take years, does not happen for free, and in the end, the trolls who sit on the Supreme Court retain the right to refuse to hear it. The system appears to be very broken.
  - civilized 4y ago
    Roe vs Wade has been in legal conservative crosshairs since it was decided. There is no movement by anyone to undermine the prohibition on ex post facto laws. These two things are very, very different in how legally well-founded they are in the eyes of conservatives. I know this decision is awful for many people and has created justified anger, but this isn't the Anschluss. The people who did this aren't trying to destroy every venerated legal structure in the country to impose their will. Not saying it's 100% impossible for some crazy thing to happen, your wife's anxiety is understandable, but I think a bit of perspective could help avoid needless panic. I would also remember that Trump's bid to disregard the election was shut down in part by judges he appointed. Legal conservatives do actually want to conserve the legal traditions of the country, for the most part.
    - roflyear 4y ago
      Have you been following other insane SCOTUS decisions?
      - civilized 4y ago
        I haven't seen any that would suggest I should see the current SCOTUS as an arbitrary monster with no respect for any legal structure. Are we able to draw a distinction between people who have a perspective we profoundly disagree with - even despise - and utterly ruthless, insane monsters?
        4y ago
- pavon 4y ago
  That prevents new laws from being applied retroactively. What would happen if a state law against abortion already existed before Roe vs Wade. It has been unenforceable, but was never repealed by state legislature. Would it be legal to retroactively enforce that law now? I know my state had such laws, and there was a push to get them repealed after Barrett was appointed. Don't know if retroactive enforcement was a concern or just future enforcement.
mminer237 4y ago
Congress is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution. The states are prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 1 of Article I, Section 10. Precedence has never been binding on the Supreme Court: https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overruled/ https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overru... If it was, we'd still be under Plessy v. Ferguson. But unlike abortion, protection from ex post facto laws wasn't determined by a judge to be a right. It's written very plainly in the Constitution itself, and I'm very confident that won't change within my lifetime.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  Texas recently showed us how to make a law that gets around the Constitution. I don't think I'd feel safe quoting phrases from the Constitution and assuming they actually protect anyone.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]