6 ms·

Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg argued roe v wade was a mistake because it placed abortion rights into constitutional law rather than letting democratic institutions d

Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg argued roe v wade was a mistake because it placed abortion rights into constitutional law rather than letting democratic institutions decide an issue like this. The reason it’s not an issue in Europe is because opposing sides all get a say in this and arrive at a compromise, namely abortion allowed up to 12 weeks which is fairly standard in most European countries. But because row v wade basically said abortion has to be allowed in the US, the issue has had no real democratic debate just massively polarized arguing. I’d argue the current situation will be better for almost everyone a few years down the line. Democracy works in resolving these issues. And why not have stricter laws in more Christian states? And free for all in California, if that’s what democracy decides?

triceratops 4y ago
> And why not have stricter laws in more Christian states? The 1st and 14th Amendments of the constitution, for starters.
- ravel-bar-foo 4y ago
  Yet we see religiously-inspired laws everywhere. Any laws relating to alcohol sales is probably reflective of local religiosity, as is the state philosophy on criminal justice. These are not 1st amendment violations. Going deeper, religion created a culture which we have inherited: marriages, government holidays, even the official work week being seven days long. These do not violate the 1st Amendment.
  - triceratops 4y ago
    > Any laws relating to alcohol sales is probably reflective of local religiosity, as is the state philosophy on criminal justice. My guess is these don't inconvenience people enough to make it to the Supreme Court. And there's also the fig leaf of "crime reduction". > as is the state philosophy on criminal justice Can you give some examples? I'm not familiar with this. > religion created a culture which we have inherited Which of these restrict individual freedoms by law? > even the official work week being seven days long. You'll be surprised to learn that pre-Christian and non-Christian cultures have also had 7-day weeks, likely because they divide a lunar month so well.[1] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week#History
    - hellojesus 4y ago
      The Constitution does not enumerate a federal power to govern alcohol. That is left to the states, and it is not a violation of an ammendment. Though the federal government did coerce every state into moving their drinking age from 18 to 21 under threat of withholding federal highway funding to states that had drinking ages set lower than 21. That case went to the Supreme Court and is also in dire need of overruling in my opinion.
      - triceratops 4y ago
        > That is left to the states, and it is not a violation of an ammendment Not alcohol specifically, but any law that appears to promote a state religion. Like I said, alcohol sale restrictions are hard to prove as being motivated solely by religion. There are crime reduction, public health and safety, labor safety considerations too. I imagine the bar/restaurant lobby is also influential.
        hellojesus 4y ago
        Can you provide an example of a law that is motivated purely by religion? And can you explain how that differs from legislation/policy crafted based on how someone feels, or even data? The point of the 10th ammendment was to allow people to self govern from the bottom up, realizing that not all solutions are universal because people have different preferences. With regards specifically to abortion, abortion bans are not necessarily motivated by religion. Many people believe life begins at conception, regardless of religion.
        triceratops 4y ago
        > Can you provide an example of a law that is motivated purely by religion? Certainly. The Pledge of Allegiance. [1] There's no non-religious basis for finding gay marriage objectionable. But it was not legal everywhere in the US until only 7 years ago. And appears to be in jeopardy again. These are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Addition_of_%22under_God%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Addition_...
dwater 4y ago
> Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg argued roe v wade was a mistake because it placed abortion rights into constitutional law rather than letting democratic institutions decide an issue like this. That's an oversimplification of a very nuanced and pragmatic view that is better explained here: "What Ruth Bader Ginsburg really said about Roe v. Wade", Washington Post https://archive.ph/jJENv https://archive.ph/jJENv It's not that she felt the rights granted by Roe were wrong to grant, she was worried that it would not be insulated from legal challenges.
- esyir 4y ago
  Essentially, the pro-choice group scored a tactical victory, that turned out to be a strategically vulnerable position. And in turn, the can got kicked down to our era.
- ejb999 4y ago
  >>she was worried that it would not be insulated from legal challenges. and she was right.
- cloutchaser 4y ago
  This is her: “Roe v. Wade, in contrast, invited no dialogue with legislators. Instead, it seemed entirely to remove the ball from the legislators’ court. In 1973, when Roe issued, abortion law was in a state of change across the nation. As the Supreme Court itself noted, there was a marked trend in state legislatures “toward liberalization of abortion statutes.” That movement for legislative change ran parallel to another law revision effort then underway-the change from fault to no-fault divorce regimes, a reform that swept through the state legislatures and captured all of them by the mid-1980s. No measured motion, the Roe decision left virtually no state with laws fully conforming to the Court’s delineation of abortion regulation still permissible. Around that extraordinary decision, a well-organized and vocal right-to-life movement rallied and succeeded, for a considerable time, in turning the legislative tide in the opposite direction.” This is exactly the point I made.

triceratops 4y ago

> And why not have stricter laws in more Christian states? The 1st and 14th Amendments of the constitution, for starters.

ravel-bar-foo 4y ago
Yet we see religiously-inspired laws everywhere. Any laws relating to alcohol sales is probably reflective of local religiosity, as is the state philosophy on criminal justice. These are not 1st amendment violations. Going deeper, religion created a culture which we have inherited: marriages, government holidays, even the official work week being seven days long. These do not violate the 1st Amendment.
- triceratops 4y ago
  > Any laws relating to alcohol sales is probably reflective of local religiosity, as is the state philosophy on criminal justice. My guess is these don't inconvenience people enough to make it to the Supreme Court. And there's also the fig leaf of "crime reduction". > as is the state philosophy on criminal justice Can you give some examples? I'm not familiar with this. > religion created a culture which we have inherited Which of these restrict individual freedoms by law? > even the official work week being seven days long. You'll be surprised to learn that pre-Christian and non-Christian cultures have also had 7-day weeks, likely because they divide a lunar month so well.[1] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week#History
  - hellojesus 4y ago
    The Constitution does not enumerate a federal power to govern alcohol. That is left to the states, and it is not a violation of an ammendment. Though the federal government did coerce every state into moving their drinking age from 18 to 21 under threat of withholding federal highway funding to states that had drinking ages set lower than 21. That case went to the Supreme Court and is also in dire need of overruling in my opinion.
    - triceratops 4y ago
      > That is left to the states, and it is not a violation of an ammendment Not alcohol specifically, but any law that appears to promote a state religion. Like I said, alcohol sale restrictions are hard to prove as being motivated solely by religion. There are crime reduction, public health and safety, labor safety considerations too. I imagine the bar/restaurant lobby is also influential.
      - hellojesus 4y ago
        Can you provide an example of a law that is motivated purely by religion? And can you explain how that differs from legislation/policy crafted based on how someone feels, or even data? The point of the 10th ammendment was to allow people to self govern from the bottom up, realizing that not all solutions are universal because people have different preferences. With regards specifically to abortion, abortion bans are not necessarily motivated by religion. Many people believe life begins at conception, regardless of religion.
        triceratops 4y ago
        > Can you provide an example of a law that is motivated purely by religion? Certainly. The Pledge of Allegiance. [1] There's no non-religious basis for finding gay marriage objectionable. But it was not legal everywhere in the US until only 7 years ago. And appears to be in jeopardy again. These are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Addition_of_%22under_God%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Addition_...

dwater 4y ago

> Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg argued roe v wade was a mistake because it placed abortion rights into constitutional law rather than letting democratic institutions decide an issue like this. That's an oversimplification of a very nuanced and pragmatic view that is better explained here: "What Ruth Bader Ginsburg really said about Roe v. Wade", Washington Post https://archive.ph/jJENv https://archive.ph/jJENv It's not that she felt the rights granted by Roe were wrong to grant, she was worried that it would not be insulated from legal challenges.

esyir 4y ago
Essentially, the pro-choice group scored a tactical victory, that turned out to be a strategically vulnerable position. And in turn, the can got kicked down to our era.
ejb999 4y ago
>>she was worried that it would not be insulated from legal challenges. and she was right.
cloutchaser 4y ago
This is her: “Roe v. Wade, in contrast, invited no dialogue with legislators. Instead, it seemed entirely to remove the ball from the legislators’ court. In 1973, when Roe issued, abortion law was in a state of change across the nation. As the Supreme Court itself noted, there was a marked trend in state legislatures “toward liberalization of abortion statutes.” That movement for legislative change ran parallel to another law revision effort then underway-the change from fault to no-fault divorce regimes, a reform that swept through the state legislatures and captured all of them by the mid-1980s. No measured motion, the Roe decision left virtually no state with laws fully conforming to the Court’s delineation of abortion regulation still permissible. Around that extraordinary decision, a well-organized and vocal right-to-life movement rallied and succeeded, for a considerable time, in turning the legislative tide in the opposite direction.” This is exactly the point I made.