3 ms·

That sounds like a conspiracy theory. Even atheists and pro-abortion people have been complaining that the ruling in Roe vs Wade was a huge stretch. At the end

That sounds like a conspiracy theory. Even atheists and pro-abortion people have been complaining that the ruling in Roe vs Wade was a huge stretch. At the end of the day, its not a constitutional issue. So either amend the constitution or leave the decision up to the states.

gjsman-1000 4y ago
Ruth Bader Ginsburg loved abortion, but thought Roe v Wade was a trash decision that actually risked being thrown out for how sloppy it was. She was right.
- spaced-out 4y ago
  No she didn't and no it wasn't. RvW ruled that in order to be free, people have an implicit right to privacy when making personal medical decisions. Obviously moral busybodies don't like that so they're calling it "overreach".
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    >> Ruth Bader Ginsburg loved abortion, but thought Roe v Wade was a trash decision that actually risked being thrown out for how sloppy it was. She was right. > No she didn't and no it wasn't. RvW ruled that in order to be free, people have an implicit right to privacy when making personal medical decisions. Eh, not so much. It's probably an overstatement that she thought it was a "trash decision," but she definitely believed it was a tactical mistake and that its legal reasoning left it vulnerable, which is another way of saying it was weak. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-ro... > Obviously moral busybodies don't like that so they're calling it "overreach". I think there's room to be more nuanced and have views about abortion and legal reasoning that are separate and distinct.
    - spaced-out 4y ago
      >its legal reasoning left it vulnerable, which is another way of saying it was weak As if any of that mattered in the end. The Supreme Court ruled how it did because it's dominated by religious conservatives that don't like abortion.
      - tablespoon 4y ago
        > As if any of that mattered in the end. The Supreme Court ruled how it did because it's dominated by religious conservatives that don't like abortion. Or its dominated by legal conservatives who have different ideas about constitutional interpretation than the Warren Court, put there by politicians whose constituents oppose abortion. To me at least Roe v. Wade seems to have, in effect, been a constitutional amendment via means that bypassed the normal political process for such things. Unless you're a very "ends justify the means" kind of person, that raises concerns that would introduce a vulnerability into anything accomplished that way.
        spaced-out 4y ago
        >Or its dominated by legal conservatives who have different ideas about constitutional interpretation than the Warren Court, put there by politicians whose constituents oppose abortion. Exactly, those judges were determined to stop abortions, it didn't matter how strong or weak the legal arguments of RvW were, or whether or not the legislature codified it in law or not. They would have jumped through any number of legal hoops to stop people from getting abortions.
nullfield 4y ago
The thing that the "progressive left" doesn't want to admit is that Roe can be bad law AND that the right to be secure in/have control over your body needs to exist.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > The thing that the "progressive left" doesn't want to admit is that Roe can be bad law AND that the right to be secure in/have control over your body needs to exist. Yeah. The rhetoric on this is so overheated that I'm convinced that some people actually believe Roe v. Wade is the Third Amendment [1] or something like that. IHMO, this debate would be a lot better if people could distinguish between policy and the law/legal reasoning as separate things. [1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-3/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-3/

gjsman-1000 4y ago

Ruth Bader Ginsburg loved abortion, but thought Roe v Wade was a trash decision that actually risked being thrown out for how sloppy it was. She was right.

spaced-out 4y ago
No she didn't and no it wasn't. RvW ruled that in order to be free, people have an implicit right to privacy when making personal medical decisions. Obviously moral busybodies don't like that so they're calling it "overreach".
- tablespoon 4y ago
  >> Ruth Bader Ginsburg loved abortion, but thought Roe v Wade was a trash decision that actually risked being thrown out for how sloppy it was. She was right. > No she didn't and no it wasn't. RvW ruled that in order to be free, people have an implicit right to privacy when making personal medical decisions. Eh, not so much. It's probably an overstatement that she thought it was a "trash decision," but she definitely believed it was a tactical mistake and that its legal reasoning left it vulnerable, which is another way of saying it was weak. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-ro... > Obviously moral busybodies don't like that so they're calling it "overreach". I think there's room to be more nuanced and have views about abortion and legal reasoning that are separate and distinct.
  - spaced-out 4y ago
    >its legal reasoning left it vulnerable, which is another way of saying it was weak As if any of that mattered in the end. The Supreme Court ruled how it did because it's dominated by religious conservatives that don't like abortion.
    - tablespoon 4y ago
      > As if any of that mattered in the end. The Supreme Court ruled how it did because it's dominated by religious conservatives that don't like abortion. Or its dominated by legal conservatives who have different ideas about constitutional interpretation than the Warren Court, put there by politicians whose constituents oppose abortion. To me at least Roe v. Wade seems to have, in effect, been a constitutional amendment via means that bypassed the normal political process for such things. Unless you're a very "ends justify the means" kind of person, that raises concerns that would introduce a vulnerability into anything accomplished that way.
      - spaced-out 4y ago
        >Or its dominated by legal conservatives who have different ideas about constitutional interpretation than the Warren Court, put there by politicians whose constituents oppose abortion. Exactly, those judges were determined to stop abortions, it didn't matter how strong or weak the legal arguments of RvW were, or whether or not the legislature codified it in law or not. They would have jumped through any number of legal hoops to stop people from getting abortions.

nullfield 4y ago

The thing that the "progressive left" doesn't want to admit is that Roe can be bad law AND that the right to be secure in/have control over your body needs to exist.

tablespoon 4y ago
> The thing that the "progressive left" doesn't want to admit is that Roe can be bad law AND that the right to be secure in/have control over your body needs to exist. Yeah. The rhetoric on this is so overheated that I'm convinced that some people actually believe Roe v. Wade is the Third Amendment [1] or something like that. IHMO, this debate would be a lot better if people could distinguish between policy and the law/legal reasoning as separate things. [1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-3/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-3/