6 ms·

> For the NRLC, which wrote the model legislation, limiting communication is a key part of the strategy to aggressively enforce laws restricting abortion. “The

> For the NRLC, which wrote the model legislation, limiting communication is a key part of the strategy to aggressively enforce laws restricting abortion. “The whole criminal enterprise needs to be dealt with to effectively prevent criminal activity,” Jim Bopp, the group’s general counsel, wrote in a July 4 memo, comparing the group’s efforts to fighting organized crime. This basically tells you everything you need to know. These people want to put women in jail and they don't care about niceties like "inter-state commerce" because in their mind they're fighting Al Capone. I hope commenters on here stop minimizing what these groups are trying to achieve. The reversal or Roe was not about "kicking it back to the states", it was the first step in trying to make abortion access illegal nationwide.

32163704 4y ago
>The reversal or Roe was not about "kicking it back to the states", it was the first step in trying to make abortion access illegal nationwide. Yes, and it makes me angry that so many commenters on this and other forums said, "Well, they have a point. It should be left to the states." As if women whose lives are at risk can wait for their judicial philosophy to cleanly play out; as if the raped 10 year old being forced to travel out of state to have an abortion was just how it goes while we figure out how to get the book keeping figured out; as if the woman who was forced to carry a dead fetus inside her for weeks because the hospital didn't want to risk being sued was just one of those tragic, unforeseeable, unavoidable victims of our imperfect democracy. These are lives we're talking about here. And it's only going to get worse. Sorry to use a cliche, but wake the fuck up y'all.
- softcactus 4y ago
  Yep. It's frustrating to see the threads on HN of people talking about this as if it's only hypothetical. Like it's a change to the Linux kernel and not something that impacts thousands of people every day. I don't care about the technical mechanisms of implementation, I care about how it affects the people around me dammit.
  - gmadsen 4y ago
    i get your point, but a bad change to the linux kernel could impact billions of people
    - softcactus 4y ago
      I just knew someone was going to comment this. You have my blessing to change "Linux kernel" to "any open source package" no matter how trivial.
- linuxftw 4y ago
  > 10 year old being forced to travel out of state People in the US are able to freely travel between states, this isn't the case elsewhere in the world. Some things are crimes in some jurisdictions and not others, this is normal. If you think it's inadequate, pass an amendment to the constitution, that's what the amendment process if for. If you think the process to too burdensome, encourage your state to secede.
  - runako 4y ago
    > People in the US are able to freely travel between states This is not a right that is specifically enumerated by the Constitution. The current Supreme Court has indicated that rights that are not specifically enumerated by the Constitution are subject to evaluation and curtailment.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
    This comment isn’t acknowledging that long-term solutions are necessary but not sufficient to make whole the continued injustice of trauma and death that will result from laws that deprive reproduce rights. It’s important to keep in mind there is a current and ongoing number of people who are dying, who have died, who are being deprived medical care (some who aren’t even pregnant!) and that an amendment to the constitution will not right the wrongs made to them.
    - linuxftw 4y ago
      Personally, I don't feel the idea of government is legitimate, but if you do, then you must abide by the process, for better or worse. There was plenty of time between Roe v Wade and present to pass an amendment or secede, so clearly the matter wasn't urgent.
      - SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
        No, there is nothing saying that just because you believe government is necessary that one must consider the government wholly, uncritically sufficient.
- rayiner 4y ago
  You've got it precisely backwards. It is because the abortion issue is so weighty that it should be resolved according to the legal processes set out in the Constitution. Federalism, separation of powers, etc., aren't for the easy stuff. They exist to allow a large and diverse nation--full of people who have different values and often actively hate each other--to cohere as a single unit. No other developed country has approached the abortion issue by saying "pfft the rules don't matter." The EU Court of Human Rights just last year refused to recognize a universal right to elective abortions. In every European country where abortion is legal, advocates of abortion made their case to the people, and the people decided whether to allow it and under what circumstances. In some cases it took a long time--Ireland legalized it just in 2018. But that's how civilized societies operate. Your thinking is how third world countries operate. They say "lives are at stake" (or something similarly weighty) and use that to justify ignoring the legal process. As someone from one of those countries let me tell you that you do not want to go down that road. The rules are more important than anything else. They are more important than any individual lives. Because the rules are what make civilization possible. If you disregard the rules on issues that you deem sufficiently important to you, that frees the other side to ignore the rules on issues they deem sufficiently important to them, and it goes quickly downhill from there.
  - softcactus 4y ago
    I understand where you're coming from, however this exact type of logic of separation of powers has only ever been invoked when trying to protect inhumane policies in the US. For example, Colorado and other states have legalized weed. They don't need to wax poetic about separation of powers etc to defend their position, because everyone understands that this is exactly what the Federal system was designed for. To allow states to augment their economies and taxation systems as they see fit (going back to colonial era reasoning). Throughout US history the most vocal proponents of states rights have been those who attempt to limit personal liberties. They first use the constitution as a jumping board, arguing that "it's not explicitly stated in the constitution!" because the constitution is limited and vague (The founding fathers intentionally kicked the can down the road for racial issues). Technically, the regressives are right here, but they are hiding behind legalism to protect their abhorrent viewpoints. "If it's so popular then just vote on it then!" Unfortunately it's not so simple. At the Federal level, a filibuster proof majority is required in the Senate (non-proportional) as well as full control of all three branches of government (president and congress are also non-proportional, although in a different way). So it's incredibly difficult to pass overwhelmingly popular legislature/amendments in the US. Which is precisely why we have seen most of our civil rights gains over the last 50 years be accomplished through the court system. At the state level, there is no filibuster (mostly) and so there is no mechanism for a minority to halt legislation at the state level. This kind of game has been played out for the last 200 years. Yes rules are important, but the reactionaries in US history have typically "meta-gamed" the flaws in our system that were overlooked by the founding fathers in order to preserve horrendous practices. That's not to say that there is no benefit to our checks and balances, but when it comes to things like civil rights, gay marriage, and abortion, the opposing side is mostly meta-gaming and exploiting checks and balances negatively. To sum up, corruption in the third world occurs by circumventing the laws. Corruption in the US occurs when you put someone in a position of power to interpret the laws the way you want them to. If you need sources, I can provide. > No other developed country has approached the abortion issue by saying "pfft the rules don't matter." The Roe decision was not made on "rules don't matter" it was an extension of the due process clause in the 14th amendment. The overturning of it was made on interpretations of common law going back to the 14th century, the main point of argument being that there was "no innate protection of abortion as a fundamental right".
- jfengel 4y ago
  "Left to the states" means "not left up to you". The phrase is often used as if it's meant to suggest that they're fighting off federal government overreach. In fact, it's used exactly to allow them to have overreach over you, at the level that they can make it happen. When they get the opportunity to control it at the federal level, it will stop being "left to the states". It's very much about denying individual liberties, using Orwellian language making it seem otherwise.
buscoquadnary 4y ago
I always worry when we start painting large groups of people with a single brush and labeling them the enemy. There are plenty of people who oppose abortion that are appalled at something like this or the Texas bounty hunting law. If we continue to try and paint each other group as a monolithic enemy other division will continue to rise and polarization will increase and the effects will be devestating.
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
  I agree with this broadly but I actually disagree with this point for this specific poster. “These people” is a phrase referring distinctly to the national right to life organization, whose goal is in fact to make abortion illegal nationwide. In this case, that organization is about as monolithic an enemy of pro choice people as possible. (Edited to add: there is a separate frustration of the poster of people claiming that diverting reproductive justice to state determination is reasonable. The poster is saying they are frustrated with that statement because it ignore the above fact. I also don’t think this is painting anyone with a broad brush… it is painting specific people’s specific argument as being myopic.)
- andsoitis 4y ago
  But opposing abortion and not caring about the consequences for women and families IS appalling.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    Edit: I misread the parent quote.
    - PaulsWallet 4y ago
      > You're conflating a lot of things here, none of which are really related. Speaking of things that aren't related. I don't see how those things being legal is even somewhat related to making abortion illegal or making it legal to bounty hunt women. You're going to have to explain that connection to me a bit more.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
Recently there was a house vote on a guaranteed right to contraceptives. One party unanimously voted in favor of it. The other party voted 96% against it. I'll leave which party is which as an exercise to the reader.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
powerhour 4y ago
I remember when folks were telling us we were being hysterical because of our concern a right-leaning SC would overturn Roe. Of course that is exactly what happened. Are these same people now telling us not to worry, they won't imprison women for getting abortions?
- danaris 4y ago
  Some of these same people are now telling us "of course treatment for ectopic pregnancies will be allowed" (there are already laws preventing that in places) "of course no one will be penalized for a miscarriage" (there are already women in prison for that) "of course there will be exceptions for people who really need it"—this is, in fact, the mindset of a lot of conservatives. It's closely related to Frank Wilhoit's cogent observation of what conservatives believe [0]: "There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." It's also very much the "surely the face-eating leopards party won't let leopards eat my face!" mindset. I've heard anecdotal reports from some people who have more conservative family members than I that some of them are actually starting to realize that there won't be the "reasonable exceptions" they were just assuming would exist, and getting genuinely worried. [0]: https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288 https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progre...
TeeMassive 4y ago
Indeed.Then they will go for other rights that are clearly in the Constitution.
turns0ut 4y ago
“Oh it was decided with bad reasoning. We can fix it now.” — bureaucratic apologists “We could have acknowledged it was bad reasoning in a legal context but not a human rights and that a fix would just create the same status quo and left it.” — sane people Agreed; this was a political flex to remind the proles grandpa is still sitting in the corner rambling nonsense.
swayvil 4y ago
This is a distraction. There have always been antiabortion crazies lurking in the woodwork. The state just chose to pull the trigger on this particular shitshow at this particular moment because it suits their agenda. Don't get me wrong. There is definitely an abortion rights disaster in progress. It's just that this disaster was manufactured only to distract from a larger, more powerful, disaster. Have you noticed how expensive everything is lately? And how will this debacle affect your vote?
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  > Have you noticed how expensive everything is lately? Have you noticed that supply and demand can change prices? Such as supply of young people performing labor in an aging country demanding ever more labor, or international conflicts and responses to infectious diseases disrupting supply chains. And of course, the government’s monetary response, but the point is that unless you have a source for a conspiracy, I do not see why it should merit consideration.
  - swayvil 4y ago
    I didn't even touch the cause of the inflation. It's beside my point. The cause of the abortion rights disaster is my point.
- dennis_jeeves1 4y ago
  >And how will this debacle affect your vote? Voting itself is a sham. I'm provided with the choice of a baboon and chimp for a leader, alternately I can stand for elections for a troop of monkeys, what can I say?
lurquer 4y ago
> The reversal or Roe was not about "kicking it back to the states", it was the first step in trying to make abortion access illegal nationwide. Was this motive ever hidden? Abortion should be illegal. I hope each state passes laws criminalizing it. That has always been the goal. The ‘judicial philosophy’ crap emerged due TO roe V. wade. The decision made a mockery of the constitution. The millions upon millions of people working and praying and picketing and voting on this issue for the past 40 years we’re doing it to save babies… not to defend some abstract philosophy.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
  Genuinely asking, have you considered that banning abortion doesn’t save babies who have already died or are dying in the womb? And doesn’t save situations where there are no babies involved at all, and there are chronically ill people who are being denied medication because the medication can cause abortions?
  - lurquer 4y ago
    There are edge cases with all penal laws. If one ‘bans’ murder, the legislatures and courts will need to grapple with killing in self-defense, pulling the plug on a brain-dead vegetable, administering drugs in some cases that have a high risk of death, assisting in a suicide, accidentally causing a death vs intentionally, etc. This isn’t new. Each state crafts it’s own laws to address these things, each prosecutor uses his discretion in applying them, each jury or grand jury weighs in, each judge crafts a sentence taking these things into consideration, etc. In short your edge cases are nothing new… every law is over and under inclusive. The judicial system as a whole has been dealing with these issues for centuries.
    - powerhour 4y ago
      How do we decide which cases to prosecute? Do we convene a grand jury for every miscarriage? Do you have any idea how many investigations this would be per year? If you don't investigate every miscarriage, what's the criteria for getting the state involved? Do you wait for family or neighbors to report a crime? Do you track medical appointments and make a judgement as to when a birth was expected and didn't happen? I'm not sure you've thought this through.
rayiner 4y ago
> These people want to put women in jail and they don't care about niceties.... The reversal or Roe was not about "kicking it back to the states", it was the first step in trying to make abortion access illegal nationwide Which "these people" are you referring to? Roe was remarkable in its ability to unify disparate groups: evangelicals and Catholics who oppose abortion categorically, right-leaning independents who support some level of abortion but want more restrictions than Roe allows, and Constitutionalists who find Roe incomprehensible as an assertion of Constitutional law. Now that Roe is gone, some of those folks will indeed try to "make abortion access illegal nationwide." But hardly everyone who opposed Roe to begin with: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/05/06/wide-partisan-gaps-in-abortion-attitudes-but-opinions-in-both-parties-are-complicated/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/05/06/wide-partis.... Just 13% of Republicans are true believers who think abortion should be categorically illegal. The vast majority, 38% think it should be "legal in all or most cases." Most fall in the mushy middle.
threatofrain 4y ago
If we accept the premise that abortion is baby murder, then the moral implications are clear: (1) exceptions on rape are grotesque as we'd be condoning baby murder as a form of trauma relief, (2) cross-state or even cross-country baby murder is just as grotesque, (3) doctors and medical systems must have extreme culpability as they are part of an assembly line of baby murder. How does Constitutional case law factor into the question of mass baby murder?
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  Even if you consider it murder-more-or-less, the hard dependence on another person's body puts it in a different category of transgression. Consider: You watch someone die in front of you while you hold in your hands the thing that could save their life, but refuse to give it. Is that murder? Maybe, possibly, there's an argument that it's something else but I'm comfortable with this. Should a person be allowed to do it? Again maybe, but I'm ok with no, that's a bad crime, they shouldn't be allowed to do it. You watch someone die in front of you while the thing that could save them comes from your own body. A blood transfusion, say, or whatever, a fingernail clipping, it doesn't matter really. This is morally the same transgression as the first example. But in this case we have clearly and consistently decided that you are allowed to make this choice. It may be evil but it is not a crime. If you don't allow the second choice, then you open the door to things like medical experiments on nonconsenting people and organ harvesting. The boundary around bodily autonomy needs to be firm or you permit atrocities. Abortion may be murder! You can believe it is. But the fact that the life depends on the body of another person means they have the choice not to render aid.
xnx 4y ago
> in their mind they're fighting Al Capone. In their mind they think they're fighting Satan.

32163704 4y ago

>The reversal or Roe was not about "kicking it back to the states", it was the first step in trying to make abortion access illegal nationwide. Yes, and it makes me angry that so many commenters on this and other forums said, "Well, they have a point. It should be left to the states." As if women whose lives are at risk can wait for their judicial philosophy to cleanly play out; as if the raped 10 year old being forced to travel out of state to have an abortion was just how it goes while we figure out how to get the book keeping figured out; as if the woman who was forced to carry a dead fetus inside her for weeks because the hospital didn't want to risk being sued was just one of those tragic, unforeseeable, unavoidable victims of our imperfect democracy. These are lives we're talking about here. And it's only going to get worse. Sorry to use a cliche, but wake the fuck up y'all.

softcactus 4y ago
Yep. It's frustrating to see the threads on HN of people talking about this as if it's only hypothetical. Like it's a change to the Linux kernel and not something that impacts thousands of people every day. I don't care about the technical mechanisms of implementation, I care about how it affects the people around me dammit.
- gmadsen 4y ago
  i get your point, but a bad change to the linux kernel could impact billions of people
  - softcactus 4y ago
    I just knew someone was going to comment this. You have my blessing to change "Linux kernel" to "any open source package" no matter how trivial.
linuxftw 4y ago
> 10 year old being forced to travel out of state People in the US are able to freely travel between states, this isn't the case elsewhere in the world. Some things are crimes in some jurisdictions and not others, this is normal. If you think it's inadequate, pass an amendment to the constitution, that's what the amendment process if for. If you think the process to too burdensome, encourage your state to secede.
- runako 4y ago
  > People in the US are able to freely travel between states This is not a right that is specifically enumerated by the Constitution. The current Supreme Court has indicated that rights that are not specifically enumerated by the Constitution are subject to evaluation and curtailment.
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
  This comment isn’t acknowledging that long-term solutions are necessary but not sufficient to make whole the continued injustice of trauma and death that will result from laws that deprive reproduce rights. It’s important to keep in mind there is a current and ongoing number of people who are dying, who have died, who are being deprived medical care (some who aren’t even pregnant!) and that an amendment to the constitution will not right the wrongs made to them.
  - linuxftw 4y ago
    Personally, I don't feel the idea of government is legitimate, but if you do, then you must abide by the process, for better or worse. There was plenty of time between Roe v Wade and present to pass an amendment or secede, so clearly the matter wasn't urgent.
    - SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
      No, there is nothing saying that just because you believe government is necessary that one must consider the government wholly, uncritically sufficient.
rayiner 4y ago
You've got it precisely backwards. It is because the abortion issue is so weighty that it should be resolved according to the legal processes set out in the Constitution. Federalism, separation of powers, etc., aren't for the easy stuff. They exist to allow a large and diverse nation--full of people who have different values and often actively hate each other--to cohere as a single unit. No other developed country has approached the abortion issue by saying "pfft the rules don't matter." The EU Court of Human Rights just last year refused to recognize a universal right to elective abortions. In every European country where abortion is legal, advocates of abortion made their case to the people, and the people decided whether to allow it and under what circumstances. In some cases it took a long time--Ireland legalized it just in 2018. But that's how civilized societies operate. Your thinking is how third world countries operate. They say "lives are at stake" (or something similarly weighty) and use that to justify ignoring the legal process. As someone from one of those countries let me tell you that you do not want to go down that road. The rules are more important than anything else. They are more important than any individual lives. Because the rules are what make civilization possible. If you disregard the rules on issues that you deem sufficiently important to you, that frees the other side to ignore the rules on issues they deem sufficiently important to them, and it goes quickly downhill from there.
- softcactus 4y ago
  I understand where you're coming from, however this exact type of logic of separation of powers has only ever been invoked when trying to protect inhumane policies in the US. For example, Colorado and other states have legalized weed. They don't need to wax poetic about separation of powers etc to defend their position, because everyone understands that this is exactly what the Federal system was designed for. To allow states to augment their economies and taxation systems as they see fit (going back to colonial era reasoning). Throughout US history the most vocal proponents of states rights have been those who attempt to limit personal liberties. They first use the constitution as a jumping board, arguing that "it's not explicitly stated in the constitution!" because the constitution is limited and vague (The founding fathers intentionally kicked the can down the road for racial issues). Technically, the regressives are right here, but they are hiding behind legalism to protect their abhorrent viewpoints. "If it's so popular then just vote on it then!" Unfortunately it's not so simple. At the Federal level, a filibuster proof majority is required in the Senate (non-proportional) as well as full control of all three branches of government (president and congress are also non-proportional, although in a different way). So it's incredibly difficult to pass overwhelmingly popular legislature/amendments in the US. Which is precisely why we have seen most of our civil rights gains over the last 50 years be accomplished through the court system. At the state level, there is no filibuster (mostly) and so there is no mechanism for a minority to halt legislation at the state level. This kind of game has been played out for the last 200 years. Yes rules are important, but the reactionaries in US history have typically "meta-gamed" the flaws in our system that were overlooked by the founding fathers in order to preserve horrendous practices. That's not to say that there is no benefit to our checks and balances, but when it comes to things like civil rights, gay marriage, and abortion, the opposing side is mostly meta-gaming and exploiting checks and balances negatively. To sum up, corruption in the third world occurs by circumventing the laws. Corruption in the US occurs when you put someone in a position of power to interpret the laws the way you want them to. If you need sources, I can provide. > No other developed country has approached the abortion issue by saying "pfft the rules don't matter." The Roe decision was not made on "rules don't matter" it was an extension of the due process clause in the 14th amendment. The overturning of it was made on interpretations of common law going back to the 14th century, the main point of argument being that there was "no innate protection of abortion as a fundamental right".
jfengel 4y ago
"Left to the states" means "not left up to you". The phrase is often used as if it's meant to suggest that they're fighting off federal government overreach. In fact, it's used exactly to allow them to have overreach over you, at the level that they can make it happen. When they get the opportunity to control it at the federal level, it will stop being "left to the states". It's very much about denying individual liberties, using Orwellian language making it seem otherwise.

buscoquadnary 4y ago

I always worry when we start painting large groups of people with a single brush and labeling them the enemy. There are plenty of people who oppose abortion that are appalled at something like this or the Texas bounty hunting law. If we continue to try and paint each other group as a monolithic enemy other division will continue to rise and polarization will increase and the effects will be devestating.

SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
I agree with this broadly but I actually disagree with this point for this specific poster. “These people” is a phrase referring distinctly to the national right to life organization, whose goal is in fact to make abortion illegal nationwide. In this case, that organization is about as monolithic an enemy of pro choice people as possible. (Edited to add: there is a separate frustration of the poster of people claiming that diverting reproductive justice to state determination is reasonable. The poster is saying they are frustrated with that statement because it ignore the above fact. I also don’t think this is painting anyone with a broad brush… it is painting specific people’s specific argument as being myopic.)
andsoitis 4y ago
But opposing abortion and not caring about the consequences for women and families IS appalling.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  Edit: I misread the parent quote.
  - PaulsWallet 4y ago
    > You're conflating a lot of things here, none of which are really related. Speaking of things that aren't related. I don't see how those things being legal is even somewhat related to making abortion illegal or making it legal to bounty hunt women. You're going to have to explain that connection to me a bit more.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago

Recently there was a house vote on a guaranteed right to contraceptives. One party unanimously voted in favor of it. The other party voted 96% against it. I'll leave which party is which as an exercise to the reader.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

powerhour 4y ago

I remember when folks were telling us we were being hysterical because of our concern a right-leaning SC would overturn Roe. Of course that is exactly what happened. Are these same people now telling us not to worry, they won't imprison women for getting abortions?

danaris 4y ago
Some of these same people are now telling us "of course treatment for ectopic pregnancies will be allowed" (there are already laws preventing that in places) "of course no one will be penalized for a miscarriage" (there are already women in prison for that) "of course there will be exceptions for people who really need it"—this is, in fact, the mindset of a lot of conservatives. It's closely related to Frank Wilhoit's cogent observation of what conservatives believe [0]: "There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." It's also very much the "surely the face-eating leopards party won't let leopards eat my face!" mindset. I've heard anecdotal reports from some people who have more conservative family members than I that some of them are actually starting to realize that there won't be the "reasonable exceptions" they were just assuming would exist, and getting genuinely worried. [0]: https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288 https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progre...

TeeMassive 4y ago

Indeed.Then they will go for other rights that are clearly in the Constitution.

turns0ut 4y ago

“Oh it was decided with bad reasoning. We can fix it now.” — bureaucratic apologists “We could have acknowledged it was bad reasoning in a legal context but not a human rights and that a fix would just create the same status quo and left it.” — sane people Agreed; this was a political flex to remind the proles grandpa is still sitting in the corner rambling nonsense.

swayvil 4y ago

This is a distraction. There have always been antiabortion crazies lurking in the woodwork. The state just chose to pull the trigger on this particular shitshow at this particular moment because it suits their agenda. Don't get me wrong. There is definitely an abortion rights disaster in progress. It's just that this disaster was manufactured only to distract from a larger, more powerful, disaster. Have you noticed how expensive everything is lately? And how will this debacle affect your vote?

lotsofpulp 4y ago
> Have you noticed how expensive everything is lately? Have you noticed that supply and demand can change prices? Such as supply of young people performing labor in an aging country demanding ever more labor, or international conflicts and responses to infectious diseases disrupting supply chains. And of course, the government’s monetary response, but the point is that unless you have a source for a conspiracy, I do not see why it should merit consideration.
- swayvil 4y ago
  I didn't even touch the cause of the inflation. It's beside my point. The cause of the abortion rights disaster is my point.
dennis_jeeves1 4y ago
>And how will this debacle affect your vote? Voting itself is a sham. I'm provided with the choice of a baboon and chimp for a leader, alternately I can stand for elections for a troop of monkeys, what can I say?

lurquer 4y ago

> The reversal or Roe was not about "kicking it back to the states", it was the first step in trying to make abortion access illegal nationwide. Was this motive ever hidden? Abortion should be illegal. I hope each state passes laws criminalizing it. That has always been the goal. The ‘judicial philosophy’ crap emerged due TO roe V. wade. The decision made a mockery of the constitution. The millions upon millions of people working and praying and picketing and voting on this issue for the past 40 years we’re doing it to save babies… not to defend some abstract philosophy.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
Genuinely asking, have you considered that banning abortion doesn’t save babies who have already died or are dying in the womb? And doesn’t save situations where there are no babies involved at all, and there are chronically ill people who are being denied medication because the medication can cause abortions?
- lurquer 4y ago
  There are edge cases with all penal laws. If one ‘bans’ murder, the legislatures and courts will need to grapple with killing in self-defense, pulling the plug on a brain-dead vegetable, administering drugs in some cases that have a high risk of death, assisting in a suicide, accidentally causing a death vs intentionally, etc. This isn’t new. Each state crafts it’s own laws to address these things, each prosecutor uses his discretion in applying them, each jury or grand jury weighs in, each judge crafts a sentence taking these things into consideration, etc. In short your edge cases are nothing new… every law is over and under inclusive. The judicial system as a whole has been dealing with these issues for centuries.
  - powerhour 4y ago
    How do we decide which cases to prosecute? Do we convene a grand jury for every miscarriage? Do you have any idea how many investigations this would be per year? If you don't investigate every miscarriage, what's the criteria for getting the state involved? Do you wait for family or neighbors to report a crime? Do you track medical appointments and make a judgement as to when a birth was expected and didn't happen? I'm not sure you've thought this through.

rayiner 4y ago

> These people want to put women in jail and they don't care about niceties.... The reversal or Roe was not about "kicking it back to the states", it was the first step in trying to make abortion access illegal nationwide Which "these people" are you referring to? Roe was remarkable in its ability to unify disparate groups: evangelicals and Catholics who oppose abortion categorically, right-leaning independents who support some level of abortion but want more restrictions than Roe allows, and Constitutionalists who find Roe incomprehensible as an assertion of Constitutional law. Now that Roe is gone, some of those folks will indeed try to "make abortion access illegal nationwide." But hardly everyone who opposed Roe to begin with: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/05/06/wide-partisan-gaps-in-abortion-attitudes-but-opinions-in-both-parties-are-complicated/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/05/06/wide-partis.... Just 13% of Republicans are true believers who think abortion should be categorically illegal. The vast majority, 38% think it should be "legal in all or most cases." Most fall in the mushy middle.

threatofrain 4y ago

If we accept the premise that abortion is baby murder, then the moral implications are clear: (1) exceptions on rape are grotesque as we'd be condoning baby murder as a form of trauma relief, (2) cross-state or even cross-country baby murder is just as grotesque, (3) doctors and medical systems must have extreme culpability as they are part of an assembly line of baby murder. How does Constitutional case law factor into the question of mass baby murder?

giraffe_lady 4y ago
Even if you consider it murder-more-or-less, the hard dependence on another person's body puts it in a different category of transgression. Consider: You watch someone die in front of you while you hold in your hands the thing that could save their life, but refuse to give it. Is that murder? Maybe, possibly, there's an argument that it's something else but I'm comfortable with this. Should a person be allowed to do it? Again maybe, but I'm ok with no, that's a bad crime, they shouldn't be allowed to do it. You watch someone die in front of you while the thing that could save them comes from your own body. A blood transfusion, say, or whatever, a fingernail clipping, it doesn't matter really. This is morally the same transgression as the first example. But in this case we have clearly and consistently decided that you are allowed to make this choice. It may be evil but it is not a crime. If you don't allow the second choice, then you open the door to things like medical experiments on nonconsenting people and organ harvesting. The boundary around bodily autonomy needs to be firm or you permit atrocities. Abortion may be murder! You can believe it is. But the fact that the life depends on the body of another person means they have the choice not to render aid.

xnx 4y ago

> in their mind they're fighting Al Capone. In their mind they think they're fighting Satan.