Disgusted and must scream

[subgrrl]

AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!

We saw this coming, but it makes it no easier to swallow. The Supreme Court of the US has proven that the majority is completely moronic. Overturning Roe vs Wade is the worst decision I could ever imagine. US women are now basically service animals. This is dystopia.

FUCK SCOTUS!

<>--+-

[jakbird]

Reality is so much less interesting that popular catchphrases.  SCOTUS recognized that abortions are not included in any enumerated rights by the federal government.  When that happens the Tenth Amendment goes into effect, which in simple terms provides that rights not granted to the federal government are purely the matter for individual states to decide.

That's what happened.  It's known as "States Rights" though that term is unpopular since the Civil War.  Every state now gets to decide what's best for their own population.  As it happens, the (very conservative) state I live in doesn't ban abortion so there's no change in existing law, it's still legal.  Nobody lost anything.

Other states, well, some will ban it and some won't.  That's how the US federal system works.  Don't like where you live, move to a state where it better suits you.  That's what I did several years ago, and it's a migration still going on today.  If there is a "dystopia", it's in the states losing large numbers of people.

[teanndaorsa]

I think it is a very bad sign when the judicial branch of the state is doing the legislating for the other two branches; an even worse one when women feel they will have to upend their whole life and move just to retain their ability to choose what happens to their body.

It feels to me like US politicians got given an opportunity in the 70s to do their jobs, and in reaction to the original decision, to set the law according to what 85-90% of the population can agree on: that abortion should be legal up to some generous limit, and illegal beyond. Instead they used it as a get-out clause and abdicated all their responsibilities on the issue.

You can blame the current supreme court and its members for this atrocious decision, but I'd suggest you should reserve a larger portion of the blame for every US politician, Democratic and Republican alike, that avoided doing what nearly ever other Western democracy did decades ago: actually legislating about this critical issue.  They are the ones who've left every woman in their country in this intolerable state of uncertainty and fear.

[jakbird]

As a libertarian in general I prefer government not interfere in private lives any more than necessary to preserves societal stability.  Libertarians (the other US political party you never hear about) believe in personal freedom balanced by personal responsibility, for example legalize all drugs, but if you overdose or get addicted you live with the consequences; the government doesn't bail you out with a safety net.  I see the right to an abortion the same way; it's a personal choice to get pregnant, and a personal responsibility to decide how to handle the results.

Aside from party politics my own opinion is legal abortions are beneficial to society as a whole, and at some level even state funding for low income is justified.  Despite religious objections the right to an abortion does benefit society in that a high proportion of unwanted children at low income levels do contribute to a rise in crime.  Statistics show a direct link between the 1973 decision and falling general crime rates 20 years later (check a book called Freakonomics).

Sure, politicians kicked the can down the road, and the 1973 SCOTUS judges did fabricate new law out of ideology rather than the Constitution.  That's US politics at it's most common (and timid).  Now we have a mess, but it will clear itself into pro-choice and pro-life states, not really any different from drinking age, gun regulation or tax rates. 

No one has to actually move to another state to get an abortion; there are no interstate laws governing it now.  Insurance companies are already extending health insurance to cover abortions in pro-life state to include transportation expenses out of state.  Someone living in Mississippi (ban went into effect immediately due to existing state law) can hop on a plane to New York and be back in a few days.

I'm sure this decision will be compared to the infamous Dred Scott decision on slavery in 1857.  At the time SCOTUS ruled that under a strict interpretation of the Constitution, which did not grant citizenship rights to slaves or former slaves, granting freedom to former slaves who escaped to free states violated the "taking of property without compensation" clause.  This decision was only overturned after the 13th Amendment was passed after the Civil War, finally outlawing slavery (and no, it wasn't the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, that was blatantly unconstitutional).  The Supreme Court is bound only by the legal precedents set in the Constitution, regardless of popular sentiment (in theory, not so much in practice).  So, like in Dred Scott, without a mandate that gave the federal government the right to legislate on abortion, SCOTUS followed the Constitution in overturning the prior Roe vs. Wade decision when it was challenged by Mississippi.  Bad law based on political pressure is still bad law and in the end doesn't benefit anyone.

[trash princess]

Reality is so much less interesting that popular catchphrases.  SCOTUS recognized that abortions are not included in any enumerated rights by the federal government.  When that happens the Tenth Amendment goes into effect, which in simple terms provides that rights not granted to the federal government are purely the matter for individual states to decide.

That's what happened.  It's known as "States Rights" though that term is unpopular since the Civil War.  Every state now gets to decide what's best for their own population.  As it happens, the (very conservative) state I live in doesn't ban abortion so there's no change in existing law, it's still legal.  Nobody lost anything.

Other states, well, some will ban it and some won't.  That's how the US federal system works.  Don't like where you live, move to a state where it better suits you.  That's what I did several years ago, and it's a migration still going on today.  If there is a "dystopia", it's in the states losing large numbers of people.

we know what the change does, and that's the problem. abortion should not be able to be banned at all.

and what do you mean "just leave"? most people can't afford that shit.

[jakbird]

we know what the change does, and that's the problem. abortion should not be able to be banned at all.
Okay, so I can conclude from that it's fine if you impose your opinions on everyone else, but not if it's the other way around?  There are plenty of states that agree with you; abortion is not going to be banned.  And, at a guess about a third of the states won't agree with you, so it will be banned or modified there.  Have some respect for people with closely held beliefs that don't happen to correspond to your own and learn to accept they are the majority in those states.

and what do you mean "just leave"?
Leave as in take a trip to another state for a legal abortion.  There are no federal laws governing it, that's what was just struck down.  Health insurance companies have announced they will pay expenses.  I suggest those who disagree with the ban in those states form a charity to pay for expenses for those not otherwise covered.  But then you'd have to spend your own money to support your beliefs, not force someone else to pay for it.

What bothers me behind all the rhetoric is the unspoken issue of centralized federal government losing the authority to impose an agenda on the country without the legal mandate to back it up.  There is a precedent now in place far larger than the issue of abortion.  SCOTUS in effect has placed a limit on legislative and enforcement powers at the federal level with a clearer boundary of what is reserved to individual states.  This represents potentially tremendous loss of power for special interest groups, because it is so difficult to lobby and pressure in 50 state legislatures instead of one Congress.

Consider the present gun bill in the House.  If Congress cannot legislate on abortion as a health issue, how can it pass a "red flag" bill imposing prior restraint (as in no crime committed, no person accused or convicted but still subject to a punishment) based on the mental health of 18-20 year old adults who are granted all other rights as an adult citizen?  No, the two issues aren't the same, but the principle of imposing laws on the entire country when the authority is clearly reserved to individual states does touch on the same principle.

It's easy to dismiss the US federal system, to demand everyone follow a certain agenda.  But the US government was never designed to work that way.  Individual states wield far more power than provinces in other countries, and for good reason. We have 50 different choices as to the kind of government we prefer.  I happen to live in a state with a mandatory balanced budget, reasonably unobtrusive laws governing social behavior, and a generally nice place with a very low crime rate.  Other people, for whatever reason, prefer massive deficit spending at the state level, social justice laws approaching the absurd, and a crime rate that means no one dares to walk the streets at night.  Why?  Who knows. but I'm grateful for a federal system that allows me to associate with like-minded people.  And in states like California or New York, well, they get to know their neighbors too, far, far away from me,

[subgrrl]

How, exactly, is legal abortion "imposing your opinion on everyone else"? If one is against abortion, don't get one! No one is controlling you to do anything in that case.

Also, it is likely true that I am much less of a constitutional scholar than you, but your description of the overturning of Roe v Wade, in my listening, sounds like some sort of clerical error has been addressed after 50 years. It totally distracts from the fact that a huge chunk of Americans just had a right stripped away from them... That right that they have lost is autonomy over their own bodies.

We now have 2 Americas where one's location within our country determines the rights that one has. The 14 Amendment of the Constitution guarantees equal protection of the laws. It implicitly guarantees a right to privacy. ("no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.")

In some states women will be first class citizens. In others, they have been reduced to service animals.

[jakbird]

If one is against abortion, don't get one! No one is controlling you to do anything in that case.

It's not that simple, though the protesters would like it to be framed that way.  To start, there is the matter of when life begins.  I don't know when that is, but those with religious beliefs do have a definite answer.  That's why there's a large and vocal pro-life movement.  Like it or not a significant portion of the US regards abortion as taking a life.  It is not, in their view, a victimless crime.  I expect Bible Belt states will move rapidly to follow Mississippi in banning abortion for just that reason.

Then there's the controversy over when a fetus becomes a viable child, which is why so many states now limit abortions in third trimester.  Again, I have no answer to this question, but I do believe it should be determined on a local basis, state by state.

your description of the overturning of Roe v Wade, in my listening, sounds like some sort of clerical error has been addressed after 50 years. It totally distracts from the fact that a huge chunk of Americans just had a right stripped away from them.

It wasn't a clerical error, it was a deliberate decision based on ideology without legal backing, which is far worse since it undermines the credibility of a critical branch of the federal government.  Rule by emotion over rule by law might be satisfying in the short run but it is corruption by another name. Sadly there have been far too many court decisions that create new law out of whole cloth rather than apply the only rules the court must follow, the Constitution.  It's that kind of carelessness that led to the mess now.

And no, abortion never was a Constitutional right.  There is no clause or Amendment that deals with it, even in the abstract, other than the 10th Amendment, which is quite clear that whatever is left out of the federal Constitution is up to individual states to legislate and adjudicate.  Legal scholars were aware of that fatal flaw in Roe vs. Wade for the last 49 years.  That's why there was so much effort put into blocking strict interpreters of the Constitution from becoming Justices.

AS for the Equal Protection clause, that affects how laws are applied.  For instance, government cannot pass laws that single out certain groups, say 18-20 year old adults, and penalize them for supposed crimes which are legal if they were 21 or older.  I know, what about drinking?  Well, drinking alcohol has not been a right since Prohibition was repealed.  States which generally grant adult status starting at 21 can limit drinking below that age.  Abortion is now a matter of state law, not federal, so Equal Protection would apply only if the state law was arbitrarily applied such that that urban residents could have abortions but not rural women, as an example. 

In any case, Equal Protection is routinely ignored by Congress when passing laws.  Sure, they are eventually overturned in courts but that takes years, long after the emotional high wins the votes for the next election.  Mask mandates are a good example, as well as the current gun bill which flies in the face of that other momentous decision on gun regulations the court handed down the day before.

Putting aside the controversy, anyone who reads my stories knows I am perhaps the worst possible choice to advocate for any kind of legal equality between the sexes.  Not service animals, but property, ahh yes, that is (literally) another story (or two, in the queue now).  However, I am quite sure my solution to these kinds of issues will never be considered in any public forum.  Well, except maybe this one...

(See? in a roundabout way I brought the discussion back to one of the website themes.)

[trash princess]

we know what the change does, and that's the problem. abortion should not be able to be banned at all.
Okay, so I can conclude from that it's fine if you impose your opinions on everyone else, but not if it's the other way around?  There are plenty of states that agree with you; abortion is not going to be banned.  And, at a guess about a third of the states won't agree with you, so it will be banned or modified there.  Have some respect for people with closely held beliefs that don't happen to correspond to your own and learn to accept they are the majority in those states.

and what do you mean "just leave"?
Leave as in take a trip to another state for a legal abortion.  There are no federal laws governing it, that's what was just struck down.  Health insurance companies have announced they will pay expenses.  I suggest those who disagree with the ban in those states form a charity to pay for expenses for those not otherwise covered.  But then you'd have to spend your own money to support your beliefs, not force someone else to pay for it.

What bothers me behind all the rhetoric is the unspoken issue of centralized federal government losing the authority to impose an agenda on the country without the legal mandate to back it up.  There is a precedent now in place far larger than the issue of abortion.  SCOTUS in effect has placed a limit on legislative and enforcement powers at the federal level with a clearer boundary of what is reserved to individual states.  This represents potentially tremendous loss of power for special interest groups, because it is so difficult to lobby and pressure in 50 state legislatures instead of one Congress.

Consider the present gun bill in the House.  If Congress cannot legislate on abortion as a health issue, how can it pass a "red flag" bill imposing prior restraint (as in no crime committed, no person accused or convicted but still subject to a punishment) based on the mental health of 18-20 year old adults who are granted all other rights as an adult citizen?  No, the two issues aren't the same, but the principle of imposing laws on the entire country when the authority is clearly reserved to individual states does touch on the same principle.

It's easy to dismiss the US federal system, to demand everyone follow a certain agenda.  But the US government was never designed to work that way.  Individual states wield far more power than provinces in other countries, and for good reason. We have 50 different choices as to the kind of government we prefer.  I happen to live in a state with a mandatory balanced budget, reasonably unobtrusive laws governing social behavior, and a generally nice place with a very low crime rate.  Other people, for whatever reason, prefer massive deficit spending at the state level, social justice laws approaching the absurd, and a crime rate that means no one dares to walk the streets at night.  Why?  Who knows. but I'm grateful for a federal system that allows me to associate with like-minded people.  And in states like California or New York, well, they get to know their neighbors too, far, far away from me,

You're completely misrepresenting the issue. states are not people. they are officially recognized territories governed individually. a STATE cannot have an opinion. no state should be allowed to enforce abortion bans, plain and simple. it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of bodily autonomy.

and once again, no. people often CAN'T just up and go on a trip. not only is that expensive, but these states are also going to enact laws that will make even that illegal.

[trash princess]

"If one is against abortion, don't get one! No one is controlling you to do anything in that case.

It's not that simple, though the protesters would like it to be framed that way.  To start, there is the matter of when life begins.  I don't know when that is, but those with religious beliefs do have a definite answer.  That's why there's a large and vocal pro-life movement.  Like it or not a significant portion of the US regards abortion as taking a life.  It is not, in their view, a victimless crime.  I expect Bible Belt states will move rapidly to follow Mississippi in banning abortion for just that reason."

It IS that simple. No one's opinion should dictate what another does with their own body. plain and simple. i don't CARE if other people think it's murder (it's not) their OPINION still has no bearing on a woman's body or health.

[subgrrl]

Reply to jakbird...

If I were an AI classification algorithm, I would likely bucket you into the "white, Christian, cis-gender male" collection. Regardless, each collection of people has a frame of reference from which conclusions are reached. In a diverse society, we must always remember to take a step out and look for bigger, more inclusive frames which appease all groups in the society.

I am no lawyer and will not spend my time parsing the Constitution. Instead, I will look around and see the damage that the ruling will do... 12 year old rape victims who must carry the child of a relative, devastated mothers-to-be whose miscarriages were incomplete and are forced to bear the burden of whatever remains, children with birth defects that render them incapable of functioning at any level in society, poor women not capable of traveling 100's of miles or have no health insurance...

In this forum, on this website, we are allowed to fantasize and explore universes where casual sex is fun and titillating. We must, though, remember that every single sexual encounter that a woman experiences in real life has the possibility of resulting in permanent life changes in a visceral way that no man will ever truly understand.

[jakbird]

"white, Christian, cis-gender male"

Okay, not too far off the mark.  Mostly white heritage but not entirely; Christian, a miss here, I'm an atheist; male, I'd say that was obvious.  A bit of irony, where I live "Christian" is seen as a positive virtue, one many politicians campaign on.  My wife, a Catholic, told me the story of a friend who congratulated her on marrying "a good, Christian man", so the mistake in background is a common one.  Umm, isn't there a place for all those groups in that bigger, more-inclusive frame?

Despite the burden of my loathsome background, I do support the pro-choice side of the argument, though mostly due to my political/philosophical slant (i.e. Libertarian).  I don't support an "end justifies the means" approach to enable a pro-choice or any other social injustice agenda by circumventing the legal system.  That road leads to chaos, as we're seeing unfold now.

I will look around and see the damage that the ruling will do

Other than property damage by protesters, I haven't seen any.  Some clinics will close, others will open now the legal gray area is gone.  Will some women be denied abortion?  Yes, but that happened before the ruling.  Those too poor to travel the 100s of miles to existing clinics, how will their situation be any different?  The solution hasn't changed, private charities fund those expenses now, nothing alters that.  In fact, Planned Parenthood can now divert much of its funding from political lobbying to actual charity work.

It's a popular move to dramatize the worst possible scenarios when faced with political defeat.  "Never let a good crisis go to waste", as Winston Churchill put it.  Once the media hysteria dies down and actual state laws are made clear I doubt it will be quite so bad.  Will there still be heartbreaking cases of injustice?  I sure there will, but it happened every day before the ruling too.

There is a greater question here.  Is our society governed by uniform rules, our legal system and the legislative process, or do we toss all that aside to satisfy the emotions of the moment?  That's why the US has a Supreme Court, to protect society from arbitrary edicts handed down by an unchecked federal government.  In this case the system worked, even though the Supreme Court was the initial cause of the problem 49 years ago.  Now it's up to government to legalize abortion the right way, through a mutually agreed on set of procedures, instead of manipulating the system to bypass the checks and balances.

As for the website stories, I think we all implicitly assume suitable precautions are taken.  They're fictional stories, entertainment, so the preachy parts can be left out in the interest of good storytelling.

[subgrrl]

"The great principle is the right of every community to judge and decide for itself, whether a thing is right or wrong, whether it would be good or evil for them to adopt it…" That is what Stephen Douglas argued in the 1850s.

Historian Heather Cox Richardson then explains:

A strong majority in the U.S. opposed the extension of enslavement, but Douglas’s reasoning overrode that majority by carving the voting population into small groups the Democrats could dominate by whipping up voters with viciously racist speeches. Then, in the 1857 Dred Scott decision, a stacked Supreme Court blessed this plan by announcing that Congress had no power to legislate in the territories. In our system, this would mean that states taken over by pro-slavery zealots would eventually win enough power at the federal level to make enslavement national.

So, what we are seeing now is a repeat of our own history - a stacked court that does not heed popular opinion, a gerrymandered country where crazy extremists gain a platform on the national stage, many states passing laws to control the ability for voters to have a voice - Finally, minority rule. This is a bad direction to be going in.

If you haven't seen damage, that only means that you are not looking (from NPR):

A 63-year-old woman asked me to turn off my recorder. The story she wanted to share was too sensitive. She said nearly 50 years ago, when Roe v. Wade first became law, she was 13. She had been repeatedly raped by a man who found her at a bus stop, and she felt powerless. She had no money, no family support, no ability to care for a baby, and she didn't want to have the child of the man who violated her. So she got herself to downtown Louisville and got an abortion. She says today, she feels like that powerless teen again. And she's thinking of all the 13-year-old girls who might be out there with a similar story. But she says today, they would be forced to continue the pregnancy.

We know that there can be no legislation on abortion at the Federal level due to the filibuster.

Judaism believes in the right to abortion. So, it's erroneous to suggest that this is a religious thing. This is a thing where one collection of people are forcing their faith upon everyone.

Will you have the same arguments in a few days when the court rules that the EPA cannot regulate polluters?