Roe v. Wade

[Slaybutter]

The bottom line is 9 people made a decision that effects a population of 330 million people. That is not democratic in any way, shape or form.

The fact they have that ability is ludicrous.

Six people made a decision*

And within the context of our courts system as well as our system of checks and balances, it’s not as bad as it sounds. It’s a hallmark of a democracy to have a functioning legal system. The patriarchal way of thinking behind pro-life advocates is the issue imo.

 

[Lady_H]

“Forced birthers” do not sit on the Supreme Court.

Justice Clarence Thomas has written that ALTHOUGH THE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT INTEND TO DO SO, because this whole thing is based on an interpretation of what the Constitution says about individual freedom, the same logic could be (I repeat COULD BE not will be) applied to same sex marriage and and other issues.

FWIW Thomas is hated by the liberal MSM, held up as a kind of scary evil right-wing Nazi etc etc boogy-man, and often misquoted. A few weeks ago they were all over him for erroneous comments made about the Covid vaccine, which as it turns out he was quoting from others rather than putting forward as his own viewpoint.

Roe v Wade was never a plausible legal argument,
The Constitution never guaranteed abortion,
and everyone knew that when the original judges were replaced with more conservative ones who followed the letter of the law, it would be revoked. That time is now.

There is a reason people like Kamala Harris are ringing the alarm bells and the “next they’ll come for” rhetoric is going at full blast. It’s election year.

I’m terms of women’s rights, frankly I am equally concerned by Biden’s SC appointment, Ketanji
Brown Jackson, who was unable to define what a woman is “because she’s not a biologist”.

 

[Eureka]

I have to admit it here but I am burying my head in sand about this. I have PTSD from having a miscarriage and then fighting tooth and nail to repeal the 8th amendment in Ireland whilst pregnant on both child.

I am only realising now how traumatising it was and I have done my fighting, now dealing with the trauma. People in America have an almightly fight on their hands, my heart goes out to them. But having to have a not my circus, not my monkeys approach for my own mental health.

Being pregnant in a country with v little abortion rights is truly horrifying!

I know the feeling. I’m still affected by it. It was ugly but nowhere near as ugly as the American fight will be. Reading about this I’m definitely feeling a lot of the old stuff coming back up, I’m really having to censor where I post now because engagement with a lot of anti abortion people is almost like self harm. Focus on yourself and your own mental well being.

 

[mcfeez]

There's discussion over whether or not IVF will take a hit next as well. Nothing has happened with that yet, but I hate that it's even been brought up. You're damned if you don't want a baby and you're damned if you try to have one!

It seems like it would be contradictory in some states to still have IVF, particularly the ones that maintain the stance of "life begins at conception"

"Unhealthy" embryos are discarded in IVF and sometimes healthy ones too if they aren't used. Would couples be super restricted in how many eggs are retrieved and fertilised etc? Its going to make the odds of potential conception even slimmer. Sounds like a potential head melt.

 

[LadyQuaithe]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/06/26/mary-miller-white-life-trump-rally/

But it's not about race. You know.

what the actual fuck.

Too many people in comments on Daily Mail were cheering when it was announced that Roe vs Wade was overturned. The same demographics would cheer if segregation was introduced, too.

 

[mcfeez]

I had no idea about the situation in Northern Ireland until recently. It’s abhorrent. I’m right in saying there’s a lot of homophobia there as well isn’t there?

We didn't have gay marriage here either until 2020 and might never have had it only Westminster pushed it through when our assembly werent sitting before.

If you'd like to be horrified feel free to google "DUP" (the second largest party in NI) and "homophobic comments"

 

[mcfeez]

Barack Obama should have been able to nominate Garland in place of Scalia however the Republican senate at the time said it was not appropriate for Obama to nominate so close to the end of his presidency and would not approve the nomination. Trump went on to place Gorusch on the bench.

However - RBG passed away 2 months before Trump lost the presidency and yet McConnell and co had no problem approving Coney Barrett. Hence why there is now a conservative bench.

 

[MoodyBlue]

to add: i also hate the “well you can put the baby up for adoption” response.

why should a woman carry a child she does not want for nine months, with the discomfort and danger of pregnancy, to then go through the pain and danger of giving birth to that child - to then pass it over to the wonderful us care system?!

none of these people live in any semblance of the “real” world and i really fear for what they’ll go after next.

interesting that justice thomas left “loving” off the list of bills he plans to attack though - because it’s the one that impacts him directly! they only care about themselves.

And the alternative for many will be suicide.

 

[Lady_H]

I've just come across a post on reddit, where a woman's pharmacist warned her that she might soon no longer have access to her prescription anti-depressants, or any prescription that has even the slightest chance of causing a miscarriage. This would be for all women, not just pregnant women. I'm not in the US but I'm fucking horrified and I weep for every woman in America (should we just call it Gilead now?)...I can't fathom how any of this is happening.

No, we should not call America Gilead now. Or Afghanistan, or any of the other daft things people are saying.

Sorry, but this Reddit thing sounds like total panic-mongering rubbish to me, and just because someone says it doesn’t mean it’s true. The police are not suddenly going to pop up and haul you off to jail for having a miscarriage or a hysterectomy.

ALL this new ruling says is that the decision to provide abortion services is properly dealt with by state parliaments, which are elected by the people of that state. That’s it! It does not outlaw or stop a person from having an abortion. It says that this decision should be made by democratically elected state parliaments, which are directed mandated by the people, rather than imposed by an unelected Supreme Court from afar. In legal terms it corrects a ruling made in 1973 in which the Supreme Court “found” a right to abortion in the Constitution (based on an interpretation of individual freedom) that doesn’t actually exist in a pure reading of the law. And it’s the job of the SC to interpret the constitution. Isn’t it important, from a legal and political perspective, to get the law right?

So it could be argued that this is a MORE democratic approach: individuals get to decide on whether or not they want their state to provide abortions. Federal law - ruling that is imposed on everyone - comes at a price, which is why no administration has touched this or attempted to impose a law that guarantees abortion rights for all. That’s the thing about big sweeping federal laws - great when you personally agree with and inescapably awful when you don’t - and can always be reversed.

Is this a difficult, complex, sensitive and emotive topic - yes. Does the media fan the flames of excessive outrage by completely failing to explain things properly and acting like a bunch of activists? Yes (as usual). Will individual states now have to work this through at a local level which may well be a difficult and painful process - yes. What will the long term outcome be - who knows?! Maybe Mississippi will vote to have abortion and the state parliament will be forced to provide more than one clinic in the entire state.

 

[HockyRorror]

The comment I responded to asked if the roe v. wade decision was a democratic one. It hardly is because three justices appointed by the man who lost the popular vote can in no way be interpreted as a democratic decision. The fact that the electoral college went in Trump’s favor is secondary to that fact. A democratic decision implies input. We were steamrolled by Republicans.

I understand where you’re coming from. But I agree with the other poster more. A popular vote in this scenario doesn’t hold any weight, because the system currently in place doesn’t recognise that or take it into consideration. That’s not to say it’s right, just that in this case, it doesn’t actually mean anything.

 

[Lady_H]

In the US women won their right to vote by building coalitions like Susan B. Anthony did.

View attachment 1385903
Things like women’s right to vote weren’t granted by the constitution. They were fought for. It’s the same way any legislation gets passed by people showing solidarity. I think your attitude of being passive when it comes to other people’s rights is misguided because if you don’t stand up for theirs who will stand up for yours?

Well I guess they’re going to have to get organised and join together in “demonstrative solidarity” on a state level then.

Presumably that will have to involve “building coalitions” with people they don’t agree with, perhaps including women who don’t want abortion rights in their own state. How will that work if the opposition is continually being berated and demonised? That level if outrage does not work. It entrenches people even more deeply in their own beliefs. It hasn’t worked for 50 years.

I don’t think trying to properly understand this topic from all sides is being passive. I’ve read and thought about this subject a lot, I used to live in the US and that made me very interested in the country. Passive to me is jumping on a bandwagon of “everything is terrible, the sky is falling in, next they’ll come for [insert emotive issue here]” based on a Marie Clare article. It doesn’t help. Nobody ever made a good decision in a state of panic.

Anyway the attitude of little old me in a market town in the U.K. isn’t going to make much difference to abortion rights in the US. I actually don’t think it’s necessarily up to me to fight for the rights of people in different countries with cultures, customs and legal systems that I don’t fully understand. I know that goes against the prevailing attitude that everyone has to involved with every injustice everywhere, but to do so smacks of arrogance, in my opinion. But I could be wrong. What are others here doing to fight for US abortion rights?

 

[Slaybutter]

You make a good point. Not at all "united" then really, are they?

The tenth amendment to the US Constitution is meant to ensure that the federal government is limited in its powers. It was hard getting states to join the union.

 

[longbottom]

Abortion became legal in the UK in 1967.

Technically not all of UK, but in Great Britain only, therefore excluding Northern Ireland, sadly.

 

[Gym&Tonic]

I had no idea about the situation in Northern Ireland until recently. It’s abhorrent. I’m right in saying there’s a lot of homophobia there as well isn’t there?

 

[Slaybutter]

But the popular vote has fuck all to do with the American system. They use an electoral college over there and Trump comfortably beat Clinton on that. Both knew the rules and the system beforehand. Can’t change it retrospectively, if you can I want the Hand of God goal in 1986 struck from the record. Trump was lucky he got to pick three judges, but the nominations have long been the prerogative of the sitting president since the age of Washington and Jefferson. Once again you can’t alter the constitution because you don’t like the outcome.

And if Obama hadn’t been such a ineffective lame duck in his final term he might not have lost the senate majority and the republicans wouldn’t have been able to pull that stunt. However political games have been part of democratic systems since Ancient Athens. No point snivelling “unfair” because Republicans played them better than Democrats.

What the hell are you saying? A democratic vote should be one person one vote equally weighted against their fellow citizen. The electoral college is bullshit and robbed the will of millions of voters. Get out of here with your lame ass pro Trump bullshit as if he has any interest in playing fair and by rules. We had a violent uprising on January 6th because of that clown. The republicans said at the time that Obama appointing a judge in his last term (which is when any president is referred to as a lame duck) would be depriving the American citizens an opportunity to have their voices heard. When it came to Trump they didn’t seem to mind. Being a liar is not being a good competitor. Don’t tag me again with your ignorant nonsense.

 

[Hangoninthere]

This is about abortion rights. Do you agree that women have the right to abortion and can you say that without mentioning trans issues.....which only 2% of the population actively think about btw


I guess that makes you special? But tell me what you think about abortion rights whilst thinking about 10s of millions of women in the US have just had theirs removed

Edit Only cunts think about thier own cunts

 

[LaBlonde]

How was he able to do that? I thought only 2 died?

his selections were:

neil gorsuch
brett kavanaugh (of the aforementioned sexual assault cases)
amy coney barrett

kavanaugh came in for kennedy (to my memory) who retired. you’re right that the other two covered deaths though.

worth pointing out that acb succeeded rbg, who died while still serving but who people wanted to retire beforehand so obama could get another long term selection in. who knows how that may have worked out if she did.

they serve for a long time though. george bush snr still has two picks in there!

 

[HockyRorror]

You don’t understand the purpose of the electoral college. It was designed to disenfranchise voters and was implemented under the guise of preventing the possibility of a despot taking office. The electoral college was in reality an appeasement for the pro-slavery south. Let’s debate when you’re better informed.

I don’t want to speak on behalf of another poster and they can correct me if I’m wrong, but I think you’re missing the point of what they’re trying to say. They’re not talking about the pros, cons, rights, wrongs, benefits or losses and whether the EC set up is a good thing or a bad thing - they’re saying it is in place in the USA, that it’s always been place in the USA, and the candidates entering into a vote for the US presidency - as well as the people voting - were well aware of the set up whether they personally agree with it or not. So one “can’t” question its validity after a vote because when they voted, they were fully aware of it.

 

[rainbowlemon]

Interview with baby Roe.

 

[mcfeez]

All I’ve done is explain the situation because I think it is massively misunderstood. I said that it could be argued it’s more democratic and on paper it is: what is more democratic than giving the people the right to vote for something rather than imposing something on them from above? That’s what democracy is.

The states you mention won’t legislate to allow abortion currently - you’re right. But voters will get an opportunity to vote in pro-abortion state representatives at the appropriate time. If they do that, the law will change. If they don’t, it won’t.

Please note that I’m not saying that the outcome of all this is clear, or good, because it’s currently unknown. I’m just in favour of people properly understanding what is fact, and what is hyped-up media-led nonsense.

BIB - Which “people” are in no doubt as to which way they are leaning? “People” talk all sorts of bollocks, particularly during US election season. “People” are quite often brilliant at talking themselves into a complete frenzy and making 2+2=5 (“next they’ll come for hysterectomies”) based on absolutely nothing. As this gerrymandering ruling hasn’t happened yet, how can you possibly draw conclusions from it about its implications, or the intentions of the Supreme Court regarding democracy?

Representatives who will afford them the right to abortion will never be elected due to restrictions and rules on voting set in place continuously by the Republican party at the state level. The conservative right of the US don't want true democracy as it threatens their power.

The SC agreeing to hear the case at all is dangerous.