Roe V Wade overturned!

joedlrt wrote:

State rights are not an affront to Democracy, rather, they are the hallmark of Democracy. All this opinion would mean is that it would be up to the states to determine their own policies rather than the Federal Government. Judges do not legislate. They have just determined (maybe, this was a draft drawn up by an underling) that it is acceptable for the states to determine their own restrictions by allowing the Mississippi law that sets a deadline of 15 weeks gestation (which allows for about 95% of abortions anyhow). Abortion isn't going away. What will likely happen is some states will restrict access to the first trimester or there abouts. Places like California and New York (where most people are up in arms) can celebrate as they will still have the right to kill babies up until the point of birth. Both of their economies have suffered from a downturn in tourism since COVID, so maybe this will boost their hospitality business.

MatthewXCountry wrote:

wazzu1452 wrote:

"Roe v Wade wasn't even about abortion itself but rather a woman's right to privacy...and privacy is spelled out in the constitution."

What?

No matter how you feel about abortion, if you’re intelligent and honest you should agree that Roe was a flagrantly terrible decision. It located a “right to abortion,” which is not in the Constitution, within the “right to privacy,” which is also not in the Constitution.

Actually there is some truth to this. Overriding Roe eliminates a lot of right to privacy arguments. This eliminates the foundational arguments of many other cases. For example the following things may now be made illegal in a state (or at least challenged again in the court)

anal-sex: states may now have the right to make anal sex illegal again. (Lawrence v. Texas heavily relied on Roe's right to privacy)

contraceptives: states may now have the right to ban the purchase of contraceptives. (Griswold v. Connecticut relied on Roe's right to privacy)

pocessing pornagraphy: states can now try to ban watching porn (Stanley v Georgia relied on Roe's right to privacy)

learning a foreign language: states can now ban parents from teaching their children a foreign language (Meyer v. Nebraska relied on Roe's right to privacy)

forced sterilizatin: states might now try to forcibly sterilize people (Skinner v Oklahoma relied on Roe's right to privacy)

mariage bans: both inter-racial and same-sex marriage bans were ruled unconstitutional based on Roe's right to privacy (see the rulling in Loving v. Virginia and Obergefell v. Hodges)

I'm not saying states will try to bring back all of these laws, but these things are all vulnerable for a challenge now.

TKTKTK wrote:

Mongasoid wrote:

I'm not "balanced." Roe v. Wade was a horrendous decision. One of the worst SCOTUS decisions ever. Just made up nonsense in a place where made up nonsense should never exist (SCOTUS decision).

Can you explain why black fetuses are aborted at FIVE TIMES the rate of white fetuses? That is an enormous disparity. Any time you see a racial disparity that large with respect to anything, it can only be a result of systemic racism. Are you seriously denying that?

I'm not saying that there isn't systemic racism, or that the life situations that compel Black women to opt for 5x more abortions than White women are not the result of systemic racism. But I am saying thatlegalized abortion is not racist.

See, you think abortion is an objectively bad thing, so if it happens 5x more often, it must be because racism is forcing that outcome. (That is, one societal ill resulting in another.) But I think abortion is about autonomy and self-determination, which means that Black women are choosing autonomy and self-determination at a high rate. How could giving women the tools to author their own lives be racist?

Now, if you were a serious person, we could talk--cordially and collaboratively--about the conditions that are compelling Black girls and women to become pregnant at bad times in their lives, or to lack (or feel that they lack) the financial or emotional resources they believe they need to be the kinds of mothers they would like to be. I bet we'd agree that systematic racism contributes to that.

But I'm not really qualified to have that conversation, and I'm guessing you're not really interested, so let's leave it with this:

1. Systemic racism is real.
2. Systemic racism likely contributes to the conditions by and under which some Black women become pregnant.
3. This does not mean that making abortion available to these women is racist. Indeed, denying it to them would be racist.

Ernest wrote:

joedlrt wrote:

State rights are not an affront to Democracy, rather, they are the hallmark of Democracy. All this opinion would mean is that it would be up to the states to determine their own policies rather than the Federal Government. Judges do not legislate. They have just determined (maybe, this was a draft drawn up by an underling) that it is acceptable for the states to determine their own restrictions by allowing the Mississippi law that sets a deadline of 15 weeks gestation (which allows for about 95% of abortions anyhow). Abortion isn't going away. What will likely happen is some states will restrict access to the first trimester or there abouts. Places like California and New York (where most people are up in arms) can celebrate as they will still have the right to kill babies up until the point of birth. Both of their economies have suffered from a downturn in tourism since COVID, so maybe this will boost their hospitality business.

Some freedoms are considered unequivocal, Constitutionally guaranteed, and serve as common fabric for all America.

Women get to vote everywhere. It's not up to individual states to determine that.

Similarly, a Woman's right to control her body has been a universal right for the last half-century.

Striking down Roe vs. Wade and tossing control back to states creates a patchwork of more and less liberty.

And places new burdens and barriers on women - such as from having to travel out of state to get care, or being forced into unwanted pregnancy and all that comes with that.

Plain and simple - this is religion and minority subverting the Judicial system and American democracy.

Hdhdheheh2is8s8 wrote:

Ernest wrote:

Some freedoms are considered unequivocal, Constitutionally guaranteed, and serve as common fabric for all America.

Women get to vote everywhere. It's not up to individual states to determine that.

Similarly, a Woman's right to control her body has been a universal right for the last half-century.

Striking down Roe vs. Wade and tossing control back to states creates a patchwork of more and less liberty.

And places new burdens and barriers on women - such as from having to travel out of state to get care, or being forced into unwanted pregnancy and all that comes with that.

Plain and simple - this is religion and minority subverting the Judicial system and American democracy.

The rights you quite are explicitly granted in the constitution. A portion isn't.

I'm pro choice and I don't want abortion to be made illegal yet I support overthrowing Roe v. Wade. I support it because legalizing abortion shouldn't be done through a court opinion. It should be done by the legislature. A law needs to legalize abortion and that is where the effort should be concentrated.

Mongasoid wrote:

TKTKTK wrote:

I'm not saying that there isn't systemic racism, or that the life situations that compel Black women to opt for 5x more abortions than White women are not the result of systemic racism. But I am saying thatlegalized abortion is not racist.

See, you think abortion is an objectively bad thing, so if it happens 5x more often, it must be because racism is forcing that outcome. (That is, one societal ill resulting in another.) But I think abortion is about autonomy and self-determination, which means that Black women are choosing autonomy and self-determination at a high rate. How could giving women the tools to author their own lives be racist?

Now, if you were a serious person, we could talk--cordially and collaboratively--about the conditions that are compelling Black girls and women to become pregnant at bad times in their lives, or to lack (or feel that they lack) the financial or emotional resources they believe they need to be the kinds of mothers they would like to be. I bet we'd agree that systematic racism contributes to that.

But I'm not really qualified to have that conversation, and I'm guessing you're not really interested, so let's leave it with this:

1. Systemic racism is real.
2. Systemic racism likely contributes to the conditions by and under which some Black women become pregnant.
3. This does not mean that making abortion available to these women is racist. Indeed, denying it to them would be racist.

No. You are being obtuse and inconsistent for reasons I can't figure out.

First of all, in summarizing aspects of the pro-life argument, Alito raised this disparity on the numbers and rates of black aborted fetuses and white aborted fetuses. So I'm not making this up. These numbers are very much part of the pro-life argument. They believe black fetuses are being targeted, and it appears they are correct if you look at the numbers.

Second of all, you are being inconsistent. When you see an enormous racial disparity like this, it is racism at work in the system. When we see that blacks are incarcerated at higher rates than whites, we don't say "well, maybe they commit crimes at higher rates, so the numbers make sense." We instead assign the disparity to white law enforcement targeting blacks for arrest and white judges deciding to incarcerate blacks and not whites. Similarly here, we can't say "well, maybe black women are more fertile, get pregnant easier or have more sex than white women." That appears to be your position and it is racist. The disparity can only be due to systemic racism in the abortion industry/system. The abortion industry is targeting black women and selling their services to black women. A disproportionate number of abortion clinics are in black neighborhoods (much like the liquor industry targets black neighborhoods). That is the definition of systemic racism, when black people are targeted, for commercial ($) or other reasons, over white people.

Third of all, this statement by you: "Black women are choosing autonomy and self-determination at a high[er] rate [than white women]" is just some weird attempt to explain away the disparity. That's nuts. What on earth do you think would cause white women to fail to choose autonomy and self-determination at 5 times the rate black women do? Sometimes when you just make stuff up, things get worse.