SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Edge-]

It's weird being a progressive and also being more pro-individual-liberty than the supposedly pro-individual-liberty conservatives. Like really weird.

[cubby]

Yo, can I catch the pregnancy? Like, if I'm in a room full of pregnant women do I, as a cis dude, have to worry about getting pregnant and bringing that pregnancy home to my family?

Don't even bother. We can see their next talking points coming out - and they still aren't even using religious freedoms yet. We are headed down a truly dark hole.

[Jastall]

The only solution to a country so much in disagreement on what constitutes a body worth saving is local legislatures persuading and voting on the compromise. If the country saw it your way, not a pregnancy but a sacrifice, not many voices but one national diktat, and one beginning and end, then you'd have a point here.

Not that I agree with the rest but this is a very shaky argument. States aren't monolithic entities, and many are so large that calling their legislation "local" affairs stretches the term to the breaking point. California and Texas are larger and more populous than many, if not most, countries. You say that the disconnected DC elites have no right dictating the terms of abortion, but at the same time by what right should similar elites in Sacramento or Austin decide for tens of millions of people despite the voting spread in those States hardly being overwhelmingly on one side or another. Cities in Texas are largely OK with abortion but would have the right taken away by more rural voters. Rural voters in California don't like abortion but will have to deal with the fact their state legislature will defend it come what may. States often aren't where the values conflict resides, rural vs urban voters is, and you can find both in any State, thus in every last one of those someone will get imposed something by disconnected elites.

To say nothing of course, of the fact that some States are trying to make it illegal for women to leave them to get an abortion, which kneecaps any argument as to state's right then and there.

And spare us the transparently dishonest woe is me attitude on "the other side's" unwillingness to compromise, when red-leaning State legislatures and their base aren't even trying to and some have already passed bills criminalizing abortions in any form, even before Roe v. Wade is actually repealed.

[gondrin]

BREAKING: Louisiana Republicans have voted HB 813 out of committee (7-2), defining a fertilized egg as a human. HB 813 makes abortion at any point a homicide, with no exception for minors, rape, incest, or ectopic pregnancies. This is beyond horrific.
https://twitter.com/QasimRashid/stat...H3diqy7zg&s=19

Here are some of the worst parts of it.

E.(1) Any federal statute, regulation, treaty, executive order, or court ruling
11 that purports to supersede, stay, or overrule this Section shall be in violation of the
12 United States Constitution and the Constitution of Louisiana and is therefore void.
13 (2) This state and its political subdivisions, and agents thereof, may disregard
14 any part or whole of any federal court decision which purports to enjoin or void any
15 provision of this Section.
16 F. Pursuant to the powers granted to the Legislature by Article X, Part III,
17 of the Constitution of Louisiana, any judge of this state who purports to enjoin, stay,
18 overrule, or void any provision of this Section shall be subject to impeachment or
19 removal.

This means they are stating the Supremacy Clause is invalid and won't be followed and if any judge in the state tries to enforce it, they will be removed.

EDIT: Ironic part is where they try and state that any federal statute would be in violation of the US Constitution but somehow also stating that the Supremacy Clause, which in is the Constitution, is unconstitutional. This has gone full Ouroboros.

[unfilteredJW]

Well I'm certainly proud of your character development. You went from being critical of those who chose not to vaccinate to being the champion of body autonomy.

What a complete clown statement.

[gondrin]

Don't even bother. We can see their next talking points coming out - and they still aren't even using religious freedoms yet. We are headed down a truly dark hole.

I'm gonna say it and I am not advocating it but I can see someone or a number of people sitting in office getting killed because of things like this.

[s_bushido]

Here are some of the worst parts of it.

They're basically just taking the role of that one kid who says they've got an invulnerability shield when playing pretend with their friends. Also they can fly. And have laser eyes.

Under normal circumstances, I'd incredulously ask "do they really think they can get away with that?" but given recent events...

[cubby]

I'm gonna say it and I am not advocating it but I can see someone or a number of people sitting in office getting killed because of things like this.

We already had violence before the conservative majority took over. I can't see them letting up now that it's effectively working.

[Edge-]

We already had violence before the conservative majority took over. I can't see them letting up now that it's effectively working.

Be prepared for the "Actcuallleeeeee Steve Scalise!" posts.

[Smitzelplix]

Wow, such an ironclad argument. And yet you wonder how the Dems have continued to lose previous swaths of reliable voters, how they've lost most state legislatures, most governor's mansions, the SCOTUS, and a soon to be GOP trifecta in 2024.

You're looking at GG for at least the next couple generations and you don't even know it. I wish "Dems in Disarray" was just a meme but look at what it's brought us.

Why do you keep making these predictions after so many of your previous predictions have turned out wrong? And what does GG even mean in the context of your post?

[tehdang]

Not that I agree with the rest but this is a very shaky argument. States aren't monolithic entities, and many are so large that calling their legislation "local" affairs stretches the term to the breaking point. California and Texas are larger and more populous than many, if not most, countries. You say that the disconnected DC elites have no right dictating the terms of abortion, but at the same time by what right should similar elites in Sacramento or Austin decide for tens of millions of people despite the voting spread in those States hardly being overwhelmingly on one side or another. Cities in Texas are largely OK with abortion but would have the right taken away by more rural voters. Rural voters in California don't like abortion but will have to deal with the fact their state legislature will defend it come what may. States often aren't where the values conflict resides, rural vs urban voters is, and you can find both in any State, thus in every last one of those someone will get imposed something by disconnected elites.

It's the imperfect fit, or compromise, that I see as most appropriate. Constitutional, since states are allowed broad authority within the constitution, and some self-sorting, since interstate movement is protected at the federal level.

When contrasted with a supreme court-mandated Roe or federal constitutional amendment, the state-level approach is a downright improvement.

And within-state disconnected elites are a huge gain over beltway NY-to-DC elites.

I don't want you get to get the impression that I'm proposing utopia via state decisions. I see it as the best compromise situation for a heterogeneous society. Winners and losers can switch when results can be seen at the state level. I don't absolutely discount the effect of speech and persuasion among the less extreme people on the issue. Recall that we live in the post-1973 society where progressive liberalization/conservative opposition was guillotined by seven men in black. It's hard to imagine the world without such a distortion in legislative fights and nonprofit fights and marches, speeches, debates, primaries, elections.

To say nothing of course, of the fact that some States are trying to make it illegal for women to leave them to get an abortion, which kneecaps any argument as to state's right then and there.

Blatantly unconstitutional in the most oft-quoted sections of proposed bills I see. We have courts to preserve freedom of movement across state boundaries from looney legislatures.

And spare us the transparently dishonest woe is me attitude on "the other side's" unwillingness to compromise, when red-leaning State legislatures and their base aren't even trying to and some have already passed bills criminalizing abortions in any form, even before Roe v. Wade is actually repealed.

Same back at you. Spare me the whining about the other side's unwillingness to compromise when the bill in the court is at 15 weeks, similar to the polling of the country and international norms. Citing the extreme examples as unwillingness to compromise goes both ways, with some blue states allowing abortion up to the the moment before birth.

And don't cite some "woe is me" out of the context of replies to other posts. I didn't invent it as some line of attack; the subject was broached and used by other posters.

[Elegiac]

It's the imperfect fit, or compromise, that I see as most appropriate. Constitutional, since states are allowed broad authority within the constitution, and some self-sorting, since interstate movement is protected at the federal level.

When contrasted with a supreme court-mandated Roe or federal constitutional amendment, the state-level approach is a downright improvement.

Again; why. You're still sidestepping as to why the state level is not also "too big" - as well as the fact that Roe puts the decision at the ultimate micro level; in the hands of individuals.

[Endus]

It's the imperfect fit, or compromise, that I see as most appropriate. Constitutional, since states are allowed broad authority within the constitution, and some self-sorting, since interstate movement is protected at the federal level.

On issues like basic human rights, there isn't any compromise. You either have those rights recognized and protected, or you don't. It's binary. If you make those "rights" conditional, then they aren't rights at all, they're privileges enjoyed by the protected few.

It's not that people are unwilling to compromise; it's that compromise options flatly do not exist, and the idea is only brought up as a bad-faith distraction to try and secure victory dishonestly. Because once those rights are no longer rights, they can be trivially eroded away ever further without much ground for protest.

So no; letting you subjugate women into a lesser class of person a little is not an acceptable "compromise". It's a bullshit argument from the beginning, and it isn't offered in good faith.

Same back at you. Spare me the whining about the other side's unwillingness to compromise when the bill in the court is at 15 weeks, similar to the polling of the country and international norms. Citing the extreme examples as unwillingness to compromise goes both ways, with some blue states allowing abortion up to the the moment before birth.

They really fucking don't, not unless the person, like yourself, is being intentionally dishonest about what's going on.

Again; you cannot "compromise" on "some infringements on an individuals basic human rights and freedoms". If you do, they no longer have those rights or freedoms. At all. They have conditional privileges which can be further reduced or modified at a moment's notice.

[Xyonai]

Of course not. It's the usual shouting down, hand waving and dismissal of anything other than groupthink. Especially for something as complicated as abortion.

The arguments are dismissed and handwaved away because most arguments barely stand on their own or get repeated ad nauseum no matter how often they're disproven.

You don't debate the guy arguing that the sky is yellow, you politely correct him and just roll your eyes in annoyance if he keeps shouting at you for being wrong. And that's a lot of what these anti-choice arguments boil down to; it's either entirely ignoring of medical facts, leans too heavily on subjective and intangible morality, or is a thinly veiled excuse to punish women for the crime of having sex. It's a situation where downsides are utterly crushed by the upsides to keeping it legal (and safe) and, contrary to your pearl clutching about the situation being 'complicated', anyone who actually knows anything about the medical science can tell you it's more or less been sorted out.

Here's the rub, if these lot -actually- cared about unborn babies they'd do more to fight for legislation that helps people get access to higher quality medical care, they'd be more in favor of contraceptives and comprehensive sexual education, and they'd help try and keep childcare from being prohibitively expensive. But they don't do any of these things, in fact they fight so hard against them one might think their entire stance against Abortion is dishonest, hollow and reactionary bullshit.

How's that for 'shouting down'?

[Darththeo]

Blatantly unconstitutional in the most oft-quoted sections of proposed bills I see. We have courts to preserve freedom of movement across state boundaries from looney legislatures.

It is more than they are charging the women with a crime that occurred in an area they lack jurisdiction to charge a crime for.

It isn't that she "traveled" but she broke the law by having an abortion. Essentially saying she can be charged for actions in another state that aren't actually against that state's laws. Essentially, these states are attempting to argue that they ALWAYS have jurisdictions on their citizens regardless of where they are.

- - - Updated - - -

That grossly outdated constitution sure could use a massive rewrite, huh?

We love the founding fathers, but most wanted the Constitution to be rewritten as they did not want to chain the present generation to the past generations.

[DarkTZeratul]

Spare me the whining about the other side's unwillingness to compromise when the bill in the court is at 15 weeks, similar to the polling of the country and international norms.

This is an extraordinarily misleading and bad faith argument, and demonstrates that you either have absolutely no idea what the fuck you're talking about - like, at all - or are being willfully dishonest about what this decision would actually mean.

That the bill before the Supreme Court would set a limit at 15 weeks is utterly irrelevant, because the Supreme Court overturning Roe would not mean nationalizing this bill and allowing it to be limited to 15 weeks. It would mean every state that wants to is free to completely ban abortion entirely if they so choose, and many states either have already passed bills with language explicitly stating that they consider abortion after 6 weeks illegal even if it occurred before the Supreme Court's decision (such as Texas), or are preparing bills to ban it entirely so they can pull the trigger the moment the decision is made. Louisiana's bill goes so far as to make all abortion homicide - whether it's because of incest, rape, child pregnancy, or because an abortion is medically necessary to save the mother's life. If you terminate a fetus for any reason you go to jail for a very long time. Missouri is working on a bill that would criminalize abortions performed outside of the state.

So spare me your "15 weeks" bullshit, because everyone sees it for the massive distraction that it is.

[Jastall]

It's the imperfect fit, or compromise, that I see as most appropriate. Constitutional, since states are allowed broad authority within the constitution, and some self-sorting, since interstate movement is protected at the federal level.

When contrasted with a supreme court-mandated Roe or federal constitutional amendment, the state-level approach is a downright improvement.

And within-state disconnected elites are a huge gain over beltway NY-to-DC elites.

I don't want you get to get the impression that I'm proposing utopia via state decisions. I see it as the best compromise situation for a heterogeneous society. Winners and losers can switch when results can be seen at the state level. I don't absolutely discount the effect of speech and persuasion among the less extreme people on the issue. Recall that we live in the post-1973 society where progressive liberalization/conservative opposition was guillotined by seven men in black. It's hard to imagine the world without such a distortion in legislative fights and nonprofit fights and marches, speeches, debates, primaries, elections.

Blatantly unconstitutional in the most oft-quoted sections of proposed bills I see. We have courts to preserve freedom of movement across state boundaries from looney legislatures.

Same back at you. Spare me the whining about the other side's unwillingness to compromise when the bill in the court is at 15 weeks, similar to the polling of the country and international norms. Citing the extreme examples as unwillingness to compromise goes both ways, with some blue states allowing abortion up to the the moment before birth.

And don't cite some "woe is me" out of the context of replies to other posts. I didn't invent it as some line of attack; the subject was broached and used by other posters.

As to the bolded; how so? You truly think the likes of Ted Cruz, who was in vacation while his State faced a storm that cut power to countless people and sometimes escalated their bills to astronomical levels, are notably different from Biden, McConnel and the rest of them? That's wishful thinking at the very best of times. You're assuming it to be true without much in the way of reasons or evidence. Don't be surprised if that doesn't constitute a convincing argument.

As for the rest, riddle me something. States should decide but the bill in front of SCOTUS will limit it to 15 weeks which you seem to define as the moderate polling and international norm... so why not just make that the norm everywhere? Why even entertain the possibility of extremist positions if you apparently dislike them so?

And you miss the point RE legislation crossing state lines. It may be unconstitutional, it may be found as such by the heavily politicized court (and yes before you start this isn't new bit is still a fact), but it remains a telling sign that a lot of this "muh state's right" drivel is a smokescreen. Even moreso if the plan to ban it nationwide is set in motion, which is hardly impossible given that the memo very clearly announces the court's intention to keep taking position again progressive causes. And in the context of conservative legislation making bills attacking abortion such as Texas's now infamous bounty bill a good year before now, it's very hard to take seriously the notion that there's any respect for the notion of compromise coming from Republicans.

The abortion up to the moment before birth is such an emotional argument as well. Something like 98% of abortions happen before the 20th weeks. After that even the most liberal places mostly do it if there's a serious threat to the health of the mother. From the 38th-ish week onward abortions hardly happen, it's just a premature birth. No one's killing newborn if they show up at 8 months 3 weeks instead of 9 months. This is a far cry from the other extreme who ban the practice under any circumstances no matter how dire. Canada has no limit on abortion and what would you know, there's no late-term abortion plague or any other fanciful scenarios.

[Glorious Leader]

On issues like basic human rights, there isn't any compromise. You either have those rights recognized and protected, or you don't. It's binary. If you make those "rights" conditional, then they aren't rights at all, they're privileges enjoyed by the protected few.

It's not that people are unwilling to compromise; it's that compromise options flatly do not exist, and the idea is only brought up as a bad-faith distraction to try and secure victory dishonestly. Because once those rights are no longer rights, they can be trivially eroded away ever further without much ground for protest.

So no; letting you subjugate women into a lesser class of person a little is not an acceptable "compromise". It's a bullshit argument from the beginning, and it isn't offered in good faith.



They really fucking don't, not unless the person, like yourself, is being intentionally dishonest about what's going on.

Again; you cannot "compromise" on "some infringements on an individuals basic human rights and freedoms". If you do, they no longer have those rights or freedoms. At all. They have conditional privileges which can be further reduced or modified at a moment's notice.

like he paints this as a winner/loser argument as if the disagreement has merit. It's more fucking both sides bullshit. The only winner will be ignorance.

[enigma77]

Personally I think abortion is wrong, but what's more important I think it's exactly the kind of situation where it should be a state decision. People obviously have very different opinions about it.

[enigma77]

And those opinions should be a decision individuals make for themselves. States are making losing a pregnancy a murder charge. Fuck the states.

Yeah well many people do consider abortion to be murder. So people want to ban it, just like murder.

Whether to commit murder or not shouldn't be a decision individuals make for themselves.