US Supreme Court nullifies Roe v Wade (abortion) ruling

[-:Undertaker:-]

1540336880188801026

1540370905750290433

1540383498460069888

1540387312739225600

1540461016823304193


There are so many bad takes on this particularly from British commentators so I will outline what has happened.

Basically, unlike Britain and most other western democracies, America has a powerful Supreme Court which since World War II has increasingly become political. Social issues such as abortion, which are not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, are political issues which are supposed to be dealt with at a state level by elected representatives. However, in 1973 the then-Left dominated Supreme Court decided to make a political decision and impose abortion on even those states whose elected representatives did not want it.

Now, the current court - which is still political but towards the Right - has not enforced its own view of abortion on the entirety of the United States, but instead has found there is no constitutional basis for the 1973 decision (known as Roe v Wade) to still stand as it is not a constitutional issue. Therefore, the issue of abortion (a political issue) can now be dealt with was originally intended, at a state level. So California may wish to have very lax abortion laws even until the point of birth, while Alabama may wish to ban it completely. As two hypothetical examples.

All in all, no matter what your view on abortion (I am obviously against) I think we ought to all agree that issues like abortion should be decided by elected representatives who are accountable to the people, rather than unelected judges involved in judicial activism. So well done the SCOTUS for withdrawing its remit from this issue and handing it back to the people and their representatives.

Thoughts?

[Seatherny]

What a shameful decision. A woman should be able to decide what grows inside her. Can't have an abortion even in the cases of rape and be forced to have a child? Wow, what a shameful decision.

American's want to save lives they say by banning abortion, but they are happy to allow guns to kill children every few months.

Innocent humans such as Savita Halappanavar have died due to people wishing to force their own backward and twisted thinking on others.

America is not a developed country or a third world country, it is a fifth world country, creating wars for profits, interfering in other countries business and failing, killing their own soldiers for money, killing children and passing sexist laws.

As SCOTUS say, not long till the ban same sex marriage too.

[-:Undertaker:-]

What a shameful decision. A woman should be able to decide what grows inside her. Can't have an abortion even in the cases of rape and be forced to have a child? Wow, what a shameful decision.

American's want to save lives they say by banning abortion, but they are happy to allow guns to kill children every few months.

Innocent humans such as Savita Halappanavar have died due to people wishing to force their own backward and twisted thinking on others.

America is not a developed country or a third world country, it is a fifth world country, creating wars for profits, interfering in other countries business and failing, killing their own soldiers for money, killing children and passing sexist laws.

As SCOTUS say, not long till the ban same sex marriage too.

The court hasn't banned abortion, it has simply said that abortion laws are not within the remit of the constitution (and thus Supreme Court).

[Seatherny]

The court hasn't banned abortion, it has simply said that abortion laws are not within the remit of the constitution (and thus Supreme Court).



So having control of your own body is not within the remit of the constitution? One bench believes it is, and now DJT bench believe it isn't? America is truly on the same level as North Korea. Others dictating what can happen to your body/future. They may not have banned abortion, but their ruling has allowed several states to ban abortion.

A country which fails to ban guns despite innocent people/kids being shot weekly is not a developed country. Americans really are stupid.

[-:Undertaker:-]

So having control of your own body is not within the remit of the constitution? One bench believes it is, and now DJT bench believe it isn't? America is truly on the same level as North Korea. Others dictating what can happen to your body/future. They may not have banned abortion, but their ruling has allowed several states to ban abortion.

A country which fails to ban guns despite innocent people/kids being shot weekly is not a developed country. Americans really are stupid.

Parliament in our country "dictates" what a woman can and cannot do with her body in regards to abortion. Parliament has decreed, not by right but by legislation, that a British woman cannot abort her child after the 24 week limit unless in exceptional circumstances. I do not understand where this idea that abortion is a an unlimited right comes from, other than from people who seemingly are mixing up what the Burger Court in 1973 declared, to be somehow a universal right for all women worldwide.

Abortion is not a constitutional right in almost all western countries including the UK, and almost all western countries dictate the terms (if, how and when) of abortions.

[HotelUser]

Parliament has decreed, not by right but by legislation, that a British woman cannot abort her child after the 24 week limit unless in exceptional circumstances

Now around half of Americans wont have this option at all:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/us/abortion-laws-roe-v-wade.html

Alabama, Arkansas, Missouri, SD don't even have exceptions for rape or incest.

Should the US congress & senate have passed a constitutional amendment to codify a right to an abortion long ago? Yes. But that certainly doesn't mean overturning Roe was the right decision either. It's been the law for 50 years, and the SCOTUS's argument that the 14th amendment doesn't apply because abortion isn't a "deeply and long held American tradition" lacks credibility too because women couldn't even vote until 1920 and there were no women judges until the 20th century, so how could it have been a tradition to begin with if the system itself was simply rigged against women that the basis of this decision-- against women again-- was based upon?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Now around half of Americans wont have this option at all:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/us/abortion-laws-roe-v-wade.html

Alabama, Arkansas, Missouri, SD don't even have exceptions for rape or incest.

Should the US congress & senate have passed a constitutional amendment to codify a right to an abortion long ago? Yes. But that certainly doesn't mean overturning Roe was the right decision either. It's been the law for 50 years, and the SCOTUS's argument that the 14th amendment doesn't apply because abortion isn't a "deeply and long held American tradition" lacks credibility too because women couldn't even vote until 1920 and there were no women judges until the 20th century, so how could it have been a tradition to begin with if the system itself was simply rigged against women that the basis of this decision-- against women again-- was based upon?

1. Make these arguments then for abortion in your state elections when you elect your houses of representatives, senates and governors.

2. Alternatively as you mentioned, secure the two-thirds supermajority at a national level needed to amend the constitution.


If you cannot do either of these then I would suggest your pro-abortion arguments are not as universally popular as you seem to believe. If they are not universally accepted by your fellow countrymen, then given you live in a federal republic it is only to be expected that there will be differences in law on this across the country.

[HotelUser]

1. Make these arguments then for abortion in your state elections when you elect your houses of representatives, senates and governors.

2. Alternatively as you mentioned, secure the two-thirds supermajority at a national level needed to amend the constitution.


If you cannot do either of these then I would suggest your pro-abortion arguments are not as universally popular as you seem to believe. If they are not universally accepted by your fellow countrymen, then given you live in a federal republic it is only to be expected that there will be differences in law on this across the country.

I live in California now which is very pro-choice fortunately, and so is Canada where I'm originally from.

Yes I think #2 will be the long term goal now. I've heard somewhat cynically for years that neither party has wanted to change the status quo on abortion rights because it's a great issue for fundraising. Maybe that's why neither party ever championed a constitutional amendment despite having have a century to do so. A majority of Americans (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-americans-stand-on-abortion-in-5-charts/) already support abortion and nearly 70% didn't want the SCOTUS to overturn Roe. Around 80% of Americans (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-poised-reverse-roe-americans-support-abortion/story?id=84468131) say abortion should also be allowed in cases of rape, invest or when the mother's live is in danger. So all that said I imagine and hope we will see a constitutional amendment at some point in the future to guarantee a right to an abortion.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I live in California now which is very pro-choice fortunately, and so is Canada where I'm originally from.

Yes I think #2 will be the long term goal now. I've heard somewhat cynically for years that neither party has wanted to change the status quo on abortion rights because it's a great issue for fundraising. Maybe that's why neither party ever championed a constitutional amendment despite having have a century to do so. A majority of Americans (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-americans-stand-on-abortion-in-5-charts/) already support abortion and nearly 70% didn't want the SCOTUS to overturn Roe. Around 80% of Americans (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-poised-reverse-roe-americans-support-abortion/story?id=84468131) say abortion should also be allowed in cases of rape, invest or when the mother's live is in danger. So all that said I imagine and hope we will see a constitutional amendment at some point in the future to guarantee a right to an abortion.

See that's fine, I have no issue if these things are decided through the legislature and not the courts.

As someone who opposes abortion, I would similarly campaign to have abortion made illegal nationwide via a constitutional amendment.

[HotelUser]

As someone who opposes abortion, I would similarly campaign to have abortion made illegal nationwide via a constitutional amendment.

Even in cases where the mother's life is in danger or in cases of rape or incest?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/03/ohio-indiana-abortion-rape-victim

Unfortunately I personally could never see this as a black or white issue like that. I think there's a lot of grey area here and a lot of circumstances where an abortion is the right decision. I don't trust the state to do a good job figuring out what all those circumstances are, and even if they could it would be unduly invasive for women to put up with. So for me I think we should allow women to do what they want and make the right choices for themselves. Some tiny fraction of people will abuse it but then again that happens with every right / privilege that exists.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Even in cases where the mother's life is in danger or in cases of rape or incest?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/03/ohio-indiana-abortion-rape-victim

This is always brought up which I find very strange given the percentages we're talking about here.

In the USA in 2020, there were 930,160 abortions carried out nationwide. Of those, only 1% were due to pregnancy because of rape and less than 0.5% due to incest. The vast majority of abortions are therefore carried out as a form of contraception so we need to stop with the extreme examples when discussing this.


Unfortunately I personally could never see this as a black or white issue like that. I think there's a lot of grey area here and a lot of circumstances where an abortion is the right decision. I don't trust the state to do a good job figuring out what all those circumstances are, and even if they could it would be unduly invasive for women to put up with. So for me I think we should allow women to do what they want and make the right choices for themselves. Some tiny fraction of people will abuse it but then again that happens with every right / privilege that exists.

Are you saying you support abortion up to the point of birth?

[HotelUser]

This is always brought up which I find very strange given the percentages we're talking about here.

In the USA in 2020, there were 930,160 abortions carried out nationwide. Of those, only 1% were due to pregnancy because of rape and less than 0.5% due to incest. The vast majority of abortions are therefore carried out as a form of contraception so we need to stop with the extreme examples when discussing this.

So because it's rare you're saying you don't think we should have laws to protect women who've been sexually abused and that we should force them to carry babies that are products of rape or incest. The Republican Party is in favor of these exceptions.


Are you saying you support abortion up to the point of birth?

It completely depends on the factors of the pregnancy. If there's a fetal anomaly (which are sadly still common) or if there's a health risk to the pregnant mother then I absolutely support late term abortion in those cases. Most abortion clinics that I'm aware of (in Canada) wont even perform an abortion if it isn't for a reason such as this beyond 23 weeks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada), and late term abortions are incredibly rare too because they're complicated to perform, expensive and dangerous for the mother.

I wouldn't support someone getting a late term abortion at 35 weeks because she changed her mind and there's no other reason. But my point is I don't really think this is happening, or if it is it's insanely rare. It's funny how Ben Shapiro makes it sound like late term abortions happen all the time and they're totally evil, but late term abortions in general are less than 1% of abortions overall, and a vast amount of those are again due to anomalies and other health related reasons, so the boogie man that Shapiro and others try and create here doesn't even exist.

[Seatherny]

Abortion is not a constitutional right in almost all western countries including the UK, and almost all western countries dictate the terms (if, how and when) of abortions.



This sentence alone shows how undeveloped these countries really are. Can call itself a developed first world nation but in reality the rest of the world just laughs.

[-:Undertaker:-]

So because it's rare you're saying you don't think we should have laws to protect women who've been sexually abused and that we should force them to carry babies that are products of rape or incest. The Republican Party is in favor of these exceptions.

Are you saying you would agree to limiting abortion just to cases of rape, incest and a threat to the life of the mother?


It completely depends on the factors of the pregnancy. If there's a fetal anomaly (which are sadly still common) or if there's a health risk to the pregnant mother then I absolutely support late term abortion in those cases. Most abortion clinics that I'm aware of (in Canada) wont even perform an abortion if it isn't for a reason such as this beyond 23 weeks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada), and late term abortions are incredibly rare too because they're complicated to perform, expensive and dangerous for the mother.

I wouldn't support someone getting a late term abortion at 35 weeks because she changed her mind and there's no other reason. But my point is I don't really think this is happening, or if it is it's insanely rare. It's funny how Ben Shapiro makes it sound like late term abortions happen all the time and they're totally evil, but late term abortions in general are less than 1% of abortions overall, and a vast amount of those are again due to anomalies and other health related reasons, so the boogie man that Shapiro and others try and create here doesn't even exist.

Here in Britain the limit is 24 years, and if you type in Google images a picture of a baby at 24 weeks you can find many premature babies who at that age doctors will fight to keep alive and save. I would consider 24 weeks a late term abortion, and it is entirely legal in the United Kingdom. I find it vile.


This sentence alone shows how undeveloped these countries really are. Can call itself a developed first world nation but in reality the rest of the world just laughs.

In most of the world it is the case that abortion is legal only due to legislation, not because of constitutional right. Who is laughing?

[HotelUser]

Are you saying you would agree to limiting abortion just to cases of rape, incest and a threat to the life of the mother?



You didn't answer my question ;) but how would you possibly enforce those laws? You're basically asking doctors to regulate a woman's body during her pregnancy. Are we going to require that women do weekly ultrasounds, that they and doctors document and file reports to track their pregnancies with government agencies? Who will be the legal arbiter who determines if a case was sexual assault or not? Our legal system already has trouble with this and now we have to investigate these cases and resolve them in a manner of several short weeks, plus all of this assumes women are comfortable coming forward reporting that they've been sexually abused which is incredibly difficult and emotionally hard to navigate as well.

Maybe in a perfect world where we have all the data, or in an evil hostile brutal dictatorial regime like China we could and would be comfortable being as intrusive as we want to collect and enforce all of this top down, but in practice it's impossible. Also governments are infamously bad at doing many things at scale so even if we tried enforcing such a law with earnest, it would probably end in disaster anyway.




Here in Britain the limit is 24 years, and if you type in Google images a picture of a baby at 24 weeks you can find many premature babies who at that age doctors will fight to keep alive and save. I would consider 24 weeks a late term abortion, and it is entirely legal in the United Kingdom. I find it vile.



Yes that contrived Ben Shapiro scenario may sound vile but the truth is 89% of abortions in the UK are performed before 10 weeks of pregnancy (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/21/record-number-of-abortions-in-england-and-wales-amid-financial-insecurity). How many women in the UK are getting late term abortions for unexceptional reasons? And as I mentioned above how could we possibly enforce a law to catch them that isn't an intrusive imposition on all women? We've seen how ineffective & erroneous our governments (US, Canada, UK etc) all were during COVID. You really want people like Johnson or Corbyn to have this power and to have a go at enforcing a law like this? Also doesn't the NHS currently have a record high burn rate as well as a staffing issue both of which will surly just get worse with continued COVID, inflation, brexit and an aging population?




In most of the world it is the case that abortion is legal only due to legislation, not because of constitutional right. Who is laughing?

To be kind of mean should we really look at most of the world as an example to follow given how oppressive most of the world generally is? China, Russia, most of the Middle East, much of South America are all incredibly un-free and un-democratic and generally terrible on human rights. The travesty here is that the United States should be a leader and setting positive examples for human rights that push the world toward freedom and democracy and a world where woman have freedom and democracy too. Apart from his stance on China DJT & the SCOTUS he built is a major regression for America on the world stage imo.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You didn't answer my question ;)

My own stance is that I only support abortion when the mother's life is in danger or the baby is severely disabled/will suffer (as in brain-dead).


but how would you possibly enforce those laws? You're basically asking doctors to regulate a woman's body during her pregnancy. Are we going to require that women do weekly ultrasounds, that they and doctors document and file reports to track their pregnancies with government agencies? Who will be the legal arbiter who determines if a case was sexual assault or not? Our legal system already has trouble with this and now we have to investigate these cases and resolve them in a manner of several short weeks, plus all of this assumes women are comfortable coming forward reporting that they've been sexually abused which is incredibly difficult and emotionally hard to navigate as well.

Maybe in a perfect world where we have all the data, or in an evil hostile brutal dictatorial regime like China we could and would be comfortable being as intrusive as we want to collect and enforce all of this top down, but in practice it's impossible. Also governments are infamously bad at doing many things at scale so even if we tried enforcing such a law with earnest, it would probably end in disaster anyway.

Laws on abortion are already enforced. I cannot think of a country that does not have limits and conditions on abortion. Can you?

My impression seems to be that you are quite uncomfortable (and rightly so) about abortion being used as a contraceptive, which is the case for 95% of abortions taking place, and you're obviously aware that abortion includes techniques such as scrambling an unborn baby up in the womb and sucking it out through a tube, but try to justify it by bringing up very extreme circumstances (rape, incest, mother's life in danger) as well as just throwing your hands up and saying we can't regulate or police it when evidently we can because we already have legal limits around abortion that are enforced by healthcare professionals and the courts if need be.


Yes that contrived Ben Shapiro scenario may sound vile but the truth is 89% of abortions in the UK are performed before 10 weeks of pregnancy (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/21/record-number-of-abortions-in-england-and-wales-amid-financial-insecurity). How many women in the UK are getting late term abortions for unexceptional reasons? And as I mentioned above how could we possibly enforce a law to catch them that isn't an intrusive imposition on all women? We've seen how ineffective & erroneous our governments (US, Canada, UK etc) all were during COVID. You really want people like Johnson or Corbyn to have this power and to have a go at enforcing a law like this? Also doesn't the NHS currently have a record high burn rate as well as a staffing issue both of which will surly just get worse with continued COVID, inflation, brexit and an aging population?

I'm not convinced that the NHS being crap means we need to terminate the lives of perfectly healthy and innocent babies.


To be kind of mean should we really look at most of the world as an example to follow given how oppressive most of the world generally is? China, Russia, most of the Middle East, much of South America are all incredibly un-free and un-democratic and generally terrible on human rights. The travesty here is that the United States should be a leader and setting positive examples for human rights that push the world toward freedom and democracy and a world where woman have freedom and democracy too. Apart from his stance on China DJT & the SCOTUS he built is a major regression for America on the world stage imo.

I don't understand what we're saying here.

In most free western countries as I have said throughout the thread, abortion is not a constitutional right and is governed by statue law. This is the case in Britain, France, Spain and almost every European country as well as Australia, New Zealand and I think even Canada. The United States from 1973-2022 was the outlier in that a political court tried to make a political issue a constitutional right when it clearly was not. With the recent decision of the court, America is now on a par with almost every other western nation.

Taking a look at Europe for example and going back to what you said about enforcing abortion laws, in Poland abortion is strictly regulated to the point where it is only allowed in cases of rape and incest - and in Malta abortion is completely illegal.