Can we talk about this politely and respectfully? No arguments at all? I'd like to try, although I imagine someone will ruin it at some point.
The supreme court just sided with Mississippi's 15-week ban on abortion and overturned Roe v. Wade after almost 50 years.
Justice Clarence Thomas said that they should also consider rulings on same-sex marriage, access to birth control, and, and same-sex relationships.
Just so you're all informed.
So what does it actually mean? abortions are now completely illegal? Or illegal after a certain length of pregnancy?
I just think it's interesting that the US has a political and legal system capable of doing exactly what 66% of the population did not want.
*cracks knuckles*
*opens user account deactivation portal*
I'm sure everybody will be able to handle this without politics. 
Lof8 - Andy said:So what does it actually mean? abortions are now completely illegal? Or illegal after a certain length of pregnancy?
It means it's currently up to individual state laws.
Lof8 - Andy said:So what does it actually mean? abortions are now completely illegal? Or illegal after a certain length of pregnancy?
It means it's now up to states individually to decide how they're going to regulate abortion, rather than there being a federal ruling in all 50 states saying "the constitution has an implied right to privacy that extends to protecting abortion."
In reply to GameboyRMH :
And incapable of doing things that the vast majority do want. But berkeley it, whatever.
Lof8 - Andy said:So what does it actually mean? abortions are now completely illegal? Or illegal after a certain length of pregnancy?
I think it means the federal government takes no position and it is up to the states to manage.
In reply to Lof8 - Andy :
Complicated question, depends on the state. Here's a guide.
In reply to Lof8 - Andy :
Here's a handy map:
Lof8 - Andy said:So what does it actually mean? abortions are now completely illegal? Or illegal after a certain length of pregnancy?
Important point here (not checking the actual ruling, going with pre-ruling info):
It does not make anything illegal nationally, it just means it's not required to be legal nationally.
It means states now will determine what is legal. This is "effectively" what is going on currently (some states make is very difficult, some make it easy). So, realistically, not much will change for most people.
Lof8 - Andy said:So what does it actually mean? abortions are now completely illegal? Or illegal after a certain length of pregnancy?
No.
It means that states are now free to set their own laws regarding abortion. Abortion is no longer federally protected.
This will have predictable consequences in states that fancy themselves very conservative.
Unfortunately.
IIRC, one in four women will have an abortion in their lifetime.
Lof8 - Andy said:So what does it actually mean? abortions are now completely illegal? Or illegal after a certain length of pregnancy?
From what the news in our waiting area is stating individual states are allowed to set their own policy there is no longer the backing of federal law/policy. There's a map of states where abortion basically became illegal after the decision was handed down, it's the ones you expect.
GameboyRMH said:I just think it's interesting that the US has a political and legal system capable of doing exactly what 66% of the population did not want.
Just to be clear on this, and another important point. The supreme court is very specifically designed to NOT be beholden to public demand (thus life time appointments). They are supposed (!) to be simple interpreters of how laws align with the constitution (unfortunately, "sides" are clearly present, which is very inappropriate)
infinitenexus said:Justice Clarence Thomas said that they should also consider rulings on same-sex marriage, access to birth control, and, and same-sex relationships.
This is the most concerning part, that its only the beginning.
infinitenexus said:Can we talk about this politely and respectfully? No arguments at all? I'd like to try, although I imagine someone will ruin it at some point.
I waded into discussions of religion and gun control and did my best to be non-partisan about it. I doubt I can discuss this seriously without getting partisan.
The supreme court just sided with Mississippi's 15-week ban on abortion and overturned Roe v. Wade after almost 50 years.
Justice Clarence Thomas said that they should also consider rulings on same-sex marriage, access to birth control, and, and same-sex relationships.
The rulings, justifications, and opinions really make me nervous. The strict originalism and philosophy that, "If it's not *explicitly* protected by the letter of the constitution, it's not a protected right" really make me nervous.
That Justice Thomas would make a public statement suggesting the court should reexamine other cases that no one is debating about makes me ESPECIALLY nervous.
I strongly believe that one of the ideal of the constitution is to protect the fundamental rights of the unpopular, the minority, and the disempowered from the whims and desires of the tyranny of the masses. This makes me afraid for that.
aircooled said:GameboyRMH said:I just think it's interesting that the US has a political and legal system capable of doing exactly what 66% of the population did not want.
Just to be clear on this, and another important point. The supreme court is very specifically designed to NOT be beholden to public demand (thus life time appointments). They are supposed (!) to be simple interpreters of how law align with the constitution (unfortunately, "sides" are clearly present, which is very inappropriate)
I was struggling to find a clear and polite way to say this. Thank you.
In reply to XLR99 (Forum Supporter) :
Extremely concerning.
So, who's next?
I'm.... not optimistic about life in this country.
bluej (Forum Supporter) said:Lof8 - Andy said:So what does it actually mean? abortions are now completely illegal? Or illegal after a certain length of pregnancy?
It means it's currently up to individual state laws.
Which is kinda interesting, cause SCOTUS just removed NY state's ability to make laws on the second amendment.
Its like there's no internal consistency in SCOTUS for some reason.
Here's my worry.
Abstract:
Donohue and Levitt (2001) presented evidence that the legalization of abortion in the early 1970s
played an important role in the crime drop of the 1990s. That paper concluded with a strong out-
of-sample prediction regarding the next two decades: “When a steady state is reached roughly
twenty years from now, the impact of abortion will be roughly twice as great as the impact felt so
far. Our results suggest that all else equal, legalized abortion will account for persistent declines
of 1 percent a year in crime over the next two decades.” Estimating parallel specifications to the
original paper, but using the seventeen years of data generated after that paper was written, we
find strong support for the prediction. The estimated coefficient on legalized abortion is actually
larger in the latter period than it was in the initial dataset in almost all specifications. We estimate
that crime fell roughly 20% between 1997 and 2014 due to legalized abortion. The cumulative
impact of legalized abortion on crime is roughly 45%, accounting for a very substantial portion of
the roughly 50-55% overall decline from the peak of crime in the early 1990s.
So now you can choose the kind of state you live in.
A blue state where abortion and pot are legal, or a red state where abortion and pot are illegal. One way of splitting the country culturally.
I read an analysis of Roe in the WSJ a few weeks back written by a Yale law professor who argued that, while he is personally strongly pro-abortion, his reading of the ruling is that it was poorly written and fails to rest on sound legal ground, and deserved to be overturned on that basis. Without commenting on my own personal views, I found his argument persuasive.
I've only skimmed the current ruling, but it is based on the idea that returning control of the issue to the states allows for a more democratic outcome in each state, following the wishes of local voters rather than a one-size-fits-all federal mandate. If indeed the federal government wants to mandate the right to abortion, the court is indicating that a law or an amendment would be necessary (i.e., something created by democratically-elected representatives), not a court ruling that does not rest on sound constitutional ground.
In reply to Tom Suddard :
Nearly one in four, yes. And that number will likely stay the same, the only thing that will change is whether those abortions are safe and legal, and whether those peoples' lifetimes continue after the abortion.
Also, something worth noting here is the implicit question of privacy. If a person's pregnancy ends, does a state automatically assume it was an illegal abortion? Miscarriages are even more common than abortions - about 1 in 3 pregnancies end in miscarriage. How does the state know that you were pregnant? How does the state know how the pregnancy terminated? Is any pregnancy not carried to term considered a crime?
This topic is locked. No further posts are being accepted.
