"Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows"

[Frustration]

Forget "something British". What we need is a system of laws that isn't solely dependent on one SCOTUS ruling. But abortion advocates had to push hard to maintain the fiction that abortion bans were unconstitutional, and so never bothered passing actual federal laws because that would require acknowledging such were necessary.

So when a Court that favored Strict Constructionalism arose, there were no protections for abortion rights that applied to all the states, and every ban and restriction passed by certain states immediately became active.

You'd think people would learn from this, but they haven't - and probably won't.

[CmdrKing]

The problem is that ''pro-life'' actually means multiple things. It isn't the black and white ''us vs them'' issue that its made out to be. For example, you can be pro-abortion but want time limits. In Britain for example the abortion limit is set at 24 weeks because up until then a baby is just a clump of cells. But correct me if I am wrong, there are states where abortion was/is legal right up until birth, at which point... its a god damn human being with thoughts and feelings and anyone who aborts a baby at that stage is a murderer as far as I am concerned.

That's why this is a controversial subject. Its a lot more complicated than ''lets make life hard for women.'' Hopefully you end up with something better than Roe V Wade when is all said and done - something British.

Actually the issue is very black and white, but clogged with misinformation. What people don’t want is for viable fetuses, something recognizable as an actual baby, to die. But it turns out that after the point that happens (circa 22 weeks), nearly all abortions happen because
A) developmental issues that make survival unlikely
B) health problems that threaten the carrier
C) legal or financial barriers prevented getting an abortion much earlier

Anyone who believes in abortion at all would readily agree the first two are allowable and even necessary, and the best way to prevent the third is making it easier to get an abortion.

It’s really clear cut. People don’t carry around a parasitic fluid sack for 6 months then freak out and have it aborted, that’s shit made up by religious weirdos.

[TGLS]

That's why this is a controversial subject. Its a lot more complicated than ''lets make life hard for women.'' Hopefully you end up with something better than Roe V Wade when is all said and done - something British.

Well, that probably won't happen. Look at this map:


Abortion availability in the US by fetal gestational age
Svenskbygderna, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

OK, so the blue ones are around 24 weeks (i.e. viability), the green ones are no limit, the dark red ones are 6 weeks, and the black ones are limited at fertilization. A really minor law (i.e. limit at 30 weeks) would probably piss off lots of pro-choice advocates just as much as a really radical law (i.e. limit at 0 weeks). And then it would have to contend with the 10th Amendment.

What we need is a system of laws that isn't solely dependent on one SCOTUS ruling.

I don't think the American federal government can pass a law saying, "states cannot pass a law saying X". Same reason why the only reason the drinking age is uniform is because highway funding is tied to having a drinking age of 21. And I'm pretty sure that a broad amendment that abolishes different criminal laws amongst the states would be tremendously unpopular.

[Frustration]

And I'm pretty sure that a broad amendment that abolishes different criminal laws amongst the states would be tremendously unpopular.

You think a SCOTUS ruling that not only abolishes different criminal laws amongst the states but requires granting the Court massive power to create new law wasn't tremendously unpopular?

The states have the ability to set their own drinking ages because the 21st Amendment guarantees them that - probably as a way of gaining support for the amendment. Otherwise federal law could override state laws.

[BBally81]

The statistic seem to show that most Americans have no issue with abortions, which could be a sign that the anti-abortion crowd are the minority.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro ... ables.aspx

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... t-cases-2/

[Frustration]

Yeah, but that has nothing to do with why the SCOTUS needed to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

[Draco Dracul]

Yeah, but that has nothing to do with why the SCOTUS needed to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

It has everything to do with it because having an unelected oligarchy that overrides popular policy is a one way ticket to civil war. And to put it in perspective there is not a single state in the union where overturning Roe v. Wade breaks 30%. The Supreme Court along with the senate and dual sovereignty should have been abolished after the Civil War ended the first republic.

[pilight]

Forget "something British". What we need is a system of laws that isn't solely dependent on one SCOTUS ruling.

Jimmy Carter took office with supermajorities in both houses of congress. The Democrats could have passed federal legislation that would have taken this issue out of the courts for good while the decision was still fresh. Instead they let it rest on a paper thin SCOTUS majority that was a godsend for Republican fundraising and get-out-the-vote efforts for decades.

[Frustration]

Nope, nope, nope. Restraining the impulses of the masses is as much a part of the American system as representing the will of the people is.

The legal theory behind Roe vs. Wade is nonsense, and it needed to be overturned precisely because the ends do not justify the means. If you want there to be a right of privacy, pass federal laws and try for a Constitutional amendment, don't just imagine it into being because it would be convenient if it existed.

The Jimmy Carter point above is excellent. Abortion advocates had every chance in the world to prevent this situation, and they ignored them all, because they were convinced they'd always be able to get enough people on the Court to 'interpret' things their way.

God, I never imagined I'd find Clarence Thomas to be a great Justice. But look how that turned out.

[Draco Dracul]

Nope, nope, nope. Restraining the impulses of the masses is as much a part of the American system as representing the will of the people is.

That's not true, representing the will of the people isn't part of American system at all anymore. That's why it's a bad system.

The legal theory behind Roe vs. Wade is nonsense, and it needed to be overturned precisely because the ends do not justify the means. If you want there to be a right of privacy, pass federal laws and try for a Constitutional amendment, don't just imagine it into being because it would be convenient if it existed.

The entire theory behind the tenth Amendment is that that you can't actually label all the rights a person has and that the absence lf a right being list does not therefore imply that said right does not exist. Also if the ends do not justify the means then how do you justify killing thousands of people every year for the "integrity" of the constitution.

God, I never imagined I'd find Clarence Thomas to be a great Justice. But look how that turned out.

You're a fucking monster.