Poll: Abortion, Roe v. Wade

[Malevolence]

The cost of the morning after pill and other forms of birth country should be reduced in the US and availability should be increased.

An interesting article on the difference between the US and UK;

The contraceptive pill: How it differs in the US and UK

Contraceptive pill was approved in 1960 in the US and 1961 in the UK

www.independent.co.uk

Article is behind a paywall.

 

[GGizmo]

Article is behind a paywall.

It's not for me. It asks if you want to pay but you can press I'll try later or something. One of the buttons and it removes the block.

 

[Pipe & Slippers]

I think it was the Freakanomics book that linked the decline of crime in the US in the late 80’s to Roe vs Wade
I wonder if this will result in an increase in 15/20 years

 

[MagicBoy]

America ... a country so ****** up that they ban abortion as the hypocrite religious nutjob wing of the GOP are pro-life, but the very same hypocrite religious nutjobs happily let adolescents buy AR-15s to shoot up primary schools full of children. Which is anti-pro-life.

They're in this pickle as the nasty orange narcissist did a deal with the hypocrite religious nutjob wing of the GOP. They voted for the nasty orange narcissist despite him being probably the most unChristian individual who's committed most of the seven deadly sins, just to knobble the Supreme Court to overturn this specific issue. In plain sight.

Jesus wept.

(and then they didn't vote him in again as it was job done, so he staged a really poor attempt at a coup so he could keep power and embezzle more money for himself)

 

[Malevolence]

It's not for me. It asks if you want to pay but you can press I'll try later or something. One of the buttons and it removes the block.

Yeah, clicked on that button. It doesn't register as being clicked for some reason.

 

[mcast123]

The US is an absolute mess, they hate the main middle east cults yet they have their own just as crazy brain washing cults.

 

[dowie]

If anyone ever wanted to know why judicial appointments should never be political, look this way…

Separation of powers is so crucial for proper democracy. Can’t stand political interference or media interference with the judiciary.

America has got what it deserves. They want politically appointed attorney generals, judges and so on. This is what they get.

It's kinda the opposite, political here would surely be activist judicial types overreaching re: what the court can/should be doing. The argument here is basically that the constitution doesn't give any specific rights here, there aren't any federal laws here so legislation is currently something for individual states.

It's basically the right decision (for the court) but with bad consequences IMO. If politicians want the court to uphold the right to abortion then ultimately the ought to pass an amendment to the constitution or at least some federal laws etc. without that the court would be "legislating from the bench".

 

[Quartz]

I personally think banning abortion is wrong, but from a strict legal POV surely they are not banning abortion but returning the legality or their wise thereof to the individual states? Can someone more legally knowledgeable explain why the Supreme Court thought the US constitution did or did not cover this? I’ve had a gander and it’s beyond me.

 

[dave28]

wont this create a massive black market of pills / injections or something like that.

 

[MagicBoy]

It's kinda the opposite, political here would surely be activist judicial types overreaching re: what the court can/should be doing. The argument here is basically that the constitution doesn't give any specific rights here, there aren't any federal laws here so legislation is currently something for individual states.

It's basically the right decision (for the court) but with bad consequences IMO. If politicians want the court to uphold the right to abortion then ultimately the ought to pass an amendment to the constitution or at least some federal laws etc. without that the court would be "legislating from the bench".

From my blinkered UK perspective ...

Court has a framework in the form of the constitution. There's nothing codified in the late 1700s era document specific to abortion or contraception as they simply didn't exist at the time. So SCOTUS ruled on Roe vs Wade in 1973 with what they had available and set a precedent for modern America.

Now some unhinged religious nut jobs have undone it in against public opinion after years of indoctrination from a cult.

The country that defined freedom? Don't make me laugh. If you're a free country then let the people make their own choice, don't drag them back to 1787.

 

[Malevolence]

wont this create a massive black market of pills / injections or something like that.

A what market?

 

[Quartz]

Now some unhinged religious nut jobs

An ad hominem attack only harms your cause. Just because you disagree with them does not mean they are unhinged religious nut jobs. Why don’t you attack their ruling?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

 

[Haggisman]

I'm not sure if you're aware but there's a lot of countries with more restrictive laws than the US for abortion. Abortion isn't some universally accepted thing where America is an exception.

There's a big difference between a backwards country which hasn't yet legalised abortion, and a supposed developed country (which ironically calls itself "the land of the free") going backwards decades by removing that legislation making it legal.

Just because somewhere is worse, doesn't mean you should aspire to be like them

 

[MagicBoy]

An ad hominem attack only harms your cause. Just because you disagree with them does not mean they are unhinged religious nut jobs. Why don’t you attack their ruling?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

I don't have a cause. I'm allowed to have an opinion, and I've shared it with you. I care not if you don't like it.

I'm not a US legal scholar, where the SCOTUS are supposed to be. Except the recent appointees were placed on the SCOTUS for this specific purpose by a group who have been prepping for this for 49 years. So it really doesn't matter how they reason it. It can't easily overturned as they're the SCOTUS.

Land of the Free? Don't make me laugh.

 

[GGizmo]

Why is this an issue in the US, but we never hear about abortion in the UK?

Have we hit the compromise spot for all sides here?

 

[muon]

The guy who convinced the conservatives on the SCOTUS, thinks they should revisit contraception and other laws protecting gay relationships. Wow.

 

[dowie]

Court has a framework in the form of the constitution. There's nothing codified in the late 1700s era document specific to abortion or contraception as they simply didn't exist at the time. So SCOTUS ruled on Roe vs Wade in 1973 with what they had available and set a precedent for modern America.

No, the ruling wasn't based on a 1700s era document but rather an aspect of the 14th Amendment (from 1868) - the Due process clause establishing the right to privacy. IT seems like a bit of a stretch.

There isn't any specific provision for abortion in the constitution or subsequent amendments.

Now some unhinged religious nut jobs have undone it in against public opinion after years of indoctrination from a cult.

Who are the unhinged religious nutjobs you're referring to and on what basis?

 

[muon]

Who are the unhinged religious nutjobs you're referring to and on what basis?

Clarence Thomas clearly has a religious agenda as a Catholic. Why else off the back of this is he immediately targetting laws protecting contraception and homosexuality.

Contraception, gay marriage: Clarence Thomas signals new targets for supreme court

Rightwing justice appears to offer preview of the court’s potential future rulings after decision to remove US abortion rights

www.theguardian.com

“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion to the ruling on Roe.

Griswold v Connecticut established a married couple’s right to use contraception without government interference in 1965. The court ruled in the 2003 case of Lawrence v Texas that states could not criminalize sodomy, and Obergefell v Hodges established the right for same-sex couples to marry in 2015.

 

[Puzzled]

Why is this an issue in the US, but we never hear about abortion in the UK?

Have we hit the compromise spot for all sides here?

Religious groups don't have the same power here. We have a healthy scepticism of religion which keeps it in check.

The US however seems to be split in two, you have the modern US which we see on TV and then the highly conservative religious America which appears to be stuck in the 1950's. The latter seems determined on dragging everyone back with them.

 

[Mason-]

I find some peoples reactions very strange. Especially if you don’t live there. I suppose since the Trump win and Brexit, people really don’t like democracy anymore. Most of the states are going to make it legal. But the reaction you hear is like it’s been banned outright across the whole of the USA.

Weird.