Poll: Abortion, Roe v. Wade

[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".

 

[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?

 

[dowie]

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.

I think most (if not all) of the court are members of some mainstream religion no?

Probably because he doesn't think those rulings are constitutional either, it doesn't seem like there is a majority agreeing with him on that though the question was about why the people ruling in favour of this decision are religious loons - an argument based on simply supporting a legal decision is rather flawed.

 

[dowie]

He doesn't think the rulings that contradict his Catholic faith aren't constitutional. The only ones he decides to pick out of the pool, two of which have nothing to do with conception/abortion.

No, he thinks they aren't constitutional, not really a huge coincidence.

 

[dowie]

Lol. Next on the list, federal laws giving personal rights to adulterers and polytheists. All unconstitutional of course. Any other suggestion is absurd, it is just a massive coincidence.

It's not clear what you're saying here.

 

[dowie]

You are an apologist for what is a religious agenda. You are excusing it as simply deciding what is and isn't constitutional even though it is clearly aligned to religious beliefs above all else.

LOL I'm certainly no religious apologist, I'm not sure I've used the term magic sky pixie for a while as I think there was a point where we were supposed to pander more to religious sensitivities on here but anyone can search my post history on those topics!

I'm pro-choice, the argument here is simply that this wasn't constitutional and that the correct decision was to overturn Roe v Wade. The correct decision now for the Democrats ought to be to try to legislate to protect abortion rights.

edit - from a quick search and here are a sample of some posts by me over years re: my views on religion as a justification for restricting abortion, contraception or mutilating babies:

contraception/preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS:

Its pretty disgusting tbh... a very large number of deaths would be prevented if the pope simply approved the use of condoms. OK he's not actively killing people like say Hitler or Stalin but his lack of action is having the same net effect regardless of the fact that he naively believes (due to his belief in a magic sky pixie) that he is doing the right thing.

circumcision/genetal mutilation:

Here's an idea - how about letting the child decide whats best once he grows up and is able to make the decision himself.

Pandering to sensitive parent vs mutilating someone without consent - I don't think the parents rights come first here...

while in lots of cases a child indoctrinated into believing in whatever magical sky pixie nonsense his parents believe in will choose to have it done I wouldn't be surprised if this declined in future - god bothering being less popular as people become better educated

sarcastic comment re: abortion:

yes but the life of the unborn child is precious because the magical sky pixie tells us so

 

[dowie]

Amendments to the 1787 original. Whatever the date, it's a long time ago before these concepts existed. That it comes under a later amendment under the right to privacy seems reasonable to me.

No, it isn't a long time before "these concepts existed" abortion existed in the 1800s.

 

[dowie]

Dowie being obtuse shocker! The pharmaceuticals didn't exist until the 1970s. Lets face it, the barbarism of previous "solutions" would have put most women off before that.

You going to call the pharmaceutical method LARPing at abortion now?

Hmmm more like MagocBoy getting the basics wrong and having to backtrack, so far unaware the ruling was based on an amendment from the 1800s and that abortion existed back then. Did you initially forget the constitution could be amended too?

You talked about how these "concepts" didn't exist... they did! Including non-surgical abortion, in fact, in your original tweet, you were broader mentioned abortion or contraception

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.

The constitution is amended over time, it's not just the late 1700s era document, there was nothing in the original covering abortion and that's not because they weren't aware of it or of the "concept". Roe v Wade wasn't based on anything in the original constitution anyway but rather on the 14th amendment added in 1868. The first abortion laws in the US actually pre-date that amendment by several decades and that amendment doesn't specifically cover abortion either.

The constitution has had amendments to it all through the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries it's quite a big deal to make an amendment to it and requires 2/3rds of the house and the senate to approve. If at some point a supermajority of Congress had desired to they could have made an amendment to protect the right to an abortion, so far they haven't. No doubt there will be pressure for some federal law at some point in the future they might even get bipartisan support to make an amendment that does provide a constitutional right to abortion along the lines of that offered in most European countries - IMO a much more sensible solution than the precedent from Roe v Wade which actually restricted states from enacting the sort of European style laws that have majority support both here and Americans.

 

[dowie]

It's odd how quickly people drop their principles when raging at others with "wrong" views... the SC judges are no such bad guys that this seemingly liberal white woman even thought she could drop in the n-word:

 

[dowie]

Why not? Surely preventing someone from ever having to suffer through a debilitating condition is quite a noble thing? It's not like they're killing a disabled person, they're stopping someone ever having to live with a condition.

Yup, people get very sensitive though as soon as certain labels are used, then sometimes logic can go out of the window. In this case "eugenics".

I guess religious views on inherited disability range from 'must have been evil in a past life" through to "god works in mysterious ways" etc.. but generally religious people opposed to abortion aren't interested in making an exception for a mother finding out their kid is likely going to be born with say Downs' Syndrome for example.

Once you've got a Eugenics lable then some otherwise supposedly pro-choice people also buy into mindlessly inconsistent arguments like: "If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis..." "congratulations you killed Beethoven".

The argument that killing disabled foetuses could kill some great scientists/artists applies just as easily to killing able-bodied foetuses too - it's just a straight-up anti-abortion argument.

The whole point of pro-choice is that it's the woman's decision/choice, if a woman finds out her baby is likely to be seriously disabled and she doesn't want to deal with that then that's up to her, it's just as valid, if not more so as a reason to choose to have an abortion as things like "not right for my career right now".

 

[dowie]

I agree with most of what you say except the 7 weeks thing. While the brain has started to develop, brain activity isn't present until the 13th/14th week, basically the end of the first trimester, start of the 2nd. At this point, there's a heart beat, many organs are functional, lungs are starting to develop, limbs are formed, the baby even starts to suck its own thumbs.

Yeah, that seems more like a sensible line in the sand, the sort of thing that Roe v Wade prevented. Lots of European countries go for limits of around that length of time for regular abortions.

 

[dowie]

It's amazing to see the general depth of feeling in the UK media and social media about this when we have our own shameful situation in NI that gets completely ignored.

Abortion on demand is legal in Northern Ireland up to 12 weeks, in fact in the rest of the UK abortion on demand isn't technically enshrined in law but relies on the fact that mental health exceptions for abortion are interpreted broadly so as to allow for it.

 

[dowie]

From what I saw, where people were making any comment similar to that, it was basically telling the men who are only now saying anything "we've been needing your support on this for decades, you've been silent".

Which is very true, most men haven't historically shown much support for "women's issues" such as abortion access.

This isn't really backed by the data, the notion that abortion rights are being taken away by men, it's more just a religious/political issue that attracts plenty of men and women on either side of the debate.

Fair enough I stand corrected, just need to vote for the same measures on a state by state basis now, sure it sucks at the moment but mid terms are happening soon and no doubt this will be a hot topic for voters.

Nah you were kinda correct in that it did restrict the ability to legislate and only in one way, the presence of Roe v Wade prevented states from putting in place similar legislation to European countries but on the flip side did nothing to stop state laws that allow abortions all the way through pregnancy (which is pretty messed up).

The Dobbs v Jackson case concerned Mississippi trying to put into place the former kind of legislation - a 15 week limit on abortions on demand (something which the majority of voters in the OCUK poll in this thread seem to be in line with too) and then medical emergencies after that. Initially, federal courts knocked it back, they had established a rather more generous 24-week viability limit, the Supreme court however allowed it and thus the big outcry now. AFAIK it's been well known in legal circles that Roe v Wade was not exactly a technically sound judgment, but it's such a hot potato issue now and the result of it is obviously important that there's perhaps a reluctance on liberal pundits to comment much on that aspect.

Lots of the fallout is now a bit mindless, Supreme Court bad... every pop star at Glasto said so, they even got the crowds chanting **** the Supreme Court. Not much room for nuance or trying to understand the issues at anything other than a superficial level of - this decision = bad things happened. Legislators (many of whom do have a legal background/education) have sat on this problem for decades, the supreme court, ultimately, has made what seems to be a good legal decision here (which is what they're supposed to do), protesting at judges houses is beyond dumb, it's legislators who ought to be lobbied over this.

 

[dowie]

How is state government getting to decide what one can or cannot do with their own body any less overreach than federal government doing the same?

It's the same thing, except that some of the states will choose to restrict freedoms. It's regressive and will cause deaths, unwanted children and generally be a burden. And they won't stop there either, next they'll go after contraceptives, gay rights, trans rights and so on, they've said as much.

If federal government choosing is overreach, then so is state. If you follow it to the logical conclusion it should be down to the individual... which is pro choice.

It isn't, you're referring to a possibly flawed/mistaken or at best ambiguous argument. To be charitable, the SC is part of the government in the US. The argument is that it is overreach for them to legislate from the bench on this matter as it isn't covered by the constitution.

Congress could legislate on this (and arguably has had several decades to do so) if they don't then it's a matter for individual states to legislate on.

 

[dowie]

except its not.

from your own link the success rate at 14 years after surgery is 50%, which is on par with regular getting pregnant sex anyway

whereas :

Female sterilisation

Read about female sterilisation, which is a permanent method of contraception that involves a minor operation to cut or block the fallopian tubes.

www.nhs.uk

is a lot more permanant.

While technically reversible it should be treated as permanent when choosing to have one, it's not a viable option for temporary contraception if you want to have kids later and that's what you should be advised by any doctors AFAIK.

 

[dowie]

Correct, they haven't banned abortion, they've simply voided a previous judgment that placed restrictions on the ability of states to legislate on abortion.

 

[dowie]

It's an effective ban for millions/tens of millions of Americans, and does mean that your status as citizen with freedom over your body is now dependent on where you can afford to live.

Not really, nothing to stop people from receiving abortion pills in the post or traveling to another state for example so it's not an effective ban for tens of millions of Americans, most of them will still get an abortion if desired or needed it's just their local legislators might make things trickier. Overall you might have some cases where people who were considering one end up being put off from having one due to the additional faff and/or there are issues that need to be ironed out with overly cautious hospital bureaucrats too but abortions are available in the US after this ruling, state lines aren't some magical barrier.

The other poster (and perhaps others) seem to be under the impression that the SC just banned abortion when they've not done anything of the sort, they've just removed some restrictions on states legislating on it, this means some states have now tightened laws on abortion.

It will be interesting to see if there is any move to house abortion clinics on federal land in some states or if any Indian nations opt to house abortion clinics.

 

[dowie]

The main issue that most people have is the removal of rights and body autonomy for women, not specifically just how many hoops one might have to jump through to get an abortion.

Well, it wasn't the supreme court's job to grant those rights, lots of the anger is getting directed at the wrong people. This is an issue for legislators to solve not the judiciary.

 

[dowie]

Viability is tricky one is it not, obviously the UK is at 24 weeks, but babies are born prematurely prior to this and live, as medical science improves you'll get more and more survive.

I do think it's very disturbing that 15% of the people that voted would be quite happy to kill a baby that's been carried for 9 months, physcopaths imo.

Yeah, I agree, that is dubious, both extremes are silly.

On one extreme; conception is a magical event, can't dispose of the bag of cells if the mother wishes to is a ridiculous view.

On the other extreme; passing through the vagina is a magical event, can totally kill a viable baby just because you want to even minutes before then so long as you do it when it's in the womb.

Or those people realise that problems can occur in later pregnancy that makes the foetus unviable,

If that is the case then they've not read the OP, the poll is re: limits, if any, for abortion on demand.

Abortions for medical reasons such as the mother's life being at risk or the baby not being viable are a different question entirely.

 

[dowie]

So Texas AG said all abortions now illegal in Texas using a 1920s law still on the books and closed the office for a holiday to celebrate. Providers sue, judges temporarily blocks AG decision but trigger law will soon kick in banning abortions after 6 weeks, which is pretty much an outright ban as most women don't know they are pregnant before 5 weeks.

It's not an outright ban though it is highly restrictive, currently, nearly half of abortions are carried out within 6 weeks, though medical abortions can be carried out until 9 weeks - I suspect in some states you'll see those figures for medical abortions move to the left as in some of the week 7, 8 etc.. abortions will be more urgent and turn into week 5, 6 as lots of women will only have a week or so to quickly get it done.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/06/21/abortion-procedures/

A 15 week limit (along the lines of the Mississippi legislation that triggered all of this) seems like it would be pretty sensible and cover the vast majority of abortions.

On the plus side, 79% of abortions are within 9 weeks, that's the period where medical abortions can be done i.e. via a pill - in theory, you don't necessarily need to travel for that.