Goes to show how important the 2014 and 2016 elections really were. We’ll be living with the consequences for the next 30 years. — Xtrix

Hopefully less than that if the Dems can finally get their act together and gut the filibuster. Obviously they won't be able to do it this cycle, but given the growing support for it in the party perhaps that may change the next time they come into power. Honestly it's hard for me to see American politics being salvaged any other way at this point.

This isn’t meant to be witty— it’s just clearly true. Goes to show how important the 2014 and 2016 elections really were. We’ll be living with the consequences for the next 30 years. — Xtrix

I blame young people. If they had turned out in halfway decent numbers for Clinton, the Supreme Court would look much different.

that may change the next time they come into power. — Mr Bee

If anything happens it’ll be because real people are organizing on the ground and building structures there. This may be yet another catalyst, but I wouldn’t put money on it.

blame young people. — RogueAI

I don’t necessarily blame anybody. But the DNC deliberately beating back Sanders is certainly more blameworthy than young people not showing up.

In any case, it’s meaningless now. Roe is officially dunzo— We have plenty more judicial dismantling to look forward to for the next 30/40 years.

If anything happens it’ll be because real people are organizing on the ground and building structures there. This may be yet another catalyst, but I wouldn’t put money on it. — Xtrix

We'll see, but there does seem to be an growing appetite for it among the Democrat base. Of course, all it takes is for a few bad actors to ruin the whole thing and it apparently doesn't cost alot for someone to sell out like Sinema did, but one could always hope.

Imagine thinking that American fascism is the work of "a few bad actors" and not a deliberate, systemic outcome of tens of millions of Americans who simply like fascism and despise women. This is not "a few bad actors". This is who and what the US is, and it will only continue to get worse.

Anyone who dreams that the Democrats have a chance of winning in 2024 is on drugs. You people are done.

Imagine thinking that religion was the friend of democracy rather than of fascism.

Poor, stupid bastards.

I was referring more to the legislative process, which especially holds true for the current makeup of congress.

Pew Research.

Oh I'm well aware.

I agree. At the end of the day, most people care more about the economy than ideological issues, especially one like abortion that doesn't really affect that many people (most people who don't want children will use contraception I'd imagine than have to go through the process of getting an abortion; I can't really imagine anyone "wanting" or being excited to get abortion).

I can imagine Republicans will blame Democrats for trying to shift the focus away from their "failure" handling the economy/inflation. Maybe they have a good argument, maybe not.

Considering how state majorities differ on their views on the legality of abortion, perhaps leaving it to the states is a good course of action.

The thing that bothers me is the obvious straw man arguments on both sides, especially the left which I am exposed to more given my age and demographic. I agree with the SCOTUS that the reasoning behind Roe v. Wade was legally dubious (RBG said so herself; perhaps this is part of the reason the left is so angry with her currently). If the federal government wants to protect abortion, my guess is a constitutional amendment would be necessary (or some way to keep states from receiving federal funding if they interfere).

Am I worried for the country? No. The legal system did exactly the job it was designed to do, regardless of whether I "like" the outcome. If it is an issue that bugs the public enough, they will vote on it and change course. I'm so fortunate to have food on the table, a job, a car, A/C so I can spend my time thinking about an issue like this instead of worrying about my next meal. Helps me put things in perspective.

I agree with the SCOTUS that the reasoning behind Roe v. Wade was legally dubious ( — Paulm12

I agree. It will probably be like marijuana. Little by little states will legalize it except for a few hold outs, not to mention any names Mississippi.

Two questions.

How was the court able to overturn Roe VS Wade? Can they do it unilaterally without a new case reaching the court to make the decision based upon? Or a law written by a lower court that the Supreme Court ultimately agrees with?

Secondly, is the prochoice stance about sentient life versus any life? Therefore the start of life on its own is basically irrelevant?

@TiredThinker

It will probably be like marijuana. Little by little states will legalize it except for a few hold outs. — Tate

I highly doubt that. The abortion issue has much deeper ethical implications than recreational Marijuana. Not to mention, criminalizing Marijuana puts a much greater burden on the justice system in comparison to criminalizing abortion.

How was the court able to overturn Roe VS Wade? Can they do it unilaterally without a new case reaching the court to make the decision based upon?

@TiredThinker

There was a case: Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization

highly doubt that. The abortion issue has much deeper ethical implications than recreational Marijuana. Not to mention, criminalizing Marijuana puts a much greater burden on the justice system in comparison to criminalizing abortion. — Merkwurdichliebe

A lot of small time police departments are substantially funded by drug related property seizures. I wonder how that pans out when marijuana becomes legal.

But you may be right. We'll see. Women can get an abortion pill through the mail if they catch it before 10 weeks.

For your first question, the court was able to overturn Roe v Wade because the reasoning behind it was (in their eyes) legally dubious and arguably unconstitutional. Roe v Wade’s legal precedent used a “right to privacy” based on an extension of the 14th amendment’s “liberty” clause. However, this was not super explicit. If the federal government wants to protect abortion, my guess is a constitutional amendment would be necessary (or some way to keep states from receiving federal funding if they interfere).

In the court’s opinion

One's philosophy, one's experiences, one's exposure to the raw edges of human existence, one's religious training, one's attitudes toward life and family and their values, and the moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe, are all likely to influence and to color one's thinking and conclusions about abortion.

I don’t think SCOTUS’s reasoning had anything explicitly to do with pro-life/pro-choice, simply that this “implied” right to privacy was a misuse of the 14th amendment and an overreach of the federal government/court at the time. After all, once could also argue that abortion violates an unborn child’s right to life as well.

The main question is when life deserves moral consideration. For pro-life, this seems to often be at the moment of conception or some time early after that (I don’t see a lot of protests about Plan B for instance). In particular, this is for human life, not any sentient life in general. For pro-choice, it’s unclear and varies among people. But in any case, to me it seems ridiculous to allow abortions right up to the moment of birth, especially if the fetus/baby’s life can be saved.

I’m curious if anyone who knows a bit about law thinks if there is a solid legal foundation/case that could be made for the federal government’s protection of access to abortion, outside of an explicit constitutional amendment. Unfortunately, a lot of what I see online is “I’m angry at the Supreme Court for overturning Roe v Wade which will reduce access to abortion in some/many states” not “I want federal rights guaranteeing access to abortion, how can this be legally codified”

A lot of small time police departments are substantially funded by drug related property seizures. I wonder how that pans out when marijuana becomes legal. — Tate

There are plenty of other illegal drugs to keep them funded. It will definitely prevent the courts and jails from being bogged down with small time marijuana cases.

Maybe this is a good time for females in the US to relocate?





^{Source: Guttmacher Institute}



, when people like DeSantis and Cruz become elected officials, you know something's gone sour.

The main question is when life deserves moral consideration. For pro-life, this seems to often be at the moment of conception or some time early after that (I don’t see a lot of protests about Plan B for instance). In particular, this is for human life, not any sentient life in general. For pro-choice, it’s unclear and varies among people. — Paulm12

Sober bioethics should inform towards making a decision, and that hasn't happened here.

Great, more unnecessary births. You natalists will find any way to fuck over yet another life. More workers, more adherents, more sufferers. Let them eat cake.

This is who and what the US is... — Streetlight

Gross overgeneralization. Ironically similar to one of the underlying(but not spoken much about) issues with current political speech patterns.

Gross overgeneralization. — creativesoul

If the reality that just came to pass is a gross overgeneralization, then so much the worse for your use of words.

Your lumping all Americans together as supporters of what's happening is akin to each and every stupid fucking gross generalization out there underwriting the political speech atmosphere. The very bipartisan outlook is part of the deeper problems with American government. You know. Oligarchy with different actors.

I'm sorry you don't like reality, but closing your eyes to it and escaping to fantasy land is nothing but complicity. If you don't like what America is, then become a traitor. Because America is the GOP and every single one of her friends, including the democratic party and their supporters. And it's going to get worse - and more American.

The worst thing about Jan 6 was the takeaway that insurrection is something negative.

Have you even visited America?

It's not as if we'll survive global warming either so it's kind of moot. :razz:

SCOTUS are a couple of navel staring constitutional cunts. There are human right treaties and natural rights theories (particularly bodily integrity) that could've formed an excellent basis to continue to protect abortion without having to overturn this - it's purely political and caters only to a relatively small group of people living in the USA. So it's shit in every way.

There are plenty of other illegal drugs to keep them funded. It will definitely prevent the courts and jails from being bogged down with small time marijuana cases.
8h — Merkwurdichliebe

True. Marijuana is more of a benign cottage industry though. No gangs necessary.

Abortion in Iran

Abortion is still haram, or forbidden, according to both Islamic law and to post-revolutionary Iranian law, and the punishments for providing or receiving an illegal abortion can be strict. Under current law, physicians can be sentenced to months of imprisonment, and women who get abortions before ensoulment are at the least fined blood money — Wikipedia

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

Hmmmm...Americanistan just around the corner.

At the end of the day, most people care more about the economy than ideological issues, especially one like abortion that doesn't really affect that many people — Paulm12

Yes, because abortion is just an "ideological" issue, and pregnancy is not something that actually affects the life and health and welfare of real people. :roll:

And as for not affecting "that many":

Population Group Abortion Rates and Lifetime Incidence of Abortion: United States, 2008-2014

If the 2014 age-specific abortion rates prevail, 24% of women aged 15 to 44 years in that year will have an abortion by age 45 years.

An unfortunate reality:

1. Abortion ought be afforded to those women who choose it in certain circumstances.
2. The US Constitution doesn't speak to that right.

You can believe in 1 and 2 at the same time.

That you see the Constitution as a vehicle to justify a progressive morality, regardless of the the actual content of the text, is a political position. I'm not condemning the sentiment and an argument can be made that the harsh rule of law should be bent by those wise enough to see its injustice, but so too can an argument be made that the rule of law ought be followed and not be overturned upon subjective notions if fairness.

That is, the ruling was a reasonable result if one sincerely holds to the position that the Constitution doesn't say whatever we think it ought to say.