American politics isn’t my strong point, which is why I don’t often comment on it. However, I do understand the basics – and one of those being that it is a federal republic.
Roe v Wade dates back to 1973 and is put out as a victory for abortion rights.
Now, set aside positions on the matter of abortion, what Roe did was take the decision on law making in respect of abortion from the state legislatures to the federal one. At least, that’s my (fairly simplistic, I agree) take on it. The SCOTUS has overturned it on that basis – that the decision be placed in the hands of the state legislatures and those who elect them. Seems fair to me and in line with the principles of the constitution. They are not reversing abortion rights, they are not telling women what they can do with their bodies, they are simply referring the decision on such laws to the states.
You’d think that the VP of the US would understand and applaud this…
Kamala Harris furiously lashed out at Republicans for trying to ‘deny women their freedoms’ in remarks Tuesday evening after a Supreme Court leak showed a conservative draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade.
Apparently not.
After all, overturning the ruling does not mean that abortion becomes illegal in the US, just that individual states may decide to make it more difficult to obtain one. It isn’t telling anyone what to do with their bodies.
‘If the court overturns Roe v. Wade, it will be a direct assault on freedom, on the fundamental right of self-determination to which we are all entitled as Americans.’
Not really. People can vote for state candidates who favour their opinion. If they still don’t get what they want they are free to travel to another state or indeed, move permanently to one that meets their desired preference. We have seen just this with conservatives who have moved their businesses out of California to more red leaning states. That competition thing being a useful tool to decide what to do here.
I repeat – no one is making abortion illegal. Some states may well do something similar to Texas, and making it more difficult is not necessarily a bad thing. It is a decision that involves killing an unborn child so should not be taken lightly.
‘Those Republican leaders who are trying to weaponize the use of the law against women. Well we say, how dare they?’ Harris told the cheering crowd. ‘How dare they tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body? How dare they? How dare they try to stop her from determining her own future? How dare they try to deny women their rights and their freedoms?’
They have done none of those things.
‘It has never been more clear which party wants to expand our rights, and which party wants to restrict them,’ Harris continued, vowing Democrats are ‘not going back.’
On this, of course, she is correct. After all, hers is the party of the KKK, Jim Crow, segregation, slavery and now in the past few days a ministry of truth.
It’s still only a leak, from an institution where leaks never used to happen and which should be immune to that sort of things. There is nothing that the democrats will not destroy to further their aims.
I think they believe that concentrating on abortion is a way to avoid destruction in the midterms.
Restoring the decision to states makes it same as UK
It also allows states to decide who pays
Three views here:
https://www.timworstall.com/2022/05/its-happening-3/#comment-1220669
At least Kamala Harris has figured out what a woman is I guess. And presumably is now anti-vaccine mandate based on her strongly held ‘my body, my choice’ principle, right?… right?… Oh…
This hypocrisy hasn’t gone unnoticed, but I guess that’s different because reasons.
Your analysis, that they are not prohibiting abortion but simply returning the decision to the states, is correct. But that is not how it is being presented on news outlets in the UK, especially Justin Webb on BBC Radio 4,’Today’.
The journalists and editors in these news outlets are intelligent people, and well-informed. Their reports are not accidental: they are making a conscious decision to mislead the viewers and readers.
How often do they do this? My guess is that it’s quite often.
Also, why have they given prominence to this event in another country? What are they deciding not to cover?
As for Kamala Harris: outright lies. But that’s what politicians do.
And where did the leak come from? My guess: a ‘liberal’ amlong the justices or their clerks seeking to stir up political controversy for their own political ends.
And of course ‘My body, my choice’ didn’t apply to vaccine mandates, because reasons.
I have always thought that laws should be made by politicians.
The American constitution did not say slavery should be banned or women should have the vote so politicans changed it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
That is how laws should be made either via politicians or refrendra – not by judges.
If a gas leak killed the whole US court the current president could make it left or right wing for the next 40 years – what a crazy system. (That may seem crazy but one judge should have retired under Obama and the result would be very different).
Black Lives Matter, except when they are in the womb.
American politics isn’t my strong point, which is why I don’t often comment on it. However, I do understand the basics – and one of those being that it is a federal republic.
You’re way ahead of most (younger) Americans, with your correct understanding. I’m getting a lot fed up with hearing this country is a democracy (it’s not, and never was).
It also seems that sacrificing the idea of “women’s rights” on the altar of Trans, and “my body, my choice” at the covid vaccine altar has kinda messed things up for the abortion crowd. And when the feminists themselves are confused as to what a female is, how can they expect the average person to support their positions, or their so-called rights?
You might like this article in Spiked. For pure sophistry it is a peach. But worse, it is built on ignorance and written by a lecturer in US politics. I’m presuming that he does know how the US system works and is choosing to lie. If not, he is staggeringly incompetent and has no business lecturing in the subject.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/05/05/the-supreme-court-is-an-affront-to-democracy/?fbclid=IwAR22MpeApr6EznwGltwDaqvvnV90cRDTZXNEWlR2G4cvQ8v-nMQb2Pkn_Kg
Good lord that was bad.
Now I’m wondering if he even represented UK politics correctly. Either one of your choices could be the correct one – lots of incompetence in universities these days. Lots of lying, too.
Funny how the same people hysterically screeching about the “right to privacy” and “my body my choice” were likely also supporting the vaccine mandates, vaccine passports, and if you can’t show proof of vaccination, you can’t work here no more. Think it was Ben Franklin who said that those who would willingly give up liberty to obtain safety deserved neither.
You – and everyone else has MISSED THE POINT
QUOTE:
The opinion apparently overturns Roe v. Wade by junking the implied constitutional right to privacy that it created. However, a bunch of other US legal precedents rely on the right to privacy. Notably:
Lawrence v. Texas (2003) determined that it’s unconstitutional to punish people for committing “Sodomy” (any sex act other than missionary-position penis-in-vagina between a married man and woman)
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) protects the ability of married couples to buy contraceptives without government interference
Loving v. Virginia (1968): right to privacy was used to overturn laws banning interracial marriage
Stanley v. Georgia (1969): right to privacy protects personal possession of pornography
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015): right to privacy and equal protection clause were used to argue for legality of same sex marriage
Meyer v. Nebraska (1923): ruling allows families to decide for themselves if they want their children to learn a language other than English (overturning the right to privacy could open the door for racist states to outlaw parents teaching their children their natal language)
Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942): this ruling found it unconstitutional to forcibly sterilize people (it violated the Equal Protection clause)
Note all those protections that could be removed.
It’s not “just” about the insides of women’s bodies
ANd it IS ABOUT PREVENTING ABORTION -= where “christianity” rukles
I haven’t missed the point at all.
Yes, you have.
Try this – agian a quote:
This is for my daughters, my step daughters, my bonus daughters, all daughters. I’m not pro-murdering babies. I’m pro-Becky who found out at her 20 week anatomy scan that the infant she had been so excited to bring into this world had developed without life sustaining organs. I’m pro-Susan who was sexually assaulted on her way home from work, only to come to the horrific realization that her assailant planted his seed in her when she got a positive pregnancy test result a month later. I’m pro-Theresa who hemorrhaged due to a placental abruption, causing her parents, spouse, and children to have to make the impossible decision on whether to save her or her unborn child. I’m pro-little Cathy who had her innocence ripped away from her by someone she should have been able to trust and her 11 year old body isn’t mature enough to bear the consequence of that betrayal. I’m pro-Melissa who’s working two jobs just to make ends meet and has to choose between bringing another child into poverty or feeding the children she already has because her spouse walked out on her. I’m pro-Brittany who realizes that she is in no way financially, emotionally, or physically able to raise a child. I’m pro-Emily who went through IVF, ending up with SIX viable implanted eggs requiring selective reduction in order to ensure the safety of her and a SAFE amount of fetuses. I’m pro-Christina who doesn’t want to be a mother, but birth control methods sometimes fail. I’m pro-Jessica who is FINALLY getting the strength to get away from her physically abusive spouse only to find out that she is carrying the monster’s child. I’m pro-Vanessa who went into her confirmation appointment after YEARS of trying to conceive only to hear silence where there should be a heartbeat. I’m pro-Lindsay who lost her virginity in her sophomore year with a broken condom and now has to choose whether to be a teenage mom or just a teenager. I’m pro-Courtney who just found out she’s already 13 weeks along, but the egg never made it out of her fallopian tube so either she terminates the pregnancy or risks dying from internal bleeding. You can argue and say that I’m pro-choice all you want, but the truth is: I’m pro-life. Their lives. Women’s lives. You don’t get to pick and choose which scenarios should be accepted. Women’s rights are meant to protect ALL women, regardless of their situation!
No MAN, any man, including me, has any rights at all on this topic.
It’s about white-wing christian fascists in the USA starting on re-imposing slavery, starting with women.
Fuck off, Greg. Everyone has a right to comment and I have not missed anything at all. The SCOTUS has merely done the correct thing here and returned the decision to democratically elected representatives at state level.
I have no interest in your appeal to emotion arguments, nor your anti Christian hysteria.
This discussion is not about abortion, but you can’t see that through your red mist.
“Local Control” means the local Taliban – it is nothing at all to do with freedom or choice or liberty.
Indeed, it is the exact opposite.
The current state of play is:
1: Mississippi is setting up a law to ban women from leaving the state for an abortion.
2: In Iowa, the state public health head guys was compiling spreadsheets of women’s menstrual cycles from data subpoenaed from Planned Parenthood.
3: In Louisiana, life begins at fertilization (not implantation), with all that implies.
4: Several US states are proposing no abortions AT ALL – not for rape, not for congenital abnormalities, not even for Ectopic Pregnancy – which will always kill both mother & foetus.
You are however correct in that “It is not about abortion” – it’s about control & suppression & a return to the values of the mid C17th.
You did note all the other liberties that could now be removed, if the judgement is made on “privacy” grounds, didn’t you?
Oh yes, agreed, I’m a card-carrying “militant” ( i.e. I protest ) atheist – so the religion of submission gets exactly the same treatment, as does communism ( A classic religion, if ever I saw one ) – every single one of them is about blackmail & torture & control
Militant atheists are no different to militant religionists. Both display the same intolerance. Anyone who refers to state legislatures as the local Taliban forfeits any right to be taken seriously, frankly.
This is my last word on this matter because as I have repeatedly said – I was not discussing abortion and refuse to be dragged into that debate. I am not interested in speculation about what individual states might choose to do, because that is not and never was what I was discussing. Yet despite me pointing it out, you persist.
@Greg
Summary of your emotional outburts is Roe v Wade is correct and every EMEA, Asia, Pacific, South America country is wrong
You need to calm down, put emotion back in it’s box and accept a rational judgement which puts US on same ground as rest of world
@LR
+1 Good responses
Dinesh d’Souza sums it up rather well with this quote:
QUOTE:
Militant atheists are no different to militant religionists
NOT EVEN WRONG
Militant religionists MURDER
We merely won’t shut up …. We kill no-one, we threaten no-one.
Quoting Slimesh de Sewer is evidence that you are not a Libertarian …
I THOUGHT this blog was about the excesses, injustices & oppression that governments ( & Corporations & “Churches” ) impose on the unwilling populace, right?
It seems I was wrong.
The “Alito” pre-judgement refers to the “Lack of privacy”, with abortion as a side-effect – & I hope we can agree on that.
BUT
As I have pointed out, this has horible implications.
1: With respect to abortion – The argument goes that whether a foetus ( At any stage at all ) is a child or not is irrelevant. The argument is whether you can be forced to use your body to sustain another life. In every other context that simply isn’t allowed. You can’t be compelled to donate a kidney, or give blood. More than that too, you can’t even be compelled to let your dead body be used for organ donations to sustain another life. It doesn’t matter whether the recipient is a foetus, a baby, or an adult – you have that choice.
And that means women under this regime would have less rights than a corpse.
2: With respect to privacy … “Privacy” ( Or the lack of it ) …
Goes all the way back to that arsehole, Jean Calvin:
“It was as if all the walls of the houses in Geneva had been turned into glass”
Plus the list I posted back, up top, about all the other things that could easily be removed if there is no privacy right.
Which is Tyrrany, which you are supposed to be against.
What part of ‘I lost interest in these rants’ did you miss?
I am not. I object to labels. Nothing I have said here is out of character and I am correct in my assessment of the decision to overturn Roe v Wade. D’Souza was objectively correct in his statement. I’ll quote anyone, no matter who they are, or whether I normally agree with them on other matters, if they have a valid point to make. Even you – although that would be staggeringly unlikely.
I do, however, have to answer this piece of stupidity:
The only extremist here is you, you have no concept of competing rights and responsibilities or the concept of balance. Abortion is a balance of rights – that of the mother and that of the unborn child. Aborting that child means killing it of course the fact that it is a living human being is fucking relevant, because a corpse is the outcome of this procedure. To compare this to kidney donation is so idiotically, mind numbingly stupid, I cannot believe that you even made it. Okay, given your typically spittle flecked rants on here, I can.
Referring the matter back to the elected state legislatures is the precise opposite of tyranny, FFS. I’ve had enough of this nonsense now, so I’m closing this thread. I told you that this was not a discussion about abortion, but you just wouldn’t stop.