SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[Schiff for Senate]

Well I mean red states like OK have more or less already flouted Roe with their recent laws. All this will do is make that more commonplace in solid red states.

Also it's interesting - I get it's a hot topic, but I always thought trans issues were what generated multipage threads on here. However, this thread was posted like 3 hours ago - less than that - and it's already on its fifteenth page. Other threads about transgenders usually have a hard time making it past 6-7 pages, and that's weeks or even months after they get posted. Still, this news is groundbreaking and it is worthy of discussion (though still shocked at how much is happening).

Again, people, look at what happened at Ceausescu's Romania after he outlawed abortion. It didn't stop abortion. It just pushed into back alleys where a lot of women died because they didn't have access to the care they needed.

Abortion isn't a need.

It is for, say, a 13 year old impregnated as the result of rape or incest. OK has a law that says such a 13-year-old cannot get an abortion.


UPDATE: And in the time I wrote this post, 10 new replies were posted...

[Schiff for Senate]

8 pages on this in two hours and real issues like inflation are lucky to get two

Sad!

The repeal of Roe v Wade is a very important issue that'll have an impact for females in lots of red states. Now that they may well have a free rein, many red states (the ones that didn't already flout Roe) will pass laws like OK's, by which teenager girls impregnated as a result of rape/incest might not be allowed to get abortions. This is a very real issue that will impact many people whether or not it impacts you directly. At the very least it's better than the other issues that generate mutipage threads - namely, issues about transgenders in swimming competitions (and yes, I admit I frequently post in such threads too). That sad, it's absolutely shocking that in under 3 hours of its creation this thread is on page 15.

And in the time I wrote this post, another 12 replies written!! And the thread is now filled up 15 pages and has moved onto a 16th.

[Schiff for Senate]

Also it's interesting - I get it's a hot topic, but I always thought trans issues were what generated multipage threads on here. However, this thread was posted like 3 hours ago - less than that - and it's already on its fifteenth page. Other threads about transgenders usually have a hard time making it past 6-7 pages, and that's weeks or even months after they get posted. Still, this news is groundbreaking and it is worthy of discussion (though still shocked at how much is happening).

Perhaps it's because these issues are life or death that they generate discussion!

But still - 16 pages in three hours is incredible.

[Schiff for Senate]

Guys I think if we put our minds to it we could get this thread to 40 pages before midnight Pacific Time. Definitely we could get it to 30.

[Schiff for Senate]

Some humans cannot survive outside an iron lung. Can we abort them?

You're comparing apples to oranges. A living person has the choice to survive on support such as an iron lung. A week old pregnancy is not viable outside the womb.

For a change I agree totally with you.

Also the level of moderations in this thread is insane...I guess this thread has sparked a lot of vitriol from both sides. I saw the thread shrink from 18 pages back down to 17 as two replies somewhere got deleted (likely moderated). However, the post I'm quoting of yours is the first on the 18th page (unless more have been since moderated).

EDIT: So another post just got deleted.

[Schiff for Senate]

18 pages? lol

By the time it's been 4 hours since its creation (9:43 PM PT, or a little under 30 minutes from now) I imagine it'll be at 20.

I personally think by the time I wake up tomorrow and log on to the forum (probably like 8:30 AM tomorrow PT), it could have exploded to 40 (though on the other hand, most of the posters here are American and I'm sure that most of them will take a break to go to sleep at some point).

[Schiff for Senate]

18 pages? lol

By the time it's been 4 hours since its creation (9:43 PM PT, or a little under 30 minutes from now) I imagine it'll be at 20.

I personally think by the time I wake up tomorrow and log on to the forum (probably like 8:30 AM tomorrow PT), it could have exploded to 40 (though on the other hand, most of the posters here are American and I'm sure that most of them will take a break to go to sleep at some point).

Why do you care so much? This is major political news and will deeply harm American women and other birthing people. Lots of posts are only natural.

Well I'm just amused and incredulous (obligatory reminder that I'm a 'safe, legal and rare' moderate on abortion who opposes extremists from both sides - though let's be real, most of the extremism, including the one discussed in this thread, comes from the right). I mean don't you run out of things to say? We get that right-wingers love this and let-wingers hate it. Many posts have added nil to the discussion. Nonetheless, I'm just curious to see how long until the posting starts declining and it finally makes it way off the first page of the board (my bet is that won't happen for several days and not before 35+ pages).

[Schiff for Senate]

I for one, find it disgusting that it's even possible to "leak" a future SC decision in order to intimidate the court into doing exactly what they want (which is what this is, no doubt). The court's integrity is on the line, not because they might overrule Roe, but if they buckle to social/political pressure in response to this leak.

Has it been established that this was leaked by a pro-choicer, and what the motivations were? Or are you just assuming? It's very easy to see the argument that this was releasing by a supporter of ending Roe v. Wade to make sure those 5 stay in line, because if one of them flips now, everyone will know about it.

This. I actually feel like, for the reasons you explained, it's likelier a pro-lifer strategically leaked this to ensure it happened, than a pro-choicer leaked this to shame one of the judges into switching to the pro-Roe camp.

As ElectionsGuy said, it would be incredibly dumb if a pro-choicer leaked this because all they'd be doing is actually forcing them all to double-down and support this to the bitter end when one might have considered changing their mind - because now if they do, it'll look like they're weak-kneed, unprincipled flip-floppers who caved to pressure. On the other hand, a pro-lifer strategically leaking it would be good 3D chess (though on the other hand, the fact that's it's so well thought out makes me wonder that someone pro-life could come up with it, given the average pro-lifer's arguments against abortion and Roe).

[Schiff for Senate]

I for one, find it disgusting that it's even possible to "leak" a future SC decision in order to intimidate the court into doing exactly what they want (which is what this is, no doubt). The court's integrity is on the line, not because they might overrule Roe, but if they buckle to social/political pressure in response to this leak.

Has it been established that this was leaked by a pro-choicer, and what the motivations were? Or are you just assuming? It's very easy to see the argument that this was releasing by a supporter of ending Roe v. Wade to make sure those 5 stay in line, because if one of them flips now, everyone will know about it.

This. I actually feel like, for the reasons you explained, it's likelier a pro-lifer strategically leaked this to ensure it happened, than a pro-choicer leaked this to shame one of the judges into switching to the pro-Roe camp.

As ElectionsGuy said, it would be incredibly dumb if a pro-choicer leaked this because all they'd be doing is actually forcing them all to double-down and support this to the bitter end when one might have considered changing their mind - because now if they do, it'll look like they're weak-kneed, unprincipled flip-floppers who caved to pressure. On the other hand, a pro-lifer strategically leaking it would be good 3D chess (though on the other hand, the fact that's it's so well thought out makes me wonder that someone pro-life could come up with it, given the average pro-lifer's arguments against abortion and Roe).

It isn't really that well-thought-out. Alito's opinion itself is the standard strict-construction argument against Roe but worded as a right-wing diatribe, and leaking a potentially difficult decision to the public in order to lock the policymaker into making it is a tactic that goes back at least to the Roman Republic, probably further.

Fair enough.

Also disappointed that we still haven't hit 20 pages.

[Schiff for Senate]

I for one, find it disgusting that it's even possible to "leak" a future SC decision in order to intimidate the court into doing exactly what they want (which is what this is, no doubt). The court's integrity is on the line, not because they might overrule Roe, but if they buckle to social/political pressure in response to this leak.

Has it been established that this was leaked by a pro-choicer, and what the motivations were? Or are you just assuming? It's very easy to see the argument that this was releasing by a supporter of ending Roe v. Wade to make sure those 5 stay in line, because if one of them flips now, everyone will know about it.

This. I actually feel like, for the reasons you explained, it's likelier a pro-lifer strategically leaked this to ensure it happened, than a pro-choicer leaked this to shame one of the judges into switching to the pro-Roe camp.

As ElectionsGuy said, it would be incredibly dumb if a pro-choicer leaked this because all they'd be doing is actually forcing them all to double-down and support this to the bitter end when one might have considered changing their mind - because now if they do, it'll look like they're weak-kneed, unprincipled flip-floppers who caved to pressure. On the other hand, a pro-lifer strategically leaking it would be good 3D chess (though on the other hand, the fact that's it's so well thought out makes me wonder that someone pro-life could come up with it, given the average pro-lifer's arguments against abortion and Roe).

It isn't really that well-thought-out. Alito's opinion itself is the standard strict-construction argument against Roe but worded as a right-wing diatribe, and leaking a potentially difficult decision to the public in order to lock the policymaker into making it is a tactic that goes back at least to the Roman Republic, probably further.

Fair enough.

Also disappointed that we still haven't hit 20 pages.

We did if u include deleted posts.

If you include deleted posts we reached 20 a while back and may well be on page 21.

[Schiff for Senate]

Absolutely disgusting, if true.

What I think many abortion ban proponents and Republican politicians don't get that statewide bans are primarily a war on poor women, who happen to be disproportionally black or Hispanic. Anyone from a conservative state with enough money is just going to sit in a plane and have an abortion in California, New York or Illinois, or somewhere abroad. All it does is preventing abortions for less wealthy women/families.

Furthermore, this is just a move backwards by a minority wanting to impose their moral views on society as a whole. Of course anything should be done to prevent abortions and late-term be restricted, but a total ban in some states is not a good idea. Generally, I believe abortion should be rare and legal.

Watch the GOP be quick to legalize abortion again when they realize that more Democrat babies are being born

Well the babies won't necessarily grow up to adopt their parents' views. Besides, they won't be able to vote for another 18 years, by which time the vast majority of today's Republican politicians (politicians generally) will have retired.

[Schiff for Senate]

A quick fact to demonstrate how the partisan politics of this issue have changed over the past 30 years:

When Planned Parenthood vs. Casey was decided (essentially reaffirming Roe in 1992), eight of the nine justices on the Court has been appointed by Republicans.  And the sole Democratic appointee (Byron White) dissented!

One of the Nixon appointees, John Paul Stevens, turned out to be very liberal. He was appointed by a Republican, and as a SCOTUS justice he argued against the death penalty and actually called for repealing the Second Amendment. Today I can't imagine a SCOTUS justice, liberal or conservative (but especially conservative) ever having the nerve to actually call for the Second Amendment to be abolished.

In fact SCOTUS appointments used to be a nonpartisan affair where only competance was really considered. Whether the judge was right-wing or left-wing and whether the Senate was controlled by Democrats or Republicans, SCOTUS and other nominees usually got confirmed by overwhelming margins and with big bipartisan support.

Today, it's considered a big deal that KBJ got three Republican votes. Going back to, say, the 1980s or even 1990s, it'd have been crazy for all the members of one party to vote yes and for just three members of the other to vote yes - in fact, much of the time both Democrats and Republicans (i.e., there'd be Republican votes both against and in favour and Republican votes both against and in favour).

[Schiff for Senate]

2. This is actually legally terrible. Contrary to popular belief, Roe's legal basis is solid. This is the exact sort of thing that a majoritarian legislature *shouldn't* have the right to weigh in on. The commerce clause is also fine, Dule.

Ok, so despite me being firmly pro-choice and thinking the leaked ruling is awful; this is a part I don't understand.

I actually have a very easy time imagining the US constitution recognizing some sort of vague (and honestly, not so vague) right to privacy. My issue is with the jump from "right to privacy" meaning "right to have an abortion".

There's perhaps an argument to be made about medical documents, or perhaps not disclosing your pregnancy status to your employers; but I struggle to ser how that extends to outright abortion being a right

I am also pro-abortion and pro-right to privacy but fundamentally agree with this post.

A right to privacy in the Constitution naturally implies a right to abortion only if you have accepted the premise that a fetus is not a person with independent human rights.  Just because you have a right to privacy doesn't mean you have the right to murder another person in the privacy of your own home.

So in order for our interpretation of the Constitution to include a right to abortion, that interpretation must also include a justification for why a fetus is not a human life.  And Blackmun's opinion in Roe complete hand-waves this question.  It literally includes the line, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins." The opinion does include quite a bit of discussion of how other parts of the constitution by implication define person "only post-natally", if this is the standard for personhood, why does Roe permit unlimited restrictions on abortion in the third trimester?

If there is a bright side to this opinion, I really believe it will force pro-abortion advocates to finally construct real arguments that actually engage the arguments of the other side rather than simply lazily resting on stare decisis to justify their positions.  I.e. rather than simply arguing that abortion is a right, we will actually have to make the argument for why abortion should be a right.

Yes, all of the debates about whether the Ninth Amendment or the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (or alternatively, the Equal Protection Clause) protect a right to abortion based on a right to privacy that isn’t explicitly in the Constitution but is plausibly implied by certain amendments and clauses, ad nauseam mean absolutely nothing in the face of “abortion is the killing of an innocent human life.” That’s always been the objection. All of the rest is a red herring.

Back in the 1970s, Irving Howe made the argument that American Liberals had come to rely a little too much on winning political victories through the courts rather than through democratic means. He was concerned about this on several distinct grounds, but the two that are perhaps relevant here are the democratic legitimacy (or rather the danger of a perceived lack of) those decisions and the fact that those decisions could theoretically be overturned if the political composition of the judiciary altered radically.

In most 'Western' countries, of course, abortion is a political issue of relatively minor salience, largely because the legal framework determining what restrictions are applied to it are the result of social compromise; of the acceptance that it is a difficult issue on which public opinion tends to cut across most of the usual social cleavages. The exact social compromise varies as did the exact process by which it was reached, but the existence of it is the norm. Such a thing was probably achievable in the United States fifty years ago, but instead you are where you are: probably no issue, not even that of gun control, has done as much to poison American political life over the past half century, and things are likely to get even more toxic now.

If both these posts had been written just 5 minutes earlier, we would have gotten 30 pages of replies within 24 hours. It's a shame how we just barely missed that target! 

[Schiff for Senate]

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1521673584116178944?cxt=HHwWgIC51YCEiZ4qAAAA

This is a good sign for democrats. They know they’re gonna get rocked if they overturn it. Let’s hope we can actually do something with it

This. As NickG said elsewhere, this will especially be relevant in WI/MI/AZ, where if Roe was overturned, already-existing laws would immediately pass severe restrictions on abortion. I'm actually hoping now that Roe gets overturned if it means it helps Democrats hold the Senate (and hopefully expand their majority to 51-49). This needs to be an issue, and hopefully it'll be one that causes turbocharged Democratic turnout. Though they should learn from Udall and McAuliffe and not run single-issue campaigns, either, because that could end up backfiring.

[Schiff for Senate]

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1521673584116178944?cxt=HHwWgIC51YCEiZ4qAAAA

This is a good sign for democrats. They know they’re gonna get rocked if they overturn it. Let’s hope we can actually do something with it

This. As NickG said elsewhere, this will especially be relevant in WI/MI/AZ, where if Roe was overturned, already-existing laws would immediately pass severe restrictions on abortion. I'm actually hoping now that Roe gets overturned if it means it helps Democrats hold the Senate (and hopefully expand their majority to 51-49). This needs to be an issue, and hopefully it'll be one that causes turbocharged Democratic turnout. Though they should learn from Udall and McAuliffe and not run single-issue campaigns, either, because that could end up backfiring.

It's simple. Treat the Republicans as incumbents.

I guess the one good thing is that Arizona has a referendum system and in Michigan, Whitmer is very likely to get a restraining order against the trigger law there.

MI's situation is great, it makes it very clear to pro-choicers that Whitmer and the Democrats in state government are the only reason that an 'abortion ban' (that's what Democrats should call it for best results) has not yet been passed. Obviously pro-lifer, realizing that if they manage to win the governorship they'll be able to implement the 'abortin ban,' would also be more motivated to vote, but in another thread Adam Griffin showed that in MI, people who think abortion should be legal in all or most cases comfortably outnumber those who think it shouldn't. If this is framed as an 'abortion ban,' I imagine the former group would have turbocharged turnout as would the latter, smaller group, but since the former group is larger, it benefits the Democrats. In MI, it might make sense to make abortion a central issue of the campaign - basically frame it as 'if Democrats win women can get abortions, but if Republicans win they can't.' It will benefit them immensely.

[Schiff for Senate]

THIS DOESN'T HELP, PLEASE SHUT THE F[INKS] UP WITH THIS TYPE OF LANGUAGE AT A TIME LIKE THIS

https://twitter.com/StateRepHong/status/1521298873859334145

If you don't think it's helpful, why are you posting tweets from randoms?  She also lists her location as "Occupied Ho-Chunk Land". 

This is the funniest thing I've seen so far today by a lot.

Also agree with these:

Jesus Christ, just say "people". "Birthing bodies" appeals to no one.

THIS DOESN'T HELP, PLEASE SHUT THE F[INKS] UP WITH THIS TYPE OF LANGUAGE AT A TIME LIKE THIS

https://twitter.com/StateRepHong/status/1521298873859334145

The language is dumb, but acting like it's going to do any meaningful damage to the pro-choice cause is laughable. The internet isn't real life.

[Schiff for Senate]

I don't think we'd be hearing the same excuses if there was a screaming mob outside a liberal justice's house. There'd probably be a lot of "where are blue avatars to condemn this" instead.

I fully support their right to protest, but this is teetering on the edge of stability and can easily get dangerous with just one violent person.

I agree absolutely. But I wish you'd similarly condemn the insurrectionists on January 6.

[Schiff for Senate]

I don't think we'd be hearing the same excuses if there was a screaming mob outside a liberal justice's house. There'd probably be a lot of "where are blue avatars to condemn this" instead.

I fully support their right to protest, but this is teetering on the edge of stability and can easily get dangerous with just one violent person.

I agree absolutely. But I wish you'd similarly condemn the insurrectionists on January 6.

Uh excuse me? Of course I condemn all violence. When they hell have I ever not?

And yeah guys, I was obviously at "the insurrection". Total Trump fanboy here, which is why I never voted for him. Deranged hacks.

Fair enough. And don't get me wrong, I absolutely do not think you were at the insurrection:

I don't think we'd be hearing the same excuses if there was a screaming mob outside a liberal justice's house. There'd probably be a lot of "where are blue avatars to condemn this" instead.

I fully support their right to protest, but this is teetering on the edge of stability and can easily get dangerous with just one violent person.

The hypocrisy in your statement is stunning. If a liberal stated these words you'd be calling them a snowflake, woke and say they were overreacting. You all are for protests until they target you. And did you even condemn the insurrection?

Are you kidding? He was probably at the Insurrection.

Let's not cross a line here...This is a very serious and baseless accusation, and whether or not you disagree with somebody or think their stance on January 6 is totally wrong, accusing them of actually being there at the insurrection goes way too far.

[Schiff for Senate]

https://twitter.com/BNNBreaking/status/1540458178500263936

Oh my God