Roe v. Wade Overturned

[Noogies]

This one probably will have been beaten to death by the end of the day, but I want to take a different tack: Do you think this decision could possibly have a positive effect in the midterms for the Democrats by stirring up the base and getting out the vote?

[Noogies]

NB: The conspiracy theorist in me also wonders if the timing of the release of the decision was strategy by the conservative majority to knock the 01-06 hearings out of the news cycle. I had heard it wasn't due out until July.

[Oerets]

I feel with all of what has been occurring lately over the recent years. This decision is just another one of many reasons to never vote republican ever again. Will this happen to be the straw?

November is a long way off still. The economy may be the number one issue driving this time.

[Chicks]

Alito's Abortion Ruling Overturning Roe Is an Insult to the 9th Amendment
The Constitution protects many more rights than it mentions, as James Madison explained.

https://reason.com/2022/06/24/alitos...9th-amendment/

While the libertarians are wrong about many things, they get this one right.

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by Chicks

Alito's Abortion Ruling Overturning Roe Is an Insult to the 9th Amendment
The Constitution protects many more rights than it mentions, as James Madison explained.

https://reason.com/2022/06/24/alitos...9th-amendment/

While the libertarians are wrong about many things, they get this one right.

Clearly opinions vary.

BTW, this is another delivered Trump promise.

And the real win here is that the decision is left to the individual states. And if someone lives in a state that has laws that go completely against their values, they can always leave and go to another one. It's why I left Seattle and moved to Kentucky. My vote never counted in Seattle, and now it still nevr counts, but for the opposite reason. I live around like minded people. It makes life happier and much less stressful. And the 9th is really about constraining the FEDERAL government from taking away rights, which is exactly what this decision honored. It didn't make abortion legal or illegal. It put it in the hands of the states, where it belongs.

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by Chicks

Alito's Abortion Ruling Overturning Roe Is an Insult to the 9th Amendment
The Constitution protects many more rights than it mentions, as James Madison explained.

https://reason.com/2022/06/24/alitos...9th-amendment/

While the libertarians are wrong about many things, they get this one right.

Now that the Reich-Wing conservatives have established a foothold in the SC they're not going to stop with Roe v. Wade. Even if the GOP takeover is stopped they'll push every decision they don't like up to the SC for the final say.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Chicks

Alito's Abortion Ruling Overturning Roe Is an Insult to the 9th Amendment
The Constitution protects many more rights than it mentions, as James Madison explained.

https://reason.com/2022/06/24/alitos...9th-amendment/

While the libertarians are wrong about many things, they get this one right.

Actually, not. Right at the top of your linked article:

The Constitution protects many more rights than it mentions, as James Madison explained.

So, what flows thereafter in the article is premised on the author's assumption that the original intent of the language in the Bill or Rights, and by extension the exhaustive list of "inalienable rights" includes some concept of "reproductive freedom" as defined by the Pro-Choice advocates. This is not only flawed logic, it leans a bit into demagogic territory, with some sophistry thrown in for good measure.

John Locke's description of inalienable rights could actually be interpreted as pro-life:

“The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions… (and) when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of life, liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.”

A reflection of that list of rights was authored by US State Department in 1948 when it helped create the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. No mention of abortion or "reproductive rights" in there either.

No, Roe allowed the US gov't, shrouded in a cloud or Supreme Court-provided armor, to use its disproportionality heavy finger to tip the scales away from the states and legislatures. Ruth Bader-Ginsberg observed this.

“My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.

She was correct on this. Abortion was a legal medical procedure for physicians to provide in many states before Roe. Those states legalized the practice via their state legislatures with "the consent of the governed" who elected them. Overturning Roe will move the decision-making on this closer to the voters, which is a good thing in my opinion.

[RickeyM]

whell

Overturning Roe will move the decision-making on this closer to the voters, which is a good thing in my opinion.

Except that there will be politicians in the way.

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by whell

Actually, not. Right at the top of your linked article:

The Constitution protects many more rights than it mentions, as James Madison explained.

So, what flows thereafter in the article is premised on the author's assumption that the original intent of the language in the Bill or Rights, and by extension the exhaustive list of "inalienable rights" includes some concept of "reproductive freedom" as defined by the Pro-Choice advocates. This is not only flawed logic, it leans a bit into demagogic territory, with some sophistry thrown in for good measure.

John Locke's description of inalienable rights could actually be interpreted as pro-life:

“The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions… (and) when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of life, liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.”

A reflection of that list of rights was authored by US State Department in 1948 when it helped create the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. No mention of abortion or "reproductive rights" in there either.

No, Roe allowed the US gov't, shrouded in a cloud or Supreme Court-provided armor, to use its disproportionality heavy finger to tip the scales away from the states and legislatures. Ruth Bader-Ginsberg observed this.

“My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.

She was correct on this. Abortion was a legal medical procedure for physicians to provide in many states before Roe. Those states legalized the practice via their state legislatures with "the consent of the governed" who elected them. Overturning Roe will move the decision-making on this closer to the voters, which is a good thing in my opinion.

Very well said. I have to admit that I was thinking that if I were to interpret the 9th the way leftists now want to interpret it, I could say, "I want to have sex with my sister, and the 9th says the federal government can not take that right away just because it's not already enumerated. But it goes deeper. The ninth is really a pseudo "states rights" amendment. The federal government may not be able to make it illegal, but my state can.

This gets a bit into what I started saying a few years ago: The US is like the EU in a lot of ways, except it has a military force. That is, just as the EU is really a bunch of mostly sovereign nations that belong to the single federation, the same is true for the 50 member nations of the US. And the Supreme court just "officially" gave them all a little more sovereignty.

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by RickeyM

Now that the Reich-Wing conservatives have established a foothold in the SC they're not going to stop with Roe v. Wade. Even if the GOP takeover is stopped they'll push every decision they don't like up to the SC for the final say.

Thomas already said they are not done and mentioned same sex marriage and contraception.

I confess the latter concerns me, but we'll see. The same sex marriage one I've always seen as our culture going temporarily insane, kinda like guys in girls sports, etc. That is, if two homosexual men (or women) want to enter into a covenant to remain as a connected couple, legally responsible to the relationship, i.e. civil union, they should have no problem doing that. But marriage, by definition, is between a man and a woman, which preserves the incubator that has the best chance of properly rearing our progeny. That's why marriage exists at all.

This decision, coupled with the unravelling of wokeness at companies throughout the country as well as the end to guys competing in sports as women, and the success of "What is a Woman" and many more similar documentaries to follow, is a welcome and way overdue return to sanity in the US.