Why would one expect a conservative court to advance a progressive project?
- Status
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
No reason comes to mind, but on rare occasions originalism does lead to surprising results in favor of marginalized people, e.g. McGirt v. Oklahoma.
I could see a hyperliteralist conservative making a 13th Amendment case against forcing birthing women into involuntary servitude to fetal persons.
Last edited:
wareyin
Penultimate Amazing
Why do you automatically categorize "human rights" as a progressive project? Are conservatives opposed to human rights?
Because the whole Positive Rights expansion of Rights is a progressive project. The idea of improving the world by discovering more and more Rights is progressive. "Human rights" legislation requires a whole bureaucracy to administer, it is intrinsically big government. The idea of using big government and armies of bureaucrats and technocrats to solve everybody's problems is a progressive vision.
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
An interesting premise, if flawed.
After all, we have conservatives using big government, and armies of bureaucrats to strip or even deny rights to people that were once held.
Thank you for pointing out that conservatives despise rights and freedoms.
Often, yes.
They have a different conception of them, that is all. The version in the post I was responding to was the progressive version.
While conservatives prefer to use big government in order to make the lives of everybody they don't like miserable. Math checks out.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Not necessarily. (Or, at least in some cases it doesn't require more bureaucracy than the alternative.)
If you grant women reproductive freedom/abortion rights, you don't necessarily NEED any more government worker (since women will be interacting with their doctors on a one-to-one basis.) The only time you might need the government involved is if/when the costs need to be covered under a publicly funded health system.
On the other hand, outlawing abortion requires: More police to enforce the laws, courts to prosecute women who dare to actually control their bodies, prisons (or other government mechanisms) to execute any judgements against them.
Of those 2 cases, which do you think requires "big government"?
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
I hear talk of impeaching the SC justices for "lying" about their intentions over Roe vs Wade when questioned.
As a matter of curiosity, were any of them asked directly if they would overturn Roe vs Wade if a case came before them?
As a matter of curiosity, were any of them asked directly if they would overturn Roe vs Wade if a case came before them?
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
I suspect their answer would be the same... "I cannot comment on a hypothetical case" (or words to that effect)
Of course, they were asked about Roe v. Wade and they all claimed it was "settled". Now, the MAGAchud will try to justify things by playing some sort of word game, like "settled means it was decided at the time, not that it couldn't change in the future". We all know it was bunk though.
What bunk. If a right is recognized in a society, there is (nominally) no administrative burden. It is when a right is curtailed that an enforcement burden necessarily arises.
When abortion was allowed, women made for themselves a decision unfettered by the State. Now that this right has been clawed back, with legal consequences, the State must expend resources to enforce this new law.
And what's this 'discovering' rights thing? It's really striving for more freedom. You know; that "freedom" business about which Americans crow so vociferously.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
State gov't antiabortion bureaucracies are just getting started, we can only guess how "big government" they are going to get. Personally, I'm betting on mifepristone and misoprostol becoming the new battlegrounds in the longstanding "big government" war on drugs, along w/ DAs going after women for self-administering said drugs.
Get ready for the Miscarriage Police! There is not really an effective way to tell an early-term medical abortion from an early-term miscarriage. So, if someone shows up in a pro-life state with a “miscarriage” how do you tell if it a tragedy or a felony? A thorough background check! Did the woman tell any family members she was trying to have a baby? Has the woman purchased birth control recently? We definitely need to see her internet search history and phone records…
Hercules56
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2013
- Messages
- 17,176
Sadly I believe this is what the Founders wanted.
Each state decides healthcare on their own. If they want to be a state of schmucks, thats their choice.
Only way around this is a Constitutional amendment allowing abortion until viability outside the womb.
Each state decides healthcare on their own. If they want to be a state of schmucks, thats their choice.
Only way around this is a Constitutional amendment allowing abortion until viability outside the womb.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Its not just a "healthcare" issue, its also a personal privacy issue.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
Let's take a closer look at this, shall we.
The thread and question is about a single human right, the right to make decisions about managing a pregnancy with one's medical provider. Roe v Wade granted that human right, the current SCOTUS took it away.
Instead of discussing that single denial of a human right you build a straw man argument claiming the thread is about multiple human rights, some of which are more progressive than others. Thus you claim the fight to take this one established human right is a Progressive fight (the highlighted sentence).
This thread is not about "the whole positive rights expansion."
As for the separate issue you included: "legislation requires a whole bureaucracy to administer, it is intrinsically big government. The idea of using big government and armies of bureaucrats and technocrats to solve everybody's problems is a progressive vision", that is an ironic joke. Enforcing abortion restrictions and bans in the states now tasked with the actions is already turning into a nightmare. In TX at least one prosecutor is refusing to prosecute anyone who violates TX's abortion ban.
People are wondering how the police in any state are going to look for ban violations. Talk includes monitoring people's phone aps where they track their menses. If you seek post-miscarriage medical care you might be subject to an intrusive investigation and even being charged with inducing the pregnancy loss. You can't get more "big government" than that.
Are you aware that the % of pregnancies which end in a natural miscarriage is over 10-15% in the first trimester?
Are you listening to/reading any of this?
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
Right now you need 2/3 vote in both Houses. That won't happen under current conditions.
As for claiming they changed their minds, one could present their history of saying they wanted to overturn Roe. I don't think the Senate investigated seriously the last 3 justices for their anti-Roe views. The Democrats followed tradition of voting to install the SCOTUS regardless of who appointed them. Yes they balked at Bork, and maybe there were others I'm forgetting. It's moot now unless impeachment becomes a serious option.
Well, back in the founder's day, bloodletting was still a thing, so I am comfortable with ignoring their opinions on medical care...
- Status