Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS

[lionking]

You think things have changed so much that abortion opposition isn't still the majority in even a single state? That's an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.



This is basically an argument that religious people shouldn't get a vote, or their vote should count for less. That is deeply, deeply undemocratic, and such a position is far more antithetical to our constitution than any possible views on abortion itself.



Well, no. Strongly religious people tend to view government welfare negatively. They also tend to give more to private charities which help the poor. I'm not interested in getting into an argument about the merits of government welfare vs. private charity, but your support for one over the other doesn't make anyone anti-poor. But this isn't relevant to my argument in any case, it's off topic and there's nothing more to add that would be in any way productive.

A 2014 survey can be safely dismissed. Back then Roe vs Wade was in force, and it was easy to say “abortion should be illegal” when that opinion would change nothing.

If a similar survey were held now, where female respondents, their daughters, family and friends could be directly effected by the SC ruling, I believe the change in voting patterns will be significant.

But even if not, i think the national interest should trump that of states in certain areas. Take immigration, for example. Most states would vote for restriction or abolition. The national government should control this, along with defence and foreign affairs. Most posting here would include body autonomy in this list.

Of course, as an Australian I would like that list to be longer.

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
And you still haven't answered my question which you conveniently edited out:

"Since Roe v Wade in 1973, exactly what 'ever-increasing demands for relaxed abortion law" have liberals made? "

Comical. Yeah, there hasn't been any loosened legislation passed since then, and it wasn't called for by activists. That's great news...see, overturning Roe is no big deal. It won't change a thing.

All this fuss over nothing!

And you still are not answering my question:

"Since Roe v Wade in 1973, exactly what 'ever-increasing demands for relaxed abortion law" have liberals made? "

What " loosened legislation" since R v W has been demanded EXACTLY? Give me examples, Mr. Astaire.

 

[xjx388]

I am not “Mr. Astaire,” but this answer is pretty easy.

The demand has been to enshrine the right to abortion as Federal law, which would mean the States that currently ban it would be forced to allow it. This demand has existed since before RvW and after RvW, it didn’t go away because the people who were demanding this knew how fragile the SCOTUS ruling was.

Beyond that, the demand has been to allow unrestricted abortion, which would mean States that cut off at 12/15/20 weeks would now be forced to allow them even beyond 24 weeks in some cases.

There has also been demand to make it covered by Medicaid and private insurance. Abortion coverage was a big debate during the ACA negotiations.

 

[Stacyhs]

I am not “Mr. Astaire,” but this answer is pretty easy.

The demand has been to enshrine the right to abortion as Federal law, which would mean the States that currently ban it would be forced to allow it. This demand has existed since before RvW and after RvW, it didn’t go away because the people who were demanding this knew how fragile the SCOTUS ruling was.

That doesn't answer my question since it's not an example of "ever-increasing demands for relaxed abortion law" which is what Warp claimed led to the recent SC ruling. As you said "This demand has existed since before RvW and after RvW".

I asked specifically for "Since Roe v Wade in 1973, exactly what 'ever-increasing demands for relaxed abortion law" have liberals made? "

Beyond that, the demand has been to allow unrestricted abortion, which would mean States that cut off at 12/15/20 weeks would now be forced to allow them even beyond 24 weeks in some cases

.

That also has been a constant demand, not an "ever-increasing demand", either.

There has also been demand to make it covered by Medicaid and private insurance. Abortion coverage was a big debate during the ACA negotiations.

That is not an example of a "relaxed abortion law demand". It's a financial issue.

So my question has not been answered. But thanks for at least attempting it.

 

[xjx388]

That doesn't answer my question since it's not an example of "ever-increasing demands for relaxed abortion law" which is what Warp claimed led to the recent SC ruling. As you said "This demand has existed since before RvW and after RvW".

I asked specifically for "Since Roe v Wade in 1973, exactly what 'ever-increasing demands for relaxed abortion law" have liberals made? "


.

That also has been a constant demand, not an "ever-increasing demand", either.

I do think “ever-increasing” is a bit of bad writing -overstating the matter for rhetorical effect. But the larger point buried in that is as you say: there is constant demand for easing restrictions on abortion. That hasn’t gone away. And if it ever happens, there will be demand to restrict it further. The circle of public political discourse.

That is not an example of a "relaxed abortion law demand". It's a financial issue.

Partially. But it’s also a way to increase access to abortion by scrapping the Hyde act restrictions on using federal funds to pay for abortion.

 

[Stacyhs]

I do think “ever-increasing” is a bit of bad writing -overstating the matter for rhetorical effect.

The poster is rather well-known for hyperbolic rhetoric. Which is why I, and others, call him on it.

But the larger point buried in that is as you say: there is constant demand for easing restrictions on abortion. That hasn’t gone away. And if it ever happens, there will be demand to restrict it further. The circle of public political discourse.

But the demand has stayed the same: allowing a woman to make her own decisions over whether to continue her pregnancy without interference from the government.

Partially. But it’s also a way to increase access to abortion by scrapping the Hyde act restrictions on using federal funds to pay for abortion.

Increase financial access, not for easing restrictions on abortions themselves.

 

[bruto]

When a new government restriction is opposed, it seems that some see the opposition to decreased rights as a demand for increased rights, apparently instantly forgetting that the default is not the new law but the absence of it.

 

[tyr_13]

It isn't self refuting. You didn't understand the point. Eating meat isn't against my morality, so I'm not against it. All societies impose some form of morality on people, the only question is what that morality should be.

You are confusing his point being a bad one with me not understanding it.

His example not being one of pure morality negates the proposition that it's a law based on morality.

Being for a minority moral position with practical concerns also being overwhelmingly against that position is not in any way defended by morality being a component of why some people support some other laws that have more than simply morality in support of them.

First, you assume there are no pragmatic implications of abortion, but there are.

I do no such thing. The pragmatic implications are overwhelmingly against banning abortion. This isn't support for your point.

Second, you have created caveats of your own which weren't part of your original claim, and basically constitute special pleading.

No, I again did no such thing. Your failure to account for the deficits in your argument and example are not me 'creating caveats'.

shuttit is right, you don't understand my point at all.

And to be explicit, I'm not fine with banning gay sex. But the reason I'm not fine with it isn't because it's based on morals. There are other reasons I'm opposed to it, including that it conflicts with my own morals. And yes, being opposed to a law because it's based on morality that you disagree with is a reasonable reason to oppose such a law. Same goes for abortion. I've got no problem with you opposing abortion restrictions because they conflict with your morality. But again, that's different than being opposed to it because it's based on morals. That isn't the argument you made before.

You're limiting the objection to banning abortion to only 'based on morals', which isn't very accurate, but it's also not supported with your example. Again, there are pragmatic reasons to outlaw animal abuse while banning abortion is based only on (very flawed) morals of a religious nature.

 

[a_unique_person]

It sounds like you are saying that they were never asked directly. If they were allowed to be evasive then they didn't lie.

Read "The Lie" short story by Kurt Vonnegut.

 

[Segnosaur]

This isn't worrisome at all...

From: Jezebel
In new hot mic audio obtained by Rolling Stone, Peggy Nienaber, executive director of Liberty Counsel’s D.C. ministry, bragged about praying with Supreme Court Justices at the court. Liberty Counsel authored an amicus brief in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health case, in which the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and ended the federal right to abortion last month....Several experts on judicial conflicts of interest and Supreme Court recusals who spoke to Rolling Stone are in agreement that what Nienabar described presents “a problem” and possible conflict of interest...

Representatives of Liberty Counsel are claiming that it didn't happen as described, but given what we know, it is more likely that it did happen than it didn't....

- Justice Thomas has a history of not recusing himself when he should (when he ruled on a case that his wife was involved with)

- Nienaber has posted several photos with her hanging out with supreme court justices and has called them 'friends'

- The organization has a history of 'targeting' justices

 

[psionl0]

Read "The Lie" short story by Kurt Vonnegut.

Better yet, you give us a precis.

 

[Ziggurat]

A 2014 survey can be safely dismissed. Back then Roe vs Wade was in force, and it was easy to say “abortion should be illegal” when that opinion would change nothing.

This is wishful thinking.

But even if not, i think the national interest should trump that of states in certain areas.

Perhaps. But this too is no longer an argument on the basis of what people want. It's also not a constitutionally relevant argument.

 

[Upchurch]

Read "The Lie" short story by Kurt Vonnegut.

Better yet, you give us a precis.

It's only 8 pages.

 

[Upchurch]

Perhaps. But this too is no longer an argument on the basis of what people want. It's also not a constitutionally relevant argument.

Why not? Are you under the impression that constitutionality decisions are not subject to what some groups of people want?

 

[cosmicaug]

When a new government restriction is opposed, it seems that some see the opposition to decreased rights as a demand for increased rights, apparently instantly forgetting that the default is not the new law but the absence of it.

Hyde amendment would be a good example of this, actually.

 

[psionl0]

It's only 8 pages.

I actually had time to read it and although it was an enjoyable story, I fail to see what relevance it has to allowing SC candidates to be evasive.

 

[Upchurch]

I actually had time to read it and although it was an enjoyable story, I fail to see what relevance it has to allowing SC candidates to be evasive.

What do you think the titular lie was, if not Eli's failure to disclose the rejection letter to his parents and his evasiveness around the subject of attending Whitehill School?


ETA: In case it needs to be said, Eli's allowing his parents to believe something that was not true parallels the SC candidates allowing Senators to believe they would not overturn Roe.

 

[wareyin]

What do you think the titular lie was, if not Eli's failure to disclose the rejection letter to his parents and his evasiveness around the subject of attending Whitehill School?


ETA: In case it needs to be said, Eli's allowing his parents to believe something that was not true parallels the SC candidates allowing Senators to believe they would not overturn Roe.

Although, again, the Democratic Senators who voted against those SC candidates weren't fooled.

psionl0 seems to think that Senators have some ability to force answers out of candidates in whatever form the Senator wants, or that Rep Senators cared that the candidates wanted to overturn Roe v Wade despite the "settled law affirmed over and over" talk.

 

[Upchurch]

Although, again, the Democratic Senators who voted against those SC candidates weren't fooled.

I don't really believe Susan Collins, et al, was fooled either. Her crocodile tears are a show for plausible deniability.

I was just explaining the comparison with the short story.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Religious exemptions for medical neglect of children are fairly commonplace and popular.

They are not. Cite some evidence.

First off you don't get a religious exemption to let your child die of some treatable medical condition. Parents may plead to not be convicted but even then it's not an excuse the law allows.

Each state has different laws, maybe you are thinking of vaccine refusal.