• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Roe Countdown

When will Roe v Wade be overturned

  • Before 31 December 2020

    Votes: 20 18.3%

  • Before 31 December 2022

    Votes: 27 24.8%

  • Before 31 December 2024

    Votes: 9 8.3%

  • SCOTUS will not pick a case up

    Votes: 16 14.7%

  • SCOTUS will pick it up and decline to overturn

    Votes: 37 33.9%
  • Total voters
    109
Status
Not open for further replies.
Paul2 said:
Precedent can't be ignored; otherwise, every time the members of the court change, there's the potential to change a decision, and the law then runs the risk of flip-flopping back and forth. It's in society's interest to have stability in the law.
Click to expand...

But the role of the arbiter of rules isn't to protect your pwecious (precious) society. It is to research the rules.
 
Ziggurat said:
It's going to have very little effect. That's why the author has to conflate rape with sexual assault. Only a fraction of the latter consist of the former. Furthermore, a number of states have exceptions for rape, and a number of states also specifically allow morning-after pills to prevent/terminate pregnancies. Which, if you've been raped and don't want to be pregnant, is probably a good idea anyways. Most of the states with looming abortion bans have one or both of these exceptions. So the number of pregnancies in the armed forces caused by rapes which could not be terminated due to these laws is going to be pretty small. It's not going to really matter for military readiness of our armed forces.

Of all the arguments against overturning RvW, this has to be one of the weakest ones. There are far better ones available.
Click to expand...


The author writes specifically about rape as the extreme. But her larger point is that without access to abortion, the military will be disrupted by an increasing number of pregnancies and resulting leaves, accommodations, delayed deployments and, sometimes, resignations or discharges. People with specialized military duties aren't as easy to replace as the typical office worker.
 
Paul2 said:
Precedent can't be ignored
Click to expand...

Given that the ruling spends so much time directly addressing Roe, I would hardly call it ignoring precedent.

So there's a tension between what a court thinks is wrongly decided and the need to not be flip-flopping.
Click to expand...

True. But it's been 49 years since Roe v. Wade. It was 58 years between Plessy and Brown which is basically the same time scale, and nobody suggests Brown should have given Plessy precedence.
 
Bob001 said:
The author writes specifically about rape as the extreme. But her larger point is that without access to abortion, the military will be disrupted by an increasing number of pregnancies and resulting leaves, accommodations, delayed deployments and, sometimes, resignations or discharges. People with specialized military duties aren't as easy to replace as the typical office worker.
Click to expand...

There will be some of that. But not enough to seriously impact military readiness. It's still a bad argument.
 
Ziggurat said:
What's the alternative? Again, how long should an incorrect decision stand before it's overturned? None of this speaks to whether the decision itself was right or wrong.
Click to expand...

If it was right for 50 years, something has to have changed to make it incorrect.

For example, when Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, it did so by demonstrating that "separate, but equal" established under Plessy was never actually equal in practice. Plessy was an incorrect decision because it was a requirement that could not be met in real life. What changed in the intervening 60-ish years is that we had more information than when Plessy was decided.

Basically, nothing has changed between when Roe was decided and now except the political minority against the decision has maneuvered activist* justices into the court with the explicit goal of overturning Roe.


* Let's be honest and call 'em what they are.
 
Basically as with all things if you only screech about precedent when it gets them what they want. Same as the only free speech they care about is hate speech and the freedom they want is the freedom to hurt other people.

Yeah "Don't storm the capital and commit a coup" has a precedent but that got thrown out the window so maybe I don't care to hear what certain people think is a precedent now.

The difference between "This is a precedent AND it's the right decision" as an argument and "This is a precedent so therefore the right decision" as an argument ending cliche is not a difficult one to recognize.
 
Upchurch said:
If it was right for 50 years, something has to have changed to make it incorrect.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense. Nobody is taking the position that it was right for 50 years but then became wrong. People are taking the position that it was right then and is still right, and people are taking the position that it was wrong then and is still wrong.
 
Ziggurat said:
There will be some of that. But not enough to seriously impact military readiness. It's still a bad argument.
Click to expand...

It's not the strongest argument against depriving all women of an established constitutional right. But I don't think you can dismiss it as having trivial impact. Service members hold specialized jobs for which they receive extensive training and are therefore not easily replaceable. A pregnant sailor has to be moved off her ship, for example. The broader issue is that if Roe is overturned, a military member's rights will vary depending entirely on where she is deployed, over which she has no control and from which she cannot easily travel, even for a day.
 
Ziggurat said:
That makes no sense. Nobody is taking the position that it was right for 50 years but then became wrong. People are taking the position that it was right then and is still right, and people are taking the position that it was wrong then and is still wrong.
Click to expand...

Yes, a minority of people will always disagree with a majority opinion. You said you don’t care about popular opinion and that it should have no place in making these decisions. Except that clearly you do and clearly it has.
 
Bob001 said:
It's not the strongest argument against depriving all women of an established constitutional right. But I don't think you can dismiss it as having trivial impact. Service members hold specialized jobs for which they receive extensive training and are therefore not easily replaceable. A pregnant sailor has to be moved off her ship, for example. The broader issue is that if Roe is overturned, a military member's rights will vary depending entirely on where she is deployed, over which she has no control and from which she cannot easily travel, even for a day.
Click to expand...

If the military actually cares about this, it can easily solve the problem. So either they will solve the problem, or they don't really care about it. And they're only going to not care about it if the impact is actually trivial.
 
Bob001 said:
It's not the strongest argument against depriving all women of an established constitutional right. But I don't think you can dismiss it as having trivial impact. Service members hold specialized jobs for which they receive extensive training and are therefore not easily replaceable. A pregnant sailor has to be moved off her ship, for example. The broader issue is that if Roe is overturned, a military member's rights will vary depending entirely on where she is deployed, over which she has no control and from which she cannot easily travel, even for a day.
Click to expand...

But if that's the case, you at least have to acknowledge that this is a problem that exists today, and will just be made worse if abortion is outlawed in some states.

All of the bad things that happen to the military when female soldiers become pregnant are already happening. They will happen more if abortion is not an option for some of the women.
 
Well it's a moot point because the whole thing makes a lot more sense when you remember that in most districts felons can't vote so making a law that can functionally be applied in a way that makes most women felons... I mean the plot thins.
 
Bob001 said:
Another result of overturning Roe: the impact on military service.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ng-roe-disastrous-america-military-readiness/
Click to expand...

I'm not asking this to make a point, but rather because I really don't know the answer....

When women in the service need an abortion, do they go off base or do they do it on base? (I think most bases have medical facilities. At least the larger ones do.)

Are military doctors subject to the laws of the state when they perform procedures on base? Or are they only subject to federal law?

Would a woman in the service be allowed to travel to a different base for medical care not available on her home base?
 
JoeMorgue said:
Well it's a moot point because the whole thing makes a lot more sense when you remember that in most districts felons can't vote so making a law that can functionally be applied in a way that makes most women felons... I mean the plot thins.
Click to expand...

None of this is actually true.
 
TomB said:
......
When women in the service need an abortion, do they go off base or do they do it on base? (I think most bases have medical facilities. At least the larger ones do.)

Are military doctors subject to the laws of the state when they perform procedures on base? Or are they only subject to federal law?

Would a woman in the service be allowed to travel to a different base for medical care not available on her home base?
Click to expand...


Unless rules have changed recently, it appears that a woman generally can only obtain abortion services at military facilities when her life is in danger or when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.
Previous research shows that women serving in the military have a higher rate of unintended pregnancy than civilian women do. But their access to abortion can be limited by Department of Defense policies, which prohibit military facilities from providing and military insurance from covering abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or danger to a woman's life.......
Service members who received abortions from outside providers told researchers that the experience was difficult — and many said they were surprised to discover the military could not or would not help them receive an abortion.
.....
The U.S. military does not permit abortions at military medical facilities or using military insurance.
Click to expand...
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...describes-impact-of-militarys-abortion-policy
 
Warp12 said:
No matter what decision comes down, I am going to celebrate. If it isn't overturned I am going to laugh at the liberal panic before, and if it is overturned I am laughing at the ensuing enhanced panic. "Our panic goes to 11, you see".

This scenario is amazing.
Click to expand...

I, in turn, think it amusing (if not really funny at all) that, though you see the thin end of the wedge in the move of some municipalities to allow undocumented immigrants to vote in local matters - as the start of a trend toward the great replacement - but you cannot see the erasure of the rights of half the population as the beginning of anything worth worrying about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom