[Closed] Roe vs Wade

A country that's obsessed with "freedom" but only the particular freedoms they want to give you.

If the lefties who decided not to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016 had voted for her, this (and a whole lot of other right-wing zealotry) would not have happened.

"freedom" to be a rich white god fearing heterosexual man.

will it come here, unlikely. I think there is a religious undercurrent to [a significant portion of US republican] politics which just isnt the case with our right wingers here in blighty.

The evangelical right wing of the Republican Party values babies right up until the moment they're born, and require healthcare, education, and protection from gun-toting nutjobs.

Trouble is, Roe vs Wade has been such a potent rallying point for their core support, that one wonders what they will replace it with if it disappears. They are already coming for a lot of the stuff highlighted by OP.

We should probably call 'CRT' what it actually is - teaching black history in a way that makes some white folks uncomfortable.

That rapey Judge turning out to be a liar should surprise no one

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1521490781638385664

I think there is a religious undercurrent to [a significant portion of US republican] politics

Yes and no. Overtly, yes, it's religion, but deep down it's just cultism without any interest in the theology of it. And YES there is a difference before the militant atheists all kick off. This is how we end with some people spreading hate whilst claiming to be Christians which is the opposite of the explicit concept of Christianity.

I don't want to start a row about Christianity. What you are seeing is cultism which is not at all limited to the so-called religious.

Its worrying. I naively like to think that as we make "progress" that this progress ratchets us towards a more informed global society. Its frightening to think that we can regress.

But the court hasn't outlawed it. They have juds said it should be decided by elected politicians not unelected judges.

Susan Collins saw fit to endorse Kavanaugh at the time despite the evidence that he was a highly unsuitable pick for SC. If she's now got buyer's remorse that's on her, and she needs to be held responsible for it by her voters.

The same Susan Collins who voted to acquit Trump over his bullying/extorting phone call with Zelenskyy, saying that she thought he'd 'learned his lesson'.

She's a waste of oxygen.

The increasing polarization in American politics only seems to be heading one way, civil war/self destruction.

Steve Schmidt worked on George W. Bush's and John McCain's campaigns. He's no liberal but he's honest enough to realize that the Republican Party has driven itself over a cliff.

https://twitter.com/SteveSchmidtSES/status/1521499070484860931

I’ve been following Heather Cox Richardson (American political history professor) for a while now and she’s got a post up today on roe vs wade, well worth 5 mins to read and her post on the Republican Party is very worrying as to what is coming.

Heather Cox Richardson on roe vs wade

On the current political attacks on democracy by the right wing/republican party

I think it's easy to look at this from across the Atlantic and wonder and assume it won't affect us, which may be true, but the Rees-Moggs of this world with their outdated religious views on the matter still hold some sway. It's not been weaponised as a political issue in the UK quite as much - yet.

Be interesting to see how it pans out over there. I actually think the apparent substance of the leaked document - that the issue is best decided by the law makers rather than the law interpreters - is not unreasonable, just not sure why it's taken 50 years to get to that point!

This was on twitter today (a lot) there are swears.

https://twitter.com/WUTangKids/status/1521500564244373506?s=20

Also, that Margaret Atwood has a lot to answer for - pretty sure The Handmaids Tale is a handbook (or maybe manifesto) for a lot of Republicans

Rich women can always get safe abortions.

IMO anyone who is against legal abortions (to a reasonable time-limit) with the choice made by the woman who is actually pregnant is 100% responsible for any 'back-street' procedures AND the outcome(s)...

thols2
Free Member
If the lefties who decided not to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016 had voted for her, this (and a whole lot of other right-wing zealotry) would not have happened.

...just yet. The fault lines have been there since Obama's second term - the Republicans are growing more and more extreme, and after Clinton there would have been a swing back to the right.
Tbh it's like the US is becoming two countries: the east coast and west coast, plus pockets around Austin, Boulder etc, are like the US we might recognise from holidays, of people who are a bit intense but mostly reasonably sound; and the rest, where politicians are just demented.
Interesting to see that only about a quarter of Americans actually support repealing Roe vs Wade, mind - this is a political concoction for the most part.

I hope this argument and change stays on that side of the pond, if pro life nutters come for abortions, there goes any hope of right to die coming in during my lifetime!

Gilead anyone?

The Mississippi law which will be able to stand if this decision is made is actually slightly more permissive that the abortion law in Germany.

Jon Ronson did a really good podcast about the Christian right went from not caring about abortion to where we are now.

Link

Very disheartening but not at all surprising. Nothing about the US surprises me anymore. Hopefully it won’t pass.

I find the whole thing a bit disturbing if it turns out to be true.

Yes the Americans can do as they please as its their country and my views on that don’t matter one jot. Although Im sure the back street clinics will be licking their lips for bumper profits.

I am concerned that there will be a reaction in this country as the anti-abortion lobby in all its forms are bound to pick up on this and use it to further their view. Whether that will make any difference to statute is another question. I suspect not but my bigger concern will be when these groups full of a new found gusto from the verdict start protesting setting where legal abortions take place and start harassing ladies as they are entering the clinics.

The Mississippi law which will be able to stand if this decision is made is actually slightly more permissive that the abortion law in Germany.

Not quite, with 100k pa and paid for by the State (for low incomes).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Germany#:~:text=Abortion%20in%20Germany%20is%20forbidden,health%20of%20the%20pregnant%20woman.

George Carlin……….brilliant!

Not quite, with 100k pa and paid for by the State (for low incomes).

I believe the time limit will be slightly longer in Mississippi.

there goes any hope of right to die

We should probably call the 'right to die' movement for what it really is, which is the 'right to require a medical professional end my life' movement.

I believe

Faith.

Lack of faith in this case.

The bit I'm concerned by is that the USSC can overturn its previous precedent setting ruling. i.e. precedent is no precedent. This in itself could make the rule of law arbitrary.

However Roe v Wade was not a matter of interpretation of specific legislation so much as an interpretation of the constitution - the broadest federal legislation. The matter hinged on protection of rights, guaranteed (vaguely) under the Constitution at a time (1970s) when women's rights were under threat from legislation in numerous individual states.

Now, 50 years later, women's rights are under threat from legislation in numerous individual states and the USSC has chosen to revert the previously settled scope of guarantees under the Constitution.

Now here is what is abhorrent about this news: nothing substantive has changed about this issue except political postures. The position now is that vulnerable women will be unprotected by default from being victimised by laws being passed by individual state legislatures. The arguments have popped through a time warp from 50 years ago. The argument that was settled is now reversed. It is the work of a moment. 50 years of precedent count for nothing. There is no new merit determined here. There is just a flip-flop in a court tainted by political appointments.

So the rule of law in the US is arbitrary. Arguably this is not new but it is new for it to be so blatant and visible. The separation of powers between legislative , executive and judicial branches depends on each staying in their own lane but here we have the judicial branch effectively making new law by upending existing, settled law. The supreme court submits to no oversight and cannot be challenged.

That the rule of law is visibly faltering in democracy's noisiest defender should not be discounted as having been Vladimir Putin's doing over a long and steady campaign. Perhaps that is why he is celebrating victory this week.

I knew there was something incorrect in my OP 😀

It’s not the USSC, it’s SCOTUS! D’oh!

The SCOTUS process seems pretty dubious at best. Political appointments which have gone more and more partisan (and with a terrible death lottery process) and that leads to more splits along party lines. And in this case the newly appointed judges which must have voted to overthrow, all said in their selection- under oath- that they wouldn't. That it was "settled law", etc.

And marginal splits indicate a problem; if the best legal minds (lol) can debate an issue of law and come to a 5:4 or even 3:6 split, then it's a bad enough law that it can't be clearly interpreted by a court. The outcome of a decision like that should be to kick it to the lawmakers, rather than the court making the law into what it should be.

The outcome of a decision like that should be to kick it to the lawmakers

That is essentially what the leaked judgement proposes.

It's weird, every time we think the planet is moving forward and getting smarter, something comes along to move us back towards the middle ages.

As others state, the religious element just never ceases to cause issues in the states (and many other countries), even sadder in the US, it'll be a law that'll have a class boundary, where those rich enough will be allowed abortions for 'health reasons', whilst those who are poor will end up in jail due to turning to backwater clinics, with unacceptable mortality rates for these women compared to current legal practices.

That is essentially what the leaked judgement proposes.

Lawmakers propose and vote on law to supplement or amend settled law. To undo settled law in a SCOTUS ruling is an astonishing step. This rips away protections. It leaves vulnerable women unprotected where they have been protected previously. They will remain unprotected until an entire legislative process can go through a cycle of reintroducing protections in a patchwork across 50 state legislatures. Currently the political momentum is swinging the other way which means that meaningfully it may be another 50 years until the baseline protections covered by Roe v Wade have any chance of being back in place.

That seems to me to be a gross dereliction of responsibility under the Constitution.

The false technical legal argument is that the anchoring of Roe v Wade ruling on Constitutional protections of rights afforded too broad a scope that could not be piecewise amended by new law. But this is false. The availability of abortions has been routinely amended by new law and the protection of the foetus has been ably supported by newly introduced law. The new laws that are enabled by this ruling are those that represent a direct, retrogressive attack on women's rights.

The fact that there is a naked linkage between the restrictive laws being passed and "religious" dogma furthermore shows that SCOTUS has allowed political persuasions to override its responsibility in upholding the secular Constitution.

The whole thing is a travesty built on a wedge issue, fuelled by disinformation and manipulation on media platforms.

Or, in conservative-speak, it is the front line in the war between libertarianism and socialism. Libertarianism means having guns and not having government interference, so this move is actually pro-freedom.

Go figure.

There’s a brilliant podcast series by Jon Ronson on BBC Sounds, ‘Things fell apart’ about how the so called culture wars came about and were weaponised by the right. It covers particularly how abortion rights rose to be such a massive issue amongst the evangelicals who, previously weren’t that bothered.
It’s well worth a listen.

A couple of points from a legal perspective:

The doctrine of precedent does not apply to the highest court in the land. Supreme courts think hard about changing tack for sure but if they were bound by their own previous decisions the result would be stagnation.

The point about important principles being decided by elected politicians is fine, but that raises the questions "which ones" and "how". Normally issues of fundamental rights should be part of the constitution, so decided in the way constitutional issues are decided. In the case of the US that means at a Federal level and requiring a supermajority. Also, practically having disparities in such an area between states is undesirable for obvious reasons.

Unfortunately the US constitution is not explicit about abortion, so SCOTUS has the power to make practical access to abortion a legal right everywhere or leave it to the states, based on interpretation of basic principles and what the constitution does say. I am not sure if it has the power to impose restrictions everywhere.

But the chance of any type of abortion amendment to the US Constitution being passed appear remote. And if one was, it might not be a good one.

 It leaves vulnerable women unprotected where they have been protected previously

The republicans who support limits or banning abortion rights would tell you that unborn children have been left unprotected for the last 50 years. Such is the totally opposing views that I can't see a compromise being reached at all.

Watching this with horror really, the US seems determined to pull itself apart at the seams along lines that were apparently settled years ago.

There’s a brilliant podcast series by Jon Ronson on BBC Sounds, ‘Things fell apart’ about how the so called culture wars came about and were weaponised by the right. It covers particularly how abortion rights rose to be such a massive issue amongst the evangelicals who, previously weren’t that bothered.

It’s well worth a listen.

Most definitely. That whole series is essential listening. I found that absolutely fascinating. I'd always assumed that it had always been a thing with the evangelicals but it turned out that it was the result of a Boris-style opportunist who weaponised it for his own ends in the same way as Boris weaponised Brexit.

I find the most worrying thing about this is that the type of people who are celebrating this as a victory, will now absolutely be thinking "right... what next?", and I'm sure they've got a long list of progressive policies that they'd like to see rolled back to the 1950's

I suspect not but my bigger concern will be when these groups full of a new found gusto from the verdict start protesting setting where legal abortions take place and start harassing ladies as they are entering the clinics.

I think you'll find the nutter wing of the religious right have never stopped, just drive past any Marie Stopes clinic and they'll be there, intimidating women, many of whom are already going through hell and who now have to run the gauntlet of those arseholes.

I do agree that this may make the problem worse but the true zealots don't need any encouragement.

The current state of our politics means that, at the moment, I'd much rather decisions of this type were taken by 'unelected judges'. While the US judicial system has long been a political arena, I trust our High Court and Supreme Court judges a great deal more than I trust the shower of shit in our elected government.

The real failure for the US here is decades of not addressing the fragile basis on which some of the most important rights of its citizens are supported. A sketchy precedent is no way to ensure safe reproductive health for women, just as it's no way to protect the right to inter-racial marriage, same-sex marriage, and other freedoms which could be fatally undercut by its reversal.

You can bet that some states are already drawing up plans to outlaw these.

Or will this culture war boil over and start here as well?

Piers Morgan is on it right away. He loves a bit of ‘culture war’ it pays his bills.

On the plus side the Internet mainlines American culture and so transplantation (rather than cross-pollination) will occur sooner rather than later. Let’s just get this whole thing over and done with quickly otherwise it will drag on for yet more decades like death from a 1000,0000 cut$.

The Far Right, money hoovering billionaires and US hyper-capitalism is sowing the seeds of revolution at some point in the future. I’m amazed that more of the privileged can’t see that they’re condemning their descendants to the guillotine by not sharing and playing nice with the rest of society today.

Times editorial doesn't make comforting reading...I hope we don't let the anti-abortionists get a fothold here.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/e829f76e-cb0f-11ec-a118-514c2c06bc05?shareToken=a85f933c1b9ee16324b75bfcf3747920

Fortunately the evangelical mob have so far only really got a foothold in the LibDems, and they are fairly quiet about it. That lobby doesn't exist to the same extent here as in the states. That's not to say it it couldn't happen, but the lack of elected judges also works in our favour. Having said that, stuff like cutting the funding to the IPPF shows that our government doesn't exactly put reproductive rights high on its list of priorities.