Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade; states can ban abortion

[thebobmaster]

Wouldn't such a thing fall under the purview of the federal government?

I think so, but I am not a lawyer. Doing more research seems to suggest that depending on how the law is written, it could still fall under state laws. Basically, they can't make it illegal to get an abortion out of state, because interstate laws like that would be federal. However, there are workarounds. For example, if they were to pass a law defining a fetus at X weeks development as "human life", then they can literally claim going to another state to get an abortion falls under the purview of committing murder.

Long story short, it's a bit complicated, and I don't fully understand it, but while there are currently no laws to actually prevent interstate travel for the purposes of an abortion yet, the possibility is there.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

I think so, but I am not a lawyer. Doing more research seems to suggest that depending on how the law is written, it could still fall under state laws. Basically, they can't make it illegal to get an abortion out of state, because interstate laws like that would be federal. However, there are workarounds. For example, if they were to pass a law defining a fetus at X weeks development as "human life", then they can literally claim going to another state to get an abortion falls under the purview of committing murder.

Long story short, it's a bit complicated, and I don't fully understand it, but while there are currently no laws to actually prevent interstate travel for the purposes of an abortion yet, the possibility is there.

I see. Next decade should be "fun", watching how all this plays out.

 

[dreng3]

Wouldn't such a thing fall under the purview of the federal government?

And who are the ones who decides whether the states are acting outside of their purview in an unconstitutional manner?

 

[dreng3]

However, there are workarounds. For example, if they were to pass a law defining a fetus at X weeks development as "human life", then they can literally claim going to another state to get an abortion falls under the purview of committing murder.

That is the fetal personhood argument, and Thomas kinda invites it in his concurrence. If the fetus is recognized as a person it is suddenly granted protections under the constitution, making abortion murder.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

How would there be abortion clinics in states that ban it?

If the cops bust an underground abortion clinic they can just buy metadata without bothering to get a warrant, in addition to the interstate shenanigans that've already been covered.

 

[BrawlMan]

​

 

[tstorm823]

That is the fetal personhood argument, and Thomas kinda invites it in his concurrence. If the fetus is recognized as a person it is suddenly granted protections under the constitution, making abortion murder.

Not necessarily. Most homicide is not murder, and some aren't illegal at all.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

I mean the Bible, as a cohesive book, as a moral guide, is just a mess.

If people want to force me to live by the rules of a fantasy novel, I wish they'd at least pick a good one.

 

[Leg End]

Out of curiosity, what are the actual opinions of everyone here on abortion? Are you hardline yes or no? If not, where in the middle ground do you land and are there any situations you feel are finicky to think about and hard to judge?

More or less what @Bedinsis said, with the line I vaguely consider reasonable being when the Fetus can truly feel pain, being that they have all the correct shit formed for signals to travel to the brain and go 'fuck, that hurts', or whatever someone who hasn't heard the word fuck before would say. This may or may not leave open the possibility that a conscious entity exists beforehand, but we don't have any surefire way to measure fetal consciousness with 100% accuracy, so that's my cutoff. If they're 'conscious', at least they don't suffer.

In quicker terms, I support the right to do you your body as you desire, until/unless it stops being just your body. At which point, it becomes a rental.

 

[Eacaraxe]

In a *just* world run by *rules*, sure.

Yeah, just wait until those damn Mooslims and Satanists get hold of it.

Dude, Dred Scott did not require Constitutional amendment to overturn because it was so legally sound. It's pretty much universally derided not only on moral grounds but on legal grounds, as well, as being a pile of horseshit.

Yeah, by people who submit to groupthink, can't differentiate personal opinion from the merits of the case or the ratio of the opinion, or (in my opinion, most likely) would whitewash how unrepentantly white supremacist "founders" -- even northern abolitionist founders -- actually were. The dodgiest part of Taney's opinion, was in his declaration black freedmen were not citizens by default, and even then despite Benjamin Curtis' protestations, Taney was entirely correct there was no federal statutory provision for automatic citizenship upon manumission. That was the one conceit of Taney's opinion -- all else was pretty much in line with Constitutional interpretation and statute of the time ("but he struck down the Missouri Compromise!" you might say -- but for that had been effectively superseded in 1850, and repealed in '54).

Which is really the issue, here -- and why as I said before, I'm an interpretivist. Western civil and common law -- most notably in this case, positivist approaches to civil and common law -- doesn't concern itself with law as it ought to be, but rather as it is. People who -- correctly -- regard Dred Scott as immoral and wrong, also happen to do so with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and a faulty understanding of the legal and jurisprudential landscape of the time.

 

[Silvanus]

Yeah, by people who submit to groupthink, can't differentiate personal opinion from the merits of the case or the ratio of the opinion, or (in my opinion, most likely) would whitewash how unrepentantly white supremacist "founders" -- even northern abolitionist founders -- actually were. The dodgiest part of Taney's opinion, was in his declaration black freedmen were not citizens by default, and even then despite Benjamin Curtis' protestations, Taney was entirely correct there was no federal statutory provision for automatic citizenship upon manumission. That was the one conceit of Taney's opinion -- all else was pretty much in line with Constitutional interpretation and statute of the time ("but he struck down the Missouri Compromise!" you might say -- but for that had been effectively superseded in 1850, and repealed in '54).

Which is really the issue, here -- and why as I said before, I'm an interpretivist. Western civil and common law -- most notably in this case, positivist approaches to civil and common law -- doesn't concern itself with law as it ought to be, but rather as it is. People who -- correctly -- regard Dred Scott as immoral and wrong, also happen to do so with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and a faulty understanding of the legal and jurisprudential landscape of the time.

Eh. I'll believe the professional legal consensus instead ta.

For one thing, I find it very likely that the line about being 'unable to differentiate personal opinion from the merits of the case' applies just as much (if not more so) to the racist idiot judges of the time.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Eh. I'll believe the professional legal consensus instead ta.

For one thing, I find it very likely that the line about being 'unable to differentiate personal opinion from the merits of the case' applies just as much (if not more so) to the racist idiot judges of the time.

Oh man, you're in for a rude awakening if you actually believe that.

Hint: the most-cited legal scholar and jurist of all time -- not in the US, not in the 20th or 21st Centuries, of all time -- is Richard Posner. Otherwise known as "Antonin Scalia's former colleague at University of Chicago and political ally, and Amy Coney Barrett's mentor".

 

[Trunkage]

Depends on the Christian you ask. My family believes dogs have souls at any rate.

Same with my family.

Sheep though.... they're a-holes so they get nothing

 

[Trunkage]

Oh man, you're in for a rude awakening if you actually believe that.

Hint: the most-cited legal scholar and jurist of all time -- not in the US, not in the 20th or 21st Centuries, of all time -- is Richard Posner. Otherwise known as "Antonin Scalia's former colleague at University of Chicago and political ally, and Amy Coney Barrett's mentor".

Is it time to remind everyone that Barret, Kavanagh and Roberts all worked on the 2000 Florida Bloom Brothers election riot thing

(I think it was those three. Could have been Scalia and not Roberts.)

 

[Trunkage]

Wouldn't such a thing fall under the purview of the federal government?

I believe it would be but... why would that be relevant? Purview doesn't mean anything if there are no laws stopping it. You cant write laws when you A) made sure nothing can pass the seneate B) blocking it with Supreme Court rulings

Otherwise, things like the fugitive slave law would not have been able to exist

 

[Schadrach]

A GOP congresswoman said the end of Roe is a 'historic victory for white life'

In the moment, Rep. Mary Miller then led the crowd in applause. A campaign spokesperson for Miller told NPR she meant to say "victory for Right to Life."

www.npr.org

You'd have to hope that was misspeaking. Otherwise, even in the best case she's ignorant of the numbers - more black fetuses are aborted than white ones. A change that's going to increase the relative black population shouldn't be seen as a victory for "white life" by the sorts who believe in things like the Great Replacement.

Amazing the logical lengths people go to to excuse the killing of animals, up to and including the invention of a completely undetectable but nonetheless absolutely essential component of any life worth protecting (the soul).

See, I prefer "they are lower on the food chain than me, and in most cases have been carefully selectively bred over centuries and centuries specifically to be easy to raise and delicious - meaning aside from their role as a food source most would never have been born in the first place."

They aren't confused. Even the most Orthodox of Jewish factions uphold the right to an abortion under more lenient circumstances than the harshest of anti-abortion laws being proposed

I mean technically in my state Roe being overturned means that an anti-abortion law that only permits abortion in a "good faith effort to save the life of the mother" is now in effect. This law is actually older than my state and was passed by the legislature of a different state, which may make it unique among such abortion laws.

about not raping your daughter

Though your daughter getting you drunk to rape you because she wants to pregnant with your child is explicitly the act of a good girl. Family values FTW.

Would I be right in guessing the protest in question is that one "peaceful protest" where they forcibly removed the local government and declared an autonomous zone for a bit?

 

[Silvanus]

Oh man, you're in for a rude awakening if you actually believe that.

Hint: the most-cited legal scholar and jurist of all time -- not in the US, not in the 20th or 21st Centuries, of all time -- is Richard Posner. Otherwise known as "Antonin Scalia's former colleague at University of Chicago and political ally, and Amy Coney Barrett's mentor".

This is just conflating prolific work on a broad range of topics with being representative on a specific topic.

The most cited book of all time is probably the Bible, but that's a bunch of hooey.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Would I be right in guessing the protest in question is that one "peaceful protest" where they forcibly removed the local government and declared an autonomous zone for a bit?

No

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Believe who they are when they tell you


Putting another bullet in tribal sovereignty while they're at it

 

[Eacaraxe]

This is just conflating prolific work on a broad range of topics with being representative on a specific topic.

That would be because you don't know nearly as much about American jurisprudence as you think you do. Posner's a senior lecturer at University of Chicago (as in "Chicago school" University of Chicago) and retired Justice of the Seventh Circuit Court. Regardless whose list you're reading of most influential jurists, he's going to be at the top or damned near it. Sure, he's a prolific writer on a broad range of topics, but I'm speaking exclusively to his citations as a legal scholar and jurist.

That is being representative on a specific topic; it's the dictionary definition of it.