ForumTouchy Subjects ► Supreme Court Overturning Abortion Rights
E7 said:
Trigger laws in 30 states? I'm not sure about that.


The exact numbers are as follows: 13 states have post-Roe anti-abortion laws that are designed to go into effect as soon as Roe is overturned. 9 states have pre-Roe anti-abortion laws that are still on the books that can go into effect when it's overturned. 7 states have laws stating that they intend to restrict abortion as much as possible once Roe is overturned. There's some overlap between these, so removing overlap, these laws apply to 26 states total. So not quite 30, but close.

E7 said:
Sure it sucks, but I don't know of a single state that doesn't have something written into their constitution allowing for abortions when there are major medical concerns.


0 states have explicit protections written into their constitution. Only 11 state courts have inferred abortion protections in their state constitutions. 4 have provisions that specifically state their constitutions do not protect abortion rights.



Edit: And as far as "democracy at work" goes, would you say that should apply to other issues too? How about things like racial discrimination, religious discrimination, or laws that outlaw certain kinds of sex (between consenting adults)?
  
30 is probably a valid estimate for abortion restrictions post decision. I think it's 13 states with trigger laws, and there are about 23 (w/ some overlap) like AZ where we have invalid legislation that would be reenacted or re-enforced if things are overturned. I found out ours is not a trigger law just yesterday. It's possible we may pass a new one soon, but as of right now it's just old laws that would go back into effect.

Also, I am not really okay with this being a democratic process. "Half the people in this country have hurt feelings, and all are fundamentally getting their rights stripped away, it's completely equal". This is an individual freedoms issue under a certain number of weeks, and that number is definitely not 6 and should be determined by a board of doctors. If you don't want an abortion, fine don't get one, but there are circumstances of difficulty that already exist in locating ectopic pregnancies, proving fetal abnormalities, viabilities, etc. This is a medical issue and just because it harms some people's sensibilities to know that fetuses are dying somewhere doesn't mean the rest of us should suffer for it. There's so many stories of pro-life women having to go through birth issues and realizing abortion isn't always what they picture it as. Even if it is, I think we all know race/class warfare is a major factor of this issue. This is just another example of something the wealthy will be able to get around and we cannot.

If democracy was not tainted by gerrymandering, limited voting options, and citizenship restrictions, I would be okay with it being democratic. We all know that is not the case right now and our democracy is broken. That larger issue is causing such a severe downstream effect that it's impossible to know what our country would even look like if people's voices were being respected. Obv that's a bigger issue here, but it is relevant to this thread. A president who lost the popular vote is now represented by a third of our Supreme Court justices.

Edit: it took a while to write this on my phone. Was supposed to be in direct response to E7 post. We all had the same idea lol
  
E7 said:
Trigger laws in 30 states? I'm not sure about that.

Still, if the democratic majority in a state doesn't want legal abortion then that's just democracy at work. Sure it sucks, but I don't know of a single state that doesn't have something written into their constitution allowing for abortions when there are major medical concerns.

I support bodily autonomy rights for women, but we honestly need a stronger precedent than Roe v. Wade. I haven't yet heard the supreme court recordings, but I'd imagine that stronger laws protecting abortion rights are probably not far off .

You would be wrong. Also, after Roe V Wade goes I'm pretty sure Gay Marriage is next.
  
Women wouldn't be 'persons' in Canada if the Privy Council (our highest appeal court at the time) hadn't said so. Democracy is stupid, slow, and determined half by people of below average intelligence/moral character. I don't give a fuck if 99% of people in a country think abortion and gay marriage are wrong. They aren't, and denying them is atrocious. Trusting that it will probably eventually be okay is utterly devoid of humanity and compassion. This will literally kill people*, and that won't be stopped by a few very limited exceptions for "life threatening pregnancies", if those are allowed at all.

* In a variety of fun and exciting ways.
  
The point is that whether you are for abortion or against it, there are much better ways to prevent it than by outlawing it. People will still do it, but the difference is that the poor people will try to do it themselves because a baby would mess with their finances even more. The rich and the powerful can and always will be able to get abortions safely. The only way to actually reduce rate of abortion is to advocate for accessible birth control, comprehensive sex ed, and bodily autonomy. Everyone should be working towards the same goal here.
  
Except they don't have the same goal.
  
The point is that whether you are for abortion or against it, there are much better ways to prevent it than by outlawing it. People will still do it, but the difference is that the poor people will try to do it themselves because a baby would mess with their finances even more. The rich and the powerful can and always will be able to get abortions safely. The only way to actually reduce rate of abortion is to advocate for accessible birth control, comprehensive sex ed, and bodily autonomy. Everyone should be working towards the same goal here.

I've got to save this stuff somewhere.
  
E7 said:
I think the problem at hand is less about polarization and more about abortion access.
The OP's main point was about it being divisive, I was responding to that. The US will be divided over this issue no matter which side currently gets its way.

What is it about the US that makes it come up with these weird issues that just aren't issues in the rest of the English-speaking world? In CANZUK, anti-abortion sentiment is marginal.
  
Scoggles said:
Alito's writing is so logically and morally bankrupt, he should be disbarred. It's actually infuriating to read.
I read the whole thing the day it was leaked, and I thought his arguments were on point. The ruling on Roe was indefensible, and Casey was only marginally better.
I'm in AZ and we have a trigger law for this, so I'm pretty scared. I want kids eventually so an unplanned one could be okay for me, but it's still terrible and can affect unhealthy birth situations too where the baby could kill you.
From a quick Google, AZ's trigger law makes exceptions for medical emergencies.
Millpond said:
I don't see why this will divide Americans any more than they already are. It's legal, and half the country don't like it. Now it's going to be illegal, and half the country don't like it. It's just a different half.
It's even better than that. Currently, abortion is legal nation-wide. Unless the leaked decision is reversed, abortion will become legal in states that want legal abortion and illegal in states that don't. Of course, there will still be many people on both sides who are very angry because they want their stance enforced nationally, but this is far closer to a political compromise than the status quo.
TheDFRA said:
And as far as "democracy at work" goes, would you say that should apply to other issues too? How about things like racial discrimination, religious discrimination, or laws that outlaw certain kinds of sex (between consenting adults)?
Religious discrimination by the government is explicitly unconstitutional (1st amendment). In the opinion, Alito directly addresses the critical difference between SCOTUS cases ruling that racial or sexual discrimination run afoul of the 14th amendment and its ruling on abortion; the tl;dr is that states have a compelling interest to protect unborn life.
If democracy was not tainted by gerrymandering, limited voting options, and citizenship restrictions, I would be okay with it being democratic.
The federal protection of the right to abortion has never been democratic. It was enshrined into law by nine unelected men, proscribing actual democratically elected state legislatures from representing the will of their constituents.

If you believe in democracy and in abortion as a universal right, you have one or two intellectually consistent paths forward: pass a constitutional amendment or (maybe) pass a federal law.
Also, after Roe V Wade goes I'm pretty sure Gay Marriage is next.
Obergefell will probably stand, but speaking of cases that preempted and undermined the legislative process at the height of a moral controversy...
Millpond said:
What is it about the US that makes it come up with these weird issues that just aren't issues in the rest of the English-speaking world? In CANZUK, anti-abortion sentiment is marginal.
Many of us dislike needlessly killing unborn humans here. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  
🙄
  
When I asked about trigger laws, I was looking for a relevant source to show these 30 states so I could see what makes you think there are 30 states with trigger laws; I trust after about 10 years on and off this forum, that we all know by now to stay in our lane where it concerns matters where we're not experts. If you've ever taken a mandatory college-level 'intro to research' course like Lib 160 here at ISU, you know if you're making a claim about what is or isn't legal in a given US State, it shouldn't be given without a source; you have the burden of proof.

This what I'm looking at.

There are a number of blue states with some protections, those with 'trigger laws' and those where it was illegal prior to the precedent-setting case, Roe v. Wade. I'm not a fan of slactivism in this matter, and the left in the US hasn't done enough to protect abortion rights. I don't think precedent-setting court cases are a strong way for the judicial system to guarantee the access and right to elective abortions.

If you don't like that take that this is 'democracy at work', I'm not saying this is an ideal example of a democratic system at work; on the contrary, I believe democracy is only as just as the will of the people is to the extent they have democratic power over the system. I'm alluding to the idea that widespread systemic change is needed, or many rights could be stripped away, such as gay marriage.

The responses to me here remind me of reddit tier leftists. You guys have such a negative reaction to someone like me, not actually arguing against abortion rights.

Millpond said:
The OP's main point was about it being divisive, I was responding to that. The US will be divided over this issue no matter which side currently gets its way.
Right you are, didn't see OP's comment before the question, but I do think this will cause further division. Abortion is seen as an act of aggression by the right just as the left will see denying the right to an abortion as an act of aggression. Anytime an issue like this goes before a court, it results in greater division; maybe not lasting, but people are being called to action on both the left and the right. While this issue is at the forefront of people's minds, we'll probably see greater polarization.
  
I'm worried about practical impacts that will happen to real people, yo. You might be a little too hung up on the theory rather than realizing how many people this is going to seriously harm.
  
I don't have time to respond to everything right now, but I just need to jump in and say eri is right. Everyone keeps focusing on the "medical emergencies" part. How do you prove its an emergency? Ectopic pregnancy isn't an "emergency" until your tubes burst. There's plenty of opinion and recommendation about unsafe pregnancies just like any other medical issue. You're acting like doctors will always be right about this and catch these issues at the correct moment it becomes an emergency. That is not how it works.

If someone tells me my pregnancy is likely to be unsafe, I still have to wait until it's decisive. Even if that kills me or takes away my future right to give birth.
  
"Only in medical emergencies” invariably means “only when you’re about to die”. That’s the very definition of a medical emergency. So much for preventative measures. “Just don’t get pregnant if you don't want an ectopic pregnancy” is like saying “just don’t get sick if you've got HIV”.
  
I was going to mention the possible impacts of denial of abortion access, but I was pretty tired yesterday. To be honest, though, I couldn't forecast what will happen next.

It's possible that in time enough support for abortion access might result in legislators making new stronger arguments for the right to abortion under existing laws, maybe time for new abortion legislation, and any number of changes.

Of course, between now and then, I'm not quite sure, but I'd say it's probably going to create a financial strain since many red states don't offer much aid to low-income families, a bit of a health crisis when women pursue unsafe abortion options, and women with pregnancy complications can't get abortion due to the presence of a heartbeat, but that's all somewhat speculative. We'll have to see.

There's a lot of nuance related to what kind of abortions are allowed for medical reasons depending on which state you're in.
  
E7 said:
When I asked about trigger laws, I was looking for a relevant source to show these 30 states so I could see what makes you think there are 30 states with trigger laws; I trust after about 10 years on and off this forum, that we all know by now to stay in our lane where it concerns matters where we're not experts. If you've ever taken a mandatory college-level 'intro to research' course like Lib 160 here at ISU, you know if you're making a claim about what is or isn't legal in a given US State, it shouldn't be given without a source; you have the burden of proof.

This what I'm looking at.

Your link backs up the numbers I gave you so you can use that as the source for what I said.

E7 said:
The responses to me here remind me of reddit tier leftists. You guys have such a negative reaction to someone like me, not actually arguing against abortion rights.

Really? Most of your reactions, including mine are not negative. It seems like you hyperfocused on negativity.

Religious discrimination by the government is explicitly unconstitutional (1st amendment). In the opinion, Alito directly addresses the critical difference between SCOTUS cases ruling that racial or sexual discrimination run afoul of the 14th amendment and its ruling on abortion; the tl;dr is that states have a compelling interest to protect unborn life.

I was not referencing Alito's opinion specifically. I was referencing the argument that the other user put forward and asking about how far the belief in using the democratic process extends. However, I'll add that Alito (who dissented in Obergefell) only drew a distinction to say that this specific case extends only to abortion. The legal reasoning in the case with respect to unenumerated rights can apply just as well to Obergefell and Lawrence, which is the main reason why people are talking about them. Look no further than Alito's dissent in Obergefell.
  
Look, outlawing abortion in ONE state is too many, and will harm too many people. That's the real point I'm trying to make. It doesn't MATTER if it's still available in SOME. It's going to cause major harm if it's illegal in ANY states.
  
If abortion is legal in some states but not others, really what you are doing is making abortion illegal for poor people. Which is insane.
  
If abortion is legal in some states but not others, really what you are doing is making abortion illegal for poor people. Which is insane.

Bonus fun: some states are looking to make it illegal to get an abortion in a different state.
  
That's not how jurisdiction works!
  
Hey anty, you're a lawyer or something, right? Can you explain how that would even be enforceable or is it just a bullshit power play?

I seriously don't even comprehend the argument for abortion restriction at this point. How does it fucking hurt you what someone else does? So many of these people are pro gun rights and anti vax too. You'd think they'd see the irony.
  
I am a lawyer in Canada. I have no idea how law works in the US, other than "it is fucked up". It sure as shit wouldn't be enforceable here. There are circumstances where you can get charged for something you did outside of Canada, but they are very rare and specific.
  
Haha. My friend, due to inherent distrust and competition between states, the constitution can technically bend to support persecution of "crimes" in other states due to the full faith and credit clause.

I would be willing to bet this could be bent to completely fuck over the "travelling abortion" loophole.
  
eriophora said:
Look, outlawing abortion in ONE state is too many, and will harm too many people. That's the real point I'm trying to make. It doesn't MATTER if it's still available in SOME. It's going to cause major harm if it's illegal in ANY states.
Pro-lifers hold the exact opposite stance: elective abortion causes major harm (to children) if it's legal in any states. In a federalist system, leaving it to the states is a reasonable compromise.
If abortion is legal in some states but not others, really what you are doing is making abortion illegal for poor people. Which is insane.
The rich can bypass all kinds of laws in all kinds of ways. Should we not have workplace safety laws because the wealthy can often outsource their labor sources to countries without those worker protections? This argument is also an incredibly ineffective emotional appeal to anyone who believes elective abortion inflicts net harm on everyone involved. You're arguing that it disproportionately hurts poor people, but from our perspective it disproportionately protects poor children (and, arguably, parents).
I seriously don't even comprehend the argument for abortion restriction at this point. How does it fucking hurt you what someone else does?
Abortion deprives unborn humans of their right to life. I don't have to be a victimized group to advocate on behalf of a victimized group.
So many of these people are pro gun rights and anti vax too. You'd think they'd see the irony.
Arguably that irony goes both ways. Personally, I'm anti-abortion, pro-vax, and generally anti-gun - I'll also throw in pro-welfare. In other words, I'm consistently "pro-life". Can you say that you're consistently "pro-choice"?
  
Would any brave souls care to summarise the actual legal points being considered in this decision?
  
Forum > Touchy Subjects > Supreme Court Overturning Abortion Rights