Yes, I am ashamed of my country
Period- and fertility-tracking apps have become weapons in Friday's post-Roe America. These seemingly innocuous trackers contain tons of data about sexual history, menstruation and pregnancy dates, all of which could now be used to prosecute women seeking abortions — or incite digital witch hunts in states that offer abortion …
At least one MP and one "lord" in the UK have come out and applauded the result, and many more applaud the general hard-right side of American politics.
So, it's not so rosy here, either.
"It’s not any legislature’s business what an adult does to their own body."
The federal and state legislatures disagree. They reserve the right to draft you (if you're male), jail you for recreational drug use in the privacy of your own home, fine you for taking non-abusable theraputic drugs without a government permission slip, order you to work a minimum amount to pay child support and quite a few other things.
They will also have you physically dragged to a court, jail or morgue if you resist any of the above.
"They reserve the right to draft you (if you're male), jail you for recreational drug use in the privacy of your own home, fine you for taking non-abusable theraputic drugs without a government permission slip, order you to work a minimum amount to pay child support and quite a few other things.
They will also have you physically dragged to a court, jail or morgue if you resist any of the above."
That is true, however it does not make it right.
For the record, people should be able to put whatever crap they want into their own bodies, however it would be better if people were better educated about the consequences*. Ordering someone to pay child support is one which I am all for, as long as it's proportional (I'm not sure what you mean by 'ordering someone to *work* - surely they have some source of income for themselves anyway, and if not the government can't force an employer to take someone on). With regards to the draft, while I'm in principle against war and prefer the idea of a professional army, if shit ever properly hits the fan I would be al for a *properly implemented* draft that was properly random and that had no loopholes allowing rich people's/politicians' kids from squirming out.
*including, might I add, when the consequences are "it's gonna be fun and there is very little possibility of harm or addiction"
Just to poke the hornets nest here...because why not?
If a woman says she is pregnant and the "father" says he doesnt want the child and will have nothing to do with it, well within what would be considerred the appropriate period to allow for abortion should he then be held liable for child support?
If the "father" has no say in the continuation / abortion should he be on the hook for the costs especially if his intentions have been made clear from the start?
Obviously the situation is different if he bails after the fact, in that case yes definitly be on the hook.
e.g. the drunken one night stand that you dont hear from for 10 months who shows up with kid in tow demanding money. She told you she was on the pill / said she was infertile / whatever.....
"e.g. the drunken one night stand that you dont hear from for 10 months who shows up with kid in tow demanding money. She told you she was on the pill / said she was infertile / whatever....."
I can't speak for the UK, but here in the states even having a formal contract to that effect won't excuse you from paying child support to her. Nor are those payments predicated on need - she might be wealthy and you might be poor, but you'd still owe her support.
For the record, people should be able to put whatever crap they want into their own bodies
All rights come with obligations and consequences. If we take alcohol at one end of the spectrum, If someone were to imbibe too much, and then, say by driving a car shouldn't I be protected from the life changes consequences of being hit by the car?
Even if we take it a step back and say you "only" wrapped the car around a tree and now you're disability benefit for the rest of your life why should my taxes go towards that disability payment, after all it's a consequence of your actions?
In short as soon as your actions impact others (society) then those others get to express their opinion on those actions and get a say in what the group finds acceptable.
"In short as soon as your actions impact others (society) then those others get to express their opinion on those actions and get a say in what the group finds acceptable."
Exactly, which is why drinking alcohol is legal, but drunk driving is not. It's why smoking in your own home is legal but in a restaurant or other public place it's not. There's no justification for eg weed, mushrooms, LSD etc to be illegal if consumed privately.
I had family a member who developed schizophrenia after being addicted to weed. There are scientific links between the two. Granted he may have already been at-risk and the weed just pushed him over the edge, but personally I still consider that enough justification.
As for other drugs, most have addictive qualities that can and do cause addicts to turn from productive members of society to burdens.
@jmch "Ordering someone to pay child support is one which I am all for"
I agree in the case of divorce, assuming the couple can't reach an amicable agreement out of court. But I don't agree in the case of accidental pregnancies in casual relationships.
"I'm not sure what you mean by 'ordering someone to *work*"
I tried to make that clear by writing "...a minimum amount." In the US a judge can order a non-custodial parent to work more hours or find a better job in order to increase child support payments.
What about the child body?
Is that also the womans body?
If a pregnant woman is hit during pregnancy and the child is lost - that's treated as murder, yet the mother can willfully terminate and it's not?
I'm actually pro-choice, but the law needs to be sorted out. The child cannot be considered a person purely based on whether the mother wants to have him/her or not.
This post has been deleted by its author
So how do you feel about the Supreme Court striking down some of New York's gun laws?
Or does your "right to life" not include "right to live"?
You're arguing both sides of a point.
You think that judges should intentionally misread that Americans have a constitutional right to an abortion based on the right to privacy.
However you don't think that judges should interpret the vague right to bear arms as allowing unlimited gun ownership.
Both arguments are about what the constitution says. You want an outrageous misreading in one case and a debatable reading in the other.
The states can legalise or ban abortion now. The same situation we have in Europe.
Unless you think the "framers" sat there thinking "privacy" also means "abortion", you cannot argue that the right to an abortion is in the constitution. Argue for it to be added, fine, but it isn't in there right now.
"Americans have a constitutional right to an abortion based on the right to privacy."
They might not have a constitutional right to abortion, but they have a right that all their data including location and medical data is constitutionally protected.
"The states can legalise or ban abortion now. The same situation we have in Europe."
Well, not exactly because the (red) states are going far beyond abortion banning, they are also banning travel to other states for abortion, wanting to extradite abortion providers from other states, and are paying cold hard cash to snitches (which is going to result in many many cases of people wrongfully accused and spending months or years in legal hell just so their neighbours can earn 10 grand). That's not just legislating against something which they believe is wrong (which is the case for people who genuinely believe that life begins at conception, but that is at least a point that can be debated), it's being cruel and vindictive to anyone caught in that situation (including, I might point out, every Republican woman in these states and all the lovers-on-the-side of the holier-than-thou male politicians).
Somehow I think that that last point is going to result in a tremendous anti-Republcan backlash at the polls.
> they are also banning travel to other states for abortion
They ( in my view wrongly ) believe that abortion is murder.
In Britain we used to have a similar view with euthanasia. It was threatened at one point that anybody who helped anybody else travel to Dignitas would face prosecution for murder.
This isn't logically inconsistent. If you believe that abortion is murder, travelling to perform the act should still be punished.
I don't follow that view, but it seems that you aren't even interested in acknowledging that there are two sides to the abortion debate.
> Somehow I think that that last point is going to result in a tremendous anti-Republcan backlash at the polls.
Fine. Good even. If the people want to legalise abortion then they should do it through the ballot box.
What shouldn't happen is activist judges ( as in the 70's ) making up their own laws for political reasons.
"This isn't logically inconsistent. If you believe that abortion is murder, travelling to perform the act should still be punished."
No it's not logically inconsistent, to anyone who believes abortion is murder. But they don't just want to make it illegal for their own state citizens to have an abortion elsewhere, they want to make it illegal for practitioners in other states to perform such. Which, while also morally consistent, is legally bollocks - they are effectively claiming universal jurisdiction over the topic.
Note that it's also unconstitutional in the US as I believe that would fall under interstate trade, which only the federal government can regulate.
"it seems that you aren't even interested in acknowledging that there are two sides to the abortion debate"
Not at all, I'm personally against abortion, I'm simply in favour of women being able to choose to do so (within certain limits, but more like the 20-week rather than 6-week limit ), or for doctors to be able to perform an abortion if the mother's health is at risk*.
"It was threatened at one point that anybody who helped anybody else travel to Dignitas would face prosecution for murder."
Just out of curiosity, was anyone ever prosecuted? Because the "it was threatened" sounds like empty political posturing.
*Note the recent case in Malta, where abortion is illegal, of a pregnant US tourist whose placenta partially detached. There was zero chance of the pregnancy being carried to term and high chance of the woman developing a life-threatening infection, but because the fetus still had a heartbeat and the woman's life wasn't *immediately* in danger, doctors could not terminate the pregnancy. She had to be airlifted out to Spain.
With "bounties" of up to $10k on offer for dobbing in someone seeking abortions; a viable career choice would be to deliberately get people up the duff and then dob them in when they travel to the adjacent state.
The favoured rallying cry of the NRA T-shirt is "Freedom" spelled with two AR15's in place of the "e". I find it somewhat ironic that the same outfit seek to create this ludicrous stasi-like dob-your-neighbour in campaign; which is, the very antithesis of freedom.
Freedom, if you're white, male and gun-wielding is not freedom. You are, in fact, a slave to the very guns and suppliers you insist on defending...
I still find it amusing that the Democrats are considered "left" wing; when by European standards even they would certainly be regarded as right wing. What the hell that leaves the Republicans as is anyone's guess. Dinosaurs?
Unfortunately for us big Comets aren't that selective in who they remove.
At what point do they become children? Most of the world, including the US has for a very, very long time accepted somewhere of the order 20 weeks as a reasonable balance - with exceptions possible for medical complications and the like.
You have no right to claim the defence of freedom without also defending the freedom of choice of the parent that might find themselves in the same situation. What if the unborn baby represents a threat to the life of the parent? And/or the unborn baby is there because of criminal action? Let the individual decide. That is the very definition of freedom. Do not enforce your brand of "freedom" on everyone else, because it is not freedom.
Frankly the level of disdain I have right now for the Republicans is almost on par with that of the Taliban and if you can't see the un-necessary problems you lot are creating with religious zealotry of your own then a cold hard look in the mirror is necessary.
"Well, not exactly because the (red) states are going far beyond abortion banning, they are also banning travel to other states for abortion, wanting to extradite abortion providers from other states, and are paying cold hard cash to snitches (which is going to result in many many cases of people wrongfully accused and spending months or years in legal hell just so their neighbours can earn 10 grand)."
And clearly the USA learned nothing from the witch hunts that created exactly the same problem. Anyone could turn on someone (well a woman anyway) that they didn't like and accuse them.
"Somehow I think that that last point is going to result in a tremendous anti-Republcan backlash at the polls." Again, I think that history shows clearly that the backlash won't come in time to save many people's lost lives.
I suspect @herman was referring to this section from the US Bill of Rights:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Roe v. Wade held that the 14th amendment to the US constitution prohibited individual states from regulating abortion prior to fetal viability, and Dobbs holds that the constitution is silent on the topic of abortion. Neither ruling established a fetal right to life.
As for the New York ruling, it changes the circumstances in which private citizens are allowed to carry a sidearm, but not the circumstances in which they're allowed to use one (i.e. almost never in most jurisdictions).
Because America and Americans don't give a shit about the rights of women. There isn't even a constitutional guarantee of equal treatment for women. Unfortunately, this is reflected elsewhere but at least in civilised countries women's rights are guaranteed in law, even if this doesn't translate into reality.
It's a dark day for womens' right. I used to believe that progress might be slow but at least it would only go in one direction. The last 5 years have been disastrous for womens' right in the US and the UK.
And in other news this week, the Germans threw out an old law banning clinics and doctors from informing patients about abortion procedures.
Abortion was legal, but your doctor couldn't tell you clinics that did them.
I foresee a migration by child-bearing age women to states where their healthcare is not predicated on some old man's moral indignation. When there are fewer women in red states than in the one-child-per years in China, then maybe some sanity will come, but I doubt it.
I also see a rise i the already dismal maternal mortality rates in the USA due to ectopic pregnancies, infections from incomplete natural miscarriages and the like.
A Lysistrata-like protest in those red states has been promoted.
I must admit, contrary to 30 years ago I find it more and more chellenging to separate trolls from people with simply very strange and distorted (IMO) views of reality. Especially when topics are discussed that affect or are affected by a person's belief system.
This starts to include discussions in RL...
Please do not feed the trolls.
Agreed. I'm staying out of "all that", too.
As for data privacy protection in general? I'm all FOR that. I oppose any tracking "in the cloud" or anywhere NOT on the user's device [and even then it needs double top secret protection]. And do NOT sell or disclose that info to ANYONE.
Tracking is BAD, M-Kay? Maybe THIS time it will be stopped?
If you actually had ever spoken to a woman would know that very many women are not lucky enough to have completely regular menstrual cycles. Two regular cycles is approximately 8 weeks so it is trivial that many women do not know they are pregnant until more than 6 weeks have elapsed.
The damage was done by a Republican senate when they refused to accept any SCOTUS judge selected by Obama. This let the next idiot pack SCOTUS with the most disgusting arseholes he could find. As is typical of Republicans, they delayed the damage until the democrats were in power knowing that much of the electorate are so abysmally ignorant of how their government works that they would blame Biden. Even the SCOTUS judges are aware of just how awful they are. They tried to do this in secret and threw a tantrum when evidence of their activity was leaked.
So you're of the opinion that the Government intruding into what someone does with their sexual organs doesn't constitute an invasion of privacy? And also, presumably, of the opinion that a fairly weak argument should be sufficient to strip a right that's been held for half a century from millions of women?
Argue semantics all you want, it's still a shitty move made by narrow minded arseholes.
Note too that one of the justices has already written that he believes the same logic applies to the availability/legality of contraception and homosexuality.
There seem to be an awful lot of people talking about Christian morality in support of this, despite the US supposedly having separation of Church and state.
"So you're of the opinion that the Government intruding into what someone does with their sexual organs doesn't constitute an invasion of privacy?"
It absolutely IS an invasion of privacy.
But the constitution also provides for the right to life (and, may I note, does this much more explicitly). What the supreme court is saying is that a state can decide when 'life' begins, and federal government cannot overturn that on constitutional grounds. (Which, legally, makes sense since right to 'life' is also constitutionally protected).
What is being argued over, in effect, is a legal definition of when life begins- conception, 6 weeks, n weeks, moment of birth??? That is an issue which doesn't have a constitutional basis. Indeed that is a question that doesn't even have an objective scientific basis, which is why many people turn to religion for the answer.
Personally my belief is that life is a gradual development not a binary yes/no, so there will never be a 'true' answer. The closest I can work out for myself is that after 24 weeks, when the chances of a baby surviving outside the womb are better than 50%, that's 'alive' in my book. And to be sure, I would allow abortions up to 20-22 weeks. That should be enough time to take an informed decision however hard it might be.
Besides that, instead of scaring/traumatising kids/teens about sex and reproduction, they need to be well educated on the subject, remove taboos and allow them to make their own choices. That alone will vastly reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancies.
This isn't semantics. This is the entire debate.
The moral question of the legality of abortion is a completely different one.
> Note too that one of the justices has already written that he believes the same logic applies to the availability/legality of contraception and homosexuality.
Do you believe that the framers of the constitution wanted to include the right to those things? I don't. That doesn't mean that they should be illegal.
> Christian morality
I'm not remotely interested in that. There are two debates, I'm interested and annoyed in equal measure by people such as yourself wanting judges to pretend that the constitution says things that it doesn't.
Do you believe that the framers of the constitution wanted to include the right to those things? I don't.
Yes, this is the funny thing. Several of the people who wrote the constitution owned slaves. Perhaps some of them thought that black people were people but am sure none of them thought that they should be treated equally as white people. Very unlikely any of them thought that women should be treated equally to men.
Who would care what these people thought other than for historical interest?
Imagine if physics was done this way. We would have committees which sat trying to pore through the writings of Newton and insist that the laws of physics must be as he wrote them. Occasionally rulings would be put forth making General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics illegal.
Increasingly seems that problem is that human beings are simply too stupid to survive.
> Who would care what these people thought other than for historical interest?
I suppose you could argue that the only thing it got wrong is that black people aren't only 2/5ths of a person and the rest is perfect. But that seems unlikely, doesn't it?
In reality, it was written to reflect the norms of the time and the beliefs of the time by imperfect people. Do you think that a document that defined black people as 2/5ths of a person is likely to be intended to be particularly progressive in terms of abortion rights ( did abortions even exist back then? ) or anything else?
>> Note too that one of the justices has already written that he believes the same logic applies to the availability/legality of contraception and homosexuality.
> Do you believe that the framers of the constitution wanted to include the right to those things? I don't. That doesn't mean that they should be illegal.
As Small Snake implied, I don't think it should matter what they wanted to include - many of the framers didn't view black people as equal, Women had no vote and the weaponry guaranteed by the 2nd amendment was incredibly basic compared to what's available now.
What matters is the *right* that they intended to confer.
The conferred a right to privacy from the Government sticking it's beak into private affairs. It doesn't matter whether they intended that to cover homosexuality or not - nowadays we recognise that one's sexual proclivities and health matters are private, and therefore are (well, were) protected by the constitution.
If it's accepted that the 2nd covers weaponry that the founders couldn't even conceive of, why is it such a stretch to believe that other parts of the Constitution should have similarly broad interpretations?
>> Christian morality
> I'm not remotely interested in that.
That's fine, but don't try and pretend that you're not stood alongside a large number of people who are.
> The conferred a right to privacy from the Government sticking it's beak into private affairs
That's a politically motivated stretch that has rightfully been overturned.
You could make the same argument to insist on the legalisation of all drugs. In fact, it's the same argument.
> What matters is the *right* that they intended to confer.
No, what matters is what the document says. The document that was written by clearly flawed men with imperfect information.
The way to change it is to vote for it. Not pretend that some historical document says something it doesn't.
> That's fine, but don't try and pretend that you're not stood alongside a large number of people who are
You don't know what my views on abortion are because I don't think I've given them. The only view I've given is whether or not people should pretend that some old document says something that it definitely doesn't.
I believe that people shouldn't pretend that.
It took the republicans about 40 years from when they added banning abortion to their platform to when they were able to make it happen.
Democrats could fix the issue more quickly if they had a few more senators (to overcome the two who are against abortion) though they would need to drop the filibuster to do so - which would leave the door open for republicans to do the same if they get control.
Though given that republicans are already calling for a national law to ban abortion, I think it is a virtual certainty they would drop the filibuster if that was all that stood in their way of finally reaching their goal of bringing back coat hangers and women dying in alleyways.
The judges merely interpret the law - just as the Roe v Wade judges did in the 70's.
The 70's judges pretended, for political reasons, that the constitution included the right to an abortion.
The present judges said that no, actually, it doesn't.
You know that the Roe v Wade judges were unelected, right? Or were they the right sort of unelected?
Given who wrote the US constitution and the worldview that prevailed in the 1780's, it is not surprising that it would say zero about women etc.
What is concerning is that this case clearly shows the Constitution needs to be massively updated to reflect current worldviews.
Reading some of the Syllabus, I'm a little happier that the UK doesn't have a written constitution
How is it democracy when only 13% of the US wants a complete and total ban on all abortions, and a clear majority want abortion to be legal in all or most circumstances? Despite that, about half the states will have such a total ban within a year when those without "trigger laws" go back into session.
If this was put to a national vote, the only question is whether we'd end up with abortion legal in all circumstances or it would come with some restrictions (I personally think it would a reasonable compromise to cut it off at whatever the ~6 month range is when a premature birth can be viable without medical intervention, except when the mother's life is in danger or the fetus will have some serious health issues)
Of course we don't have national referendums, but I would look for some states that have a procedure for allowing this to put forth measures to overturn their legislatures' ban on abortions - and when they try look for those republicans to do everything in their power to try to block those referendums or see if they can pass a law that takes those voter initiated referendums off the books. Because republicans only want democracy when they agree with the result - just look at their support for the orange insurrectionist's election lies! If Trump had had his way, the US would no longer be a democracy, and the constitution would be toilet paper.
The republicans are not getting their way due to democracy, they are getting their way because of expressly antidemocratic means - in particular the two senators per state, heavy gerrymandering of house districts, state governments suppressing the vote in democratic strongholds in cities by reducing the number of polling places leading to long lines versus no lines in republican strongholds, and the resultant ability for republicans to become president via the electoral college despite losing the popular vote.
Why should Americans in California be able to tell the voters of, say, Alabama, what their states laws should be?
If the people of Alabama believe that abortion is murder, that most Americans outside of Alabama disagree isn't of much importance.
You talk of anti-democratic but abortion in America was legalised through the most anti-democractic means - activist judges pretending that the American constitution included the right to an abortion.
If you want it (re-)legalised, do it the democratic way - through the ballot box.
a clear majority want abortion to be legal in all or most circumstances
You might want to consider and choose your words with a little more care in a debate such as this one.
That statement could quite easily be interpreted that a clear majority want abortion to be legal up to the moment of birth with a minority even suggesting that "abortion" should be legal within a week (or month) after birth.
I'm under the following impression
A clear majority want abortion to be legal in all or most circumstances within the first trimester, on medical grounds with the second trimester and none in the third trimester
"Basically, the court said that health care is a state matter, not a federal matter."
Slight correction, basically the supreme court said that health care is a politician matter, not a court matter. The report even explicitly states that it could be federal politicians, not just state politicians.
"But when it comes to creating new rights, the Constitution directs the people to the various processes of democratic self-government contemplated by the Constitution—state legislation, state constitutional amendments, federal legislation, and federal constitutional amendments"
DOBBS, ETC, page 127.
I'm pretty sure it would never have been possible for democrats to pass a law to formally legalize abortion. There have been a few times since Roe when democrats had a filibuster proof majority of 60 in the Senate - most recently in 2009 - but there have always been a few anti abortion democrats and few if any pro abortion republicans to balance them out.
"a Democratic president, a Democratic Congress and a Democratic senate were unable to stop this"
It's called separation of powers. Democratic president / congress / senate cannot do anything to overturn a supreme court decision. The only thing they can do is appoint members of the supreme court when a position becomes vacant.
This is something that Republicans twigged onto a few years ago, and instead of appointing Supreme Court members based on their judicial credentials, starting appointing them on the basis of being (a) as conservative as possible and (b) as young as possible to make sure they spend as long a time as possible on the bench, and would not be so inconsiderate as to inconveniently die when Democrats are in a position to nominate the replacement.
It's called separation of powers. Democratic president / congress / senate cannot do anything to overturn a supreme court decision.
That's only really a half truth though. Yes a democratic president / congress / senate cannot do anything to overturn a supreme court decision but they can legislate so as the next time the question comes up the answer will be different. I'm also under the impression that's what they have done in response to the Microsoft Ireland case with the US CLOUD Act
They'd need 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster. They have only 50 democratic senators, and at least one is very publicly anti abortion.
What you refer to with the CLOUD Act was not a highly charged partisan affair where one of the parties was united against it and breaking a filibuster would be necessary.
Erm…. It could have prevented Trump getting in after Obama. That would have prevented him making the political landscape even more toxic and divided. Most of all it would have prevented that orange POS from loading the SCOTUS with judges best described as lying, knuckle dragging theocrats.
Trump appointed religious fundamentalists to the Supreme Court. These are people who think legal scholarship and criminal justice have been on the wane ever since the Salem Witch Trials. Just a few more votes against Trump could have stopped him before he got started. If only.
Unfortunately people can't vote in hindsight, so those who stayed home instead of casting a vote for someone they found distasteful in Hillary but are now bemoaning this ruling will have to live with it.
The republicans have been far better at getting people to vote for people they find distasteful using the judges who would be appointed to the Supreme Court as the reason. I think a lot of democrats were in denial that Roe could ever possibly be overturned, and now they are demanding Biden and congressional democrats "do something". Unfortunately for them you can't quickly undo 40+ years of work on the republican side.
They have the advantage that many more people support leaving Roe in place (over 70%) versus those who think it should have been overturned, but getting them to show up year after year to vote when it looks like no progress is being made as the anti abortion voters did won't be easy.
Except that it isn't a Dem Congress and Senate. And certainly not a Dem. Supreme Court either.
Control of the Supreme Court does seem to be able to Trump control of any of the other three... Which is a dubious capability for an unelected body in a supposed Democracy.
In the UK; the courts have responsibility for interpreting the law. In cases where it does not exist, precedent can be set; though in ideal world that precedent should come back to the lower and upper houses for full debate.
Roe vs. Wade might have been overturned but it didn't go back to the house or senate. At least, it hasn't yet.
An executive order might be a viable way to implement some "other" rules at federal level but if the Trumpists have their way this would be an excuse to take up arms - despite their own pariah indulging in such orders frivolously himself. (And many of them subsequently annulled). Where would the armed forces choose to sit in such an event? On the side of the elected government? Untested waters and practically a breeding ground for civil war 2.
The two sided coin that is American politics isn't fit for purpose anymore, and nor is it fit for the UK either. But it's what we have. Change requires motivation and co-operation. Or violence. The status quo clearly isn't acceptable to anyone anymore.
So which will it be? Putin is laughing all the way to Vladivostok with the stupid infighting we inflict on ourselves - mostly at the behest of right wing lunatics.
"So if a Democratic president, a Democratic Congress and a Democratic senate were unable to stop this, exactly what was the point in voting for them ?"
For the purposes of “stopping this”, the Democrats (or, more correctly, Senators who would uphold Roe v Wade) do not hold the Senate.
Why? Well, like the President, the Justices of the Supreme Court can be impeached and removed from office by Congress. However, just like the President, doing so requires a majority of the House of Representatives to vote for impeachment, which triggers them to be sent for trial in front of the Senate, after which a two-thirds majority of Senators must vote for conviction in order to remove them from office.
The first part is easy: there are reasonable claims that the appointments of Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett were all invalid, as all three committed perjury during their appointment hearings. Under questioning, each explicitly denied that they would even consider repealing the judgement in Roe v Wade, and yet, on the very first instance that the matter came before the Court, each agreed wholeheartedly to overturn it. I can believe in Justices having varying changes of opinion after many years, but such a rapid and complete about-face on this issue stretches credulity.
But impeachment isn’t enough. The conviction must be voted for by the Senate, and by 67% or better. In a normally-functioning government, a proven case of perjury would be normally enough to have one or more of these Justices removed from the court, but the highly partisan reality of US politics where most of the 50 Republicans will pretty much vote down any Democratic impeachment, makes such an outcome impossible… unless the Democrats were to somehow secure 67% of the seats in the Senate.
... and that is exactly the point in voting for them.
You make it sound so simple.
Many laws and other changes to legislature and regulation one would want to support are often bundled with other nonsense that you do not want. The classic "check this box if you support HR1234, which bans stealing from the elderly, but also legalizes sterilization of bunnies" ploy that you see in every local election. Either vote for it and do the right thing and save the elderly, or enjoy your sterilized bunnies.
Many state, federal/electoral representatives will not always personally align with your views, even if they align with your party and its views; technically, there is no promise they will uphold what they say they will. Just try to count how many times a blue elected official votes outside their party. No, I will not speculate that a recent charitable donation had anything to do with that, that's wrong.
What about it there's just no one I want to vote for? I am pro-gun, pro-choice, mostly libertarian leaning. I do not fit in either of the cool kids' red or blue boxes. On the odd chance there is someone not pants-on-head stupid and politically unbiased, no one I ever vote for wins, as they do not have million plus dollar ad campaigns with donations flowing in by the busload, nor do they have think tanks or people in high places.
In today's America, your vote matters about as much as stale fart air, money and red vs blue talks much more than actual beliefs.
Vote per-single issue? Government by referendum?
With communications as-it is, it is for the first time actually possible.
Not without risks of course on it's own; there is a hilarious episode of the Orville where they visit a world governed entirely on upvote/downvote of the individual. And too many downvotes equals a personality reset.
But not impossible to get right.
Voting has nothing to do with this.
This is a re-interpretation of the US constitution after it was previously decided that the right to "privacy" included the right to abortion. Obviously that was politically motivated.
The "voting" argument comes later. Now the states have the right to legalise or ban abortions, use your votes to implement your will.
One interview that I have been unable to get out of my mind comes from the 2016 presidential vote. A gentleman who was confined to a wheelchair and was also reliant on an oxygen bottle was asked if he was going to vote Republican.
'Yes', he said
'Even though they aim to repeal ObamaCare and you are using Medicare?'
'Yes', he said. 'I wouldn't vote Democrat if my life depended on it'.
Think about it...
I couldn't believe the blind, thick-headed, utter stupidity of that reply.
Convincing the bottom of society to vote against their best interest is much more effective than convincing the better-off to vote for higher taxes. There are more of them, and you can spoon feed them anything so long as it's presented in the right way. I cite as evidence every dystopian novel of the last 150 years.
Had you asked the same question to a Democrat, they would answer the same way, towards their candidate. both parties are the same. we are to divided nowadays, everybody think "its my way or the highway" without any room for compromising on either direction, it is sad, but truth.
the USA is regressing towards the time when Williamsburg was the capital. The deeply entrenched puritan views of the white population is now coming out for all to see.
The world as shown in 'A Handmaid's Tale' is becoming reality in the former land of the free.
Big tech is silent because they need to see which way the wind is blowing before they start handing out millions and millions in political donations ahead of the elections in November. They want to be sure that they are on the winning side.
That is despite the vast majority of Americans being in favour of Abortion.
Several of my friends from the right side of the pond are starting to talk about getting out before it becomes impossible. Thankfully, they all have very marketable skills that would make setting up a home in a new country a lot easier.
> USA is regressing towards the time when Williamsburg was the capital
To be clear: Williamsburg was briefly the capital of the Virginia Colony, and a hot-spot for rebellious debate, but was in decline by the time the rebellion ended. Never the capital of the "USA".
---------a descendant of John Hanson
It will be interesting to see what Canada does in response to this. Previously, US citizens have successfully claimed asylum in Canada after fleeing there to escape continuous legal persecution by organisations such as the Church of Scientology, the US state doing nothing to prevent such persecution.
If women start getting persecuted because of a choice they make, fleeing to Canada is probably a good option.
The asylum aspect is interesting, as there's an aspect of being granted asylum which probably involves being helped to set up life all over again.
I hope people don't respond by fleeing. According to poll I saw today only 13% of Americans want a complete ban on all abortions, the majority just need to be willing to make this an issue they'll vote on.
It isn't like you need to vote democrat if you are conservative - just make it clear to the republican party and your current republican occupants of state and national offices that you will never give them another penny so long as abortion is illegal, will vote against them in primaries so they'll never have more than a single term in office, and if that doesn't work you might even be willing to hold your nose and vote for a democrat here and there to dislodge the really entrenched ones (i.e. the Mitch McConnells) from power.
The republican party can only push extremist views that republicans in general do not support because only the most extreme people vote in primaries. If mainstream republicans (and democrats!) voted in primary elections, the extremists on both sides will be cast out and elected officials will represent the mainstream views of the party - and as a side benefit Washington gridlock would be reduced as the "I'll never compromise with the other side" types will be eliminated.
Yeah. The very vocal minority needs to be called on the carpet. Things have gotten way out of hand. The Founding Fathers (who almost to a man were not exactly pro-religion, and for very good reasons) would be appalled at all this un-American activity.
What ever happened to separation of church and State, anyway?
What ever happened to separation of church and State, anyway?
It has gone down the drain, that's what happened.
Ina vote of 6 to 3, the SC has recently ruled Maine may not exclude religious schools from a state tuition program.
In their dissents, Sotomayor and Breyer expressed dismay at the direction of the court.
Sotomayor said the decision was another step in dismantling “the wall of separation between church and state that the framers fought to build.”
It will get much worse, sooner than later.
I fear that there's no stopping this now.
Being anti-abortion is not necessarily a religious holding. I am noy overly religious and support a limited abortion ban. Too many people use abortions as a convenient form of birth control. I'm even related to a few. Abortions should be limited to rape, incest, and whether the mother's life is in danger or if the child is very defective. Outside of that, being anti-abortion is protecting those who can't protect themselves. It is no longer the 1950s and there is no longer a social stigma to having a child out of wedlock, and there are plenty of childless couples out there who would be thrilled to adopt.
Quite frankly, I'm thrilled that the SC overturned this as it was the SC that created this "right" to murder innocent people to begin with and it isn't the SC's job to make law. If people really want the right to kill an innocent person, get the law changed correctly. Want it as a Constitutional right, start a Convention. Otherwise, take responsibility for your actions. Both my kids were accidents, and my then-girlfriend and I didn't take the easy way out, we did the responsible thing and raised them, so I'm not asking anything from others that I wasn't willing to do myself. I even went under the knife after child 2 to ensure there would be no more.
I'm going to point out some things:
One: Your personal situation is effectively anecdotal and should not be used to define societal standards for all.
Two: What number of individuals who "Use abortion as birth control" is acceptable?
Three: Please find somewhere that collects statistics on what percentage of abortions are for defined medical reasons, post rape, post incest and "for birth control". I can assure you that the last item is the lowest on the list in pretty much any territory.
Four: Have you ever helped nurse someone through a late 2nd Trimester miscarriage? Or even through a post abortion event? It is *very* much not a "get up and walk away with no consequences" event.
I can't sit on what lines *do* need to be drawn as I don't have a uterus, but one line I *know* has to be there is that banning the procedure will only cause *MORE* death and medical distress, so banning it, as will occur in MANY states over the next 2 years, is absolutely the wrong measure in *any* case.
I don't believe I called for a complete ban on abortion. When there's a legitimate reason for one it should be allowed. "Oops the rubber broke" is not legitimate. I honestly can't believe anyone can defend the idea that kiling a human being should be as easy as getting a boil lanced.
I will also not go look up statistics as I seriously doubt the reasons are correctly logged. This has been a political hot potato for decades and abortion providers have a vested interest in NOT logging that they performed convenience abortions.
As to whether or not I ever nursed anyone through a miscarriage or abortion, such activities would be purely anecdotal and should not be used to defines rules for society.
Nobody made them have sex, so if they choose to do so, they can take responsibility for their actions. Or they can put it up for adoption. Many adoption agencies will cover the medical costs.
Why is it that so many liberals believe that nobody should be responsible for themselves and their actions?
The plan isn't for them to flee America, it's for them to flee the south. Texas was in danger of going blue with all these tech companies moving there.
If those companies have to stop because they can't get female employees then those people all go and work in California, California taxes pay for Texas and it gets to keep a Republican majority
Recently circulating on FB etc from Canadians:
In Canada, you can get a poutine in every province, if you so choose. Not everyone wants to order poutine, and that’s totally fine. It’s your choice.
In the US, some states have restaurants with poutine on the menu. Lots don’t. And after today, fewer will.
If you find yourself in need of a poutine, but live in a state that restricts access to poutine, consider a trip to Canada, and give me a shout. I won’t ask what size poutine you want or why you haven’t considered other food options. I can, however, help take you to order your poutine, wait with you while you eat, and make sure you have a comfy place to rest, post-poutine.
Please do not attempt to make your own poutine. Do not have an unqualified chef, who is without certification, prepare your poutine. If you are terrified about the cost of travelling to Canada for our excellent poutine, please don’t let that stop you. Once you’re here, we have many restaurant options.
That's all well and good. Until the poutine-eating tourist returns to their non-poutine state. And tracking data reveals the true purpose of their trip.
Some of those states have bounties (payable to individuals, not fines collected by the state) for their cullinary preferences. Who will be paying those? Certainly not that rich, white lady in California who wants a choice not available on the domestic Tex-Mex menu. And how will one interfere in what is essentially a private transaction? Legislation can prohibit data sharing by government entities. But not so much by individuals. I know a number of people in the private investigator/skip tracing business. And restrictive laws are mere speed bumps on the road to tracking people.
"Moving steadily down the road to establishing a Christian theocracy."
Not going to happen. The number of practicing xtians in the US has been dropping steadily since the 1950s. Only around 20% of Americans bother to attend weekly services for ANY religion, not just xtianity.
"There'll be modesty laws for woman within our lifetime"
There already are. Consider that in most places it's OK for men to wander around topless ...
But does there need to be a majority?
Just the right people in the right positions.
The hard (Christian) right are really putting the groundwork in at the local level to grab power in the lower levels of elected officialdom: School boards, Election boards, Boards of Supervisors, Sheriffs, Judges, etc.
There will be a trickle up.
The US needs to wake up.
Not going to happen. The number of practicing xtians in the US has been dropping steadily since the 1950s
A clear majority still believe in god.
Given that only 13% of Americans support a total ban on abortions, and we're now getting that in half the states (even the reddest of which don't hit even 25% support) a majority is not necessary.
All that is necessary is a primary system where only the most extreme people vote, and you have republican candidates who will vote for a total ban being the only ones who make it to the general election. If that was the ONLY factor to decide between candidates in the general election, the republicans would get absolutely creamed and be forced to change their policies. But that's just one of many factors, and over the past 40 years republicans have conditioned those who want a total ban on abortion to vote in primaries to make that happen, while in the general election talking about other things - and republican voters who wanted abortion to remain legal mostly thought the abortion ban stuff was mostly talk and would never actually happen.
Republicans are now in the position of the dog that catches the car, and wondering if reaching their long term goal is actually a good thing or not. Because there's going to be backlash. It will take time, the bans will have to go into effect, republican officials will take things too far with investigations of women who have miscarriages, travel of doctors, attempts to criminalize out of state abortions, attempts to get women's health data, etc. (i.e. the spreadsheets of women's cycles a Missouri official was keeping on women's periods, and Trump officials kept of migrant teen's periods)
I think it will be those abuses that result in backlash on republicans eventually (not as soon as 2022, but 2024 would be likely) and not news about women dying from botched back alley abortions though there will undoubtedly be some cases of that too among poor women who can't afford to travel to another state (and even if someone paid for that can't afford the time off work)
"A clear majority still believe in god."
Even if you change that to "a god", I'm not 100% convinced it is true. I know several people who go through the song an dance of attending services, but have made it clear (outside their place of worship) that they don't believe in that claptrap at all. They just attend to keep a family member (or members) happy.
 You don't seriously think everybody believes in the same god, do you?
"....Moving steadily down the road to establishing a Christian theocracy...."
Not really; most of the major divisions of Christianity are reasonably comfortable with abortion. Even the stance of the Catholic Church has softened a little in recent years. It is only those at the extremist/fundamentalist end who stick to this hard line viewpoint. They are no more representative of Christianity than the Islamic extremists are of Islam in general (ie. not at all).
I would also suggest that there are other major religions whose attitude to abortion is more in line with US puritanical thinking than Christianity generally is.
It is really more like 'moving steadily down the road to establishing an extremist autocracy'.
Yeah, but when that was written, people thought men planted the seed in the woman. She was just a vessel to carry the mans seed which grew into a baby. Other may say that the Bible is The Word Of God, of course. Some may say it was written by men. Others will respond that those mens writings were guided and inspired by God. I say that either they weren't listening properly or even God didn't know how babies were made back then. So, how many other "mistakes" are there in the Bible?
It's interesting to see a Bible "literalist" tie themselves in knots :-)
Really? The only folks that push hard for modesty laws for women are Muslims, and guess what party the Muslims vote for/are represented by in the US? Starts with a D, represented by blue... Personally, I enjoy seeing topless women in public and I'm a Conservative. What I don't like is women being forced to cover up, wear a hair cover, even cover themselves head to toe leaving a narrow slit to see, even if it's 100 degrees out. Her body, her choice.
Don't see the connection between modesty laws and abortion. Are you saying that forcing a woman to cover her head is the same thing as preventing her from killing someone? Because I'll gladly intervene to save a life, even yours, but give no damn what people do or don't wear.
Depends what you mean by "someone" really. If you believe it's "someone" from the moment of conception, that's your perogative, but not everyone thinks that way. There are various legal definitions around the world for when those cells become "someone" and clearly, even in the US, it's defined as at least 6 weeks, much to the chagrin of some "pro-lifers".
>God didn't have a clue how babies were made
I suspect God had a very good idea of how babes were made, also I suspect God had a very good idea of men's behaviour and correctly framed the problem as primarily being men being irresponsible with their seed...
It is probably noteworthy that this is different to some other religions which demand women to cover up etc. because it is women who lead (weak and defenceless) men astray...
"I suspect God had a very good idea of how babes were made, also I suspect God had a very good idea of men's behaviour and correctly framed the problem as primarily being men being irresponsible with their seed."
So in your mind, instead of educating Man, God decided to lie about something so very simple and basic.
You worship a known liar. Nice.
Is it any wonder that xtian shamen refer to their congregations as "flocks"?
>instead of educating Man
Interesting choice of words, I suspect God was educating man (who at the time mostly herded sheep), not in biology but in morales.
But yes, it does seem that the God(s) have been negligent in not educating man about matters such as how the earth goes around the sun and low temperature fusion.
Mind you even if the gods had educated man about fusion and man (at the time) painted the process on the walls of a tomb, I suspect modern man would have interpreted the pictures etc. as some sort of religious ritual... Remember it wasn't until an astronomer looked at an Eygptian tomb did it click that the paintings were of the actual night sky the artists were familiar with.
"...we promise that we will never turn your private health data over to any authority that could use it against you."
Clue could remain within the wording of their reassurance, and still turn your health data over to an authority, who might turn it over to a second authority, and that second authority could then use your health data against you.
The only way to ensure that the data doesn't get used is *not to collect it in the first place*.
It doesn't matter, one bit, what promises are made about what they will and won't do with data they hold, there are so many unplanned ways it could get out, including the service getting compromised and data leaked onto the net, or certain States getting even more authoritarian, with doors kicked in and servers seized.
You only have to look at the laws being put in place in places like Mississippi to realise that you're not talking about rational people here. Fuck, at one point a Texas "pro-lifer" politician wanted the death penalty for anyone who had an abortion. We're talking about crazy people who've been given a taste of power - it's best to assume that the worst is yet to come and to protect users by not holding any data unnecessarily.
Those are bold words, and I am glad of them, but they mean nothing when faced with a National Security letter.
Now that the puritan assholes have managed to knock women's rights a step down, you can be sure that they will not hesitate to abuse the law in order to track down potential abortions.
Except, obviously, if their own daughter gets pregnant from rape. In that case, they'll use their power to make it happen, discreetly.
Because rules are for the meek.
Clue could remain within the wording of their reassurance, and still turn your health data over to an authority
I don't think it's the authorities we need to be afraid of, other than when authorities create policies like this-
Under a law passed last year in Texas, any citizen who successfully sues an abortion provider, a health center worker, or anyone who helps someone access an abortion after six weeks can claim at least $10,000, and other US states are following that example.
Companies are also citizens. So suppose you're a data aggregating slimeball. You can combine searches for abortion services with other data. Person is biologically female, has bought pregnancy test kits, stopped buying feminine hygiene products and has started looking for morning after pills or abortion services. So they could reasonably infer the person is probably pregnant. Even easier if the slimeball also has access to medical data that could provide confirmation. Then track to see if the pregnancy is carried to term. If it isn't, then pass over to your legal dept who can start litigating to claim those $10k bounties, plus probably costs.
So slimeball aggregators could easily automate bounty collections.. Which is even more ethically and morally questionable than their normal operations, especially given the perverse incentives created by Texas and other state's bounty system.
Then there's the other risks. So there's a miscarriage (not just of justice) and the system might assume a termination. The mother/parents may then face threats of litigation at a time when they're obviously going to be emotionally vulnerable. Or I guess slimeballs could also track sales of coat hangers and hospital admissions for internal bleeding to monitor the effects of changes to reproductive rights going back to pre-Roe vs Wade home & back-alley abortion services.
I had similar thoughts on reading that same quoted part of the article. Are there any other "crimes" in the use with a standardised bounty ready for the taking by anyone reporting it to the Police? Any at all?
Then there's the commercial aspects of banning abortion. There are occasions when it's possible to effectively sell a baby. Will we see companies setting up, with expensive lawyers, clamouring to help these poor, unfortunate women to "give up" their babies for adoption? At least one "pro-lifer" as said there is a demand for babies to be adopted. Looks like supply might be about to increase too. Will this lower the costs or create a whole new industry? Ads on TV? An online service, EBaybies,com? Look at our range! Choose the specs! Click and Collect!
Are there any other "crimes" in the use with a standardised bounty ready for the taking by anyone reporting it to the Police? Any at all?
ISTR there's a similar thing aimed at parents of transgender children; I'm not sure if it's at the proposal stage or if it's been enacted, but the usual culprits are "investigating" parents who may be guilty of trying to help their kids. Ultimately it's the same thing, though; the small state proponents trying to legislate against other people's body autonomy.
Are there any other "crimes" in the use with a standardised bounty ready for the taking by anyone reporting it to the Police? Any at all?
I don't know, but I think it's troubling that Texas thought that this was a good, ethical decision. I guess basic bail jumping/bounty hunting might be one example, and I don't like that system either. Or there's a new possibility coming with new firearms legislation and the 'red flag' elements. So inform on your neighbor/enemy and the police may seize that person's firearms.
Will this lower the costs or create a whole new industry? Ads on TV? An online service, EBaybies,com? Look at our range! Choose the specs! Click and Collect!
Yup, or a whole new opportunity for slimeballs to create revenue. If they can use data mining to automate pregnancy discovery, they could send email offers to buy the product. Maybe with a reminder of the $10k fine if they don't. Inventory management may become an issue, but could always run a sale if stock levels are high.
>Then there's the other risks. So there's a miscarriage (not just of justice) and the system might assume a termination.
So the slimeball looks again and finds the woman is a drug user or even a regular cigarette smoker and so initiates proceedings against her for manslaughter...
So the slimeball looks again and finds the woman is a drug user or even a regular cigarette smoker and so initiates proceedings against her for manslaughter...
Yup, there are all sorts of exciting revenue opportunites. So combine medical data, purchase history and credit status. Then if the mother's bought alcohol during pregnancy, file for assault on behalf of the newborn who may or may not be a victim of FASD (Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorders).
Then claim custody of the victim and add it to inventory for sale. I guess the seller may have to disclose the condition of the product, but the seller may generate more volume if they offer a range of product. Not every customer will be able to afford the premium product.
The question that should be asked of Clue, is why do they need to collect and retain a woman's health data outside of the woman's own device and in a form a third-party (ie. someone other than the woman) can access. I suspect Clue doesn't have a clue.
As I said to an MD many years ago who was overly focused on making money: If you want to make serious amounts of money then we are in the wrong business, I suggest we switch to drug dealing...
I suspect Clue (and other developers of apps for womens health) is one of those who wanted to make money and saw the resale of womens data as a niche she could exploit and thus developed an app to capture the data, rather than develop an app to help women...
Right. And the Democrats lost. Lost the right to demand that Northern Republican states be required to operate patrols in order to return runaway slaves to their Southern owners. They pissed off the Repubs sufficiently to be told that if they couldn't keep their property under control, they would no longer be allowed to own it.
As a UK citizen, the idea that each state has incompatible laws is just STUPID. Not so easy to move house if your state brings in some law that you do not like.
Why would you think it is OK for each state to have election laws that are so different that it appears to be more like a foreign country
Probably because the US, while putting on a public front of being a country is, in reality, more like the EU than they care to admit. A conglomeration of countries with some shared ambitions and an overriding sort of government that can impose some laws on all of them in specific areas. At least they mostly all speak the same language though :-)
As a UK citizen, the idea that each state has incompatible laws is just STUPID.
Northern Ireland - The Great Unknown (by the English):
I still find it funny every time a left-pondian uses "liberal" as an insult. In most of the rest of the world, "liberal" is what most left-pondians should be aspiring to. Many seem to have a completely arse-about-face use of the term to mean authoritarian or fascist.
America pulled out of Afghanistan to avoid being criticized for the Taliban actions on women.
America then put Taliban dogma at the heart of how it treats women.
More children for the school shootings.
More gun rights to buy the guns to kill the children you "saved" from abortion.
AMERICA you are so f..ked up right now.
If you are NOT a WOMEN you have no right to decide what they do with their bodies.
The southern states will be stopping education for women next, I mean why bother they can only ever be baby factories.
Worried that this s..t may now start to come to the rest of the West.
This post has been deleted by its author
If you know someone who has any medical tracking app, tell them to delete them immediately.
Apple / Google should now be banning those apps from its stores.
The data WILL get out and the American Taliban WILL start law suits to force tech to handover the data on women.
Expect the female prison population in the US of a holes to balloon in the next 10 years.
Don't know if anyone posted this already, but as far as I am concerned, due to the intensely personal nature of pregnancy, this is an issue that only women should have the right to decide.
As an aside, I find it extremely strange that "pro-life" states seem to oppose any sort of meaningful gun control. Make your fucking minds up!
"And whose first act was to execute a women for being an evil Quaker?"
That would be the British folks known as the Puritans, right? It certainly wasn't the Americans, because there weren't any yet ... Mary Dyer was hanged over 100 years before America even existed. Not too many years after that, most of that particular sect had fucked off back to England.
It cracks me up every time you Brits claim the US was founded by the Puritans. In reality, on this side of the pond the Puritans were a very unimportant sub-culture by 1776. If you look at facts, not a single one of our Founding Fathers was a Puritan. In fact, many of them spoke out against organized religion partially because of the Puritans ... If anything, the American Revolution happened in part to rid ourselves of such bullshit (sadly, we're not done yet).
On the other hand, I think if you look into it you'll discover that the Puritans ran England for a lot of years. For example, did you know that seven of the ten initial core group that became The Royal Society were Puritans? The Puritans never ran the United States, but they DID run England for many years. The effects are still visible.
"But at least the religious traditions of the puritan minority are still embraced 300years later."
Not here in the US they aren't. Unless you can point me at a large, very well hidden group of the CofE sect here in the US.
What's that? You didn't know the Puritans were hard-core CofE?
as its been claimed that the consitution or amendments thereof makes no mention of abortion, and therefore states rights take over in whether abortion is legal, how about
The consitution makes no mention of driving licences(or cars in general) therefore this falls also to states rights... however the federal government should say that a state driving licence should only be valid for that state... you want to drive in another state you need to pass the driving test in that state.
Should create the sort of traffic jams only Crowley could dream of....
That's sort of how drivers (and vehicle) licenses work now. But states have entered into "comity" agreements to recognize each others' residents license status. There are some federal laws on this topic, motivated by "interstate commerce" which is the baliwick of Congress. But it is going to take some serious legal scholarship to see how such authority would extend across state lines in the case of abortion.
Pursuing an individual across state lines for engaging in an act not legal in your state but legal in another?
This post has been deleted by its author
The number of people in the US who have automatic weapons is vanishingly small.
The AR-15 is the most popular gun in the USA
Not everyone in the USA owns a gun, but those that do tend to own many. There are more guns than people.
All tech companies will obey the law where they operate. That doesn't change. whatever the issue or the nature of the data.
If I was a woman in one of the coathanger states and could, I would be packing my bags and moving to a safer state. Who wants to live in the 19thC if you are able to move to the 21st? Their universities may soon look like seminaries, and they may lack medical staff even worse than post-Brexit Britain does. Or America's women might turn on them at the next election, and hammer the Republicans. We'll see.
As with many things, the answer has to be in the middle to partially satisfy everyone. Having no access to abortion seems a thoroughly retrograde step and having abortions upto the point birth is an abomination.
The extremists of both sides are ripping the US apart (which is, incidentally, affecting other nations like a fatal dose of necrotising fasciitis - significantly Canada & partially the UK).
Both sides (democrats & republicans) are deeply responsible for this and should be ashamed of themselves.
Where are the adults in the room?
*This* particular mess? Yes. All of the messes? No. It seems to me that this is a reaction to what the left has been doing recently in the states and I'm sure that is in a reaction what the right was doing prior to that - rinse and repeat over the years, but amplified each time and now it's getting to stupid levels.
You'd think that sounds smart, until you realise that the goalposts are moving so blindingly fast, that things we thought were fine can quickly become Not Fine™ and eventually Very Bad™, it'll become easier than ever to fall foul of the powers that be.
That's not healthy for democracy, because it means that an iron grip can be maintained and all protest can be quashed with algorithms.
Depends on the view of "democracy" in a true democracy an iron grip is required!
What many people fail to realise is democracy is just a way of saying "making everyone do what the majority want them to do".
Given any law / rule / whatever thats applied and a State / Country level you are going to have some (but hopefully less than 50% else its not a democracy) people that dont want to do things "that way" surely for democracy to succeed those people need to be brought into line?
Democracy != Freedom
Democary == Behaving how the majority of people want you to behave.
As for goal post being constantly moved at a super fast pace, blame social media and the "im offended" generation. Now that everyone has a voice and every complaint can be amplified a bajillion times by social / msm politicians have to bow down and legislate to everyone / everything for fear of being lynched.
Who would have thought that teaching our children that they are all special and deserve everything handed to them on a plate would have such consequences...
I blame participation medals.
"democracy is just a way of saying "making everyone do what the majority want them to do""
Well, not really. Modern liberal democracies guarantee inalienable individual rights which are absolute. Majority cannot legislate to abrogate those rights. Unfortunately the concept of liberal democracy has been slipping as more western nations (not just the US!!) move to a more authoritarian model, helped by the social-media-era idiocy of black vs white absolutes, while the idea of liberal democracy is based on weighing ideas in a public forum and reaching compromises.
"Modern liberal democracies guarantee inalienable individual rights which are absolute" which are decided on by the majoirty? So part of making people behave how the majority want them to!
So the inalienable individual rights exist forever and ever and can never be revoked? Even if, say you voted in a president on the basis that he would tear up the constitution and write a new "better" one that was actually relevant to the current times and climate rather than being based on a document that was written for the times in which it was created?
I wonder what all these "amendments" to your consittution are that people quote? Surely they cant be changes to the "guarantee inalienable individual rights"
Say in 500 - 600 years when Americans wake up to the fact that most people shouldnt own a gun and have no need of owning a gun and want to join the civilized world theres no way to make them illegal or only available for specific reasons other than I just want one and its my consitutional right?
The only true freedom objectivly speaking is Anarchy.... but that comes with even worse problems.
Yup....including your medical history....and the rest of your history......
Now....guess.....Of which political persuasion is Peter Thiel?
P.S. Even the NSA is worried about Peter Thiel.......Yes....that NSA. Who'd have thunk it?
Ah, you want to talk Palantir do you? How about looking a little closer to home?
Compulsory vasectomies for all US males at age 12 would slash the number of abortions. Couples could then apply for a court order to temporarily reverse the procedure in order to breed.
That way the intrusive medical burden would be passed onto the males who frankly seem far more vexed by the issue. Put your balls where your mouth is or STFU.
OK. If you are not American you will be unlikely to have the slightest clue about Roe v Wade. Under RvW none of the European countries reasonable abortion laws would be legal. The states so far in question, MS, AZ, UT, etc are far more liberal in rules for legal abortion that say Germany just to pick one example. Anything more restrictive is likely to be struck down. One way or another. And rightly so. All the SCOTUS has done had handed the legal power back to the states. Who will fight over it in their own way.
In the last few decades I have met very few American who had the slightest clue about the US actual legal situation let alone how it works in other countries. RvW made any sane political negotiations of this very contentious subject impossible. It just gave huge political ammunition for the "Right To Life" loons. They will now work at the statehouse level and they will lose, as they deserve to, a battle that should have been fought and won decades ago.
I have always been Pro Choice . I voted twice in two referenda to make abortion safe and legal. I have zero patience for the BS arguments from the "Right To Life" people. Dont agree with abortion, then dont have one. Otherwise its none of your business. End of discussion. You will not force your religious beliefs on others.
But everything I have heard from the rabid Pro Choice politicians and groups recently is total BS also. Mostly outright lies. In the authors home state will there not be the slightest change in the law. None. The same story in all the most populous states. There are about 10 states in play. Maybe. And all that will happen in the short term is the situation will be just the way it was in a bunch of place in Europe for decades, Cannot get a safe abortion locally, then you will have to travel a bit. The probability of a successful local anti-abortion law prosecution surviving a referral to an appeal court. Nil.
So this article is just part of the current hysteria by supporters of a party who are looking at catastrophic losses come November. Its got damn all to do with the welfare of women who find themselves in a situation where they need an abortion. Its just sleazeball politics for short term gain
If the Pro Choice groups and politicians are serious about protecting to right of a women to a safe abortion then they will pick carefully a few test cases to take to the Supreme Court that will establish the right to a medically justifiable abortion. Using the same criteria as most European countries. And pick the most onerous anti-abortion law and have it struck down on the grounds of separation of church and state. If a law represents the religious beliefs of a group of people and very few without those religious beliefs then it will be struck down. Just as those laws have been in the past.
If Pro Choice groups and politicians dont do this and just continue with just more politically motivated hysterical lies they are just as big a group of worthless tossers as the Right To Life nutcases.