[Politics] US Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade

[Weststander]

Surely that isn't right. The 6th commandment states 'thou shalt not kill'. It does not provide any caveats so anybody claiming to be a christian cannot support capital punishment. They can't have it both ways.

That’ll be the “An eye for an eye” snippet.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

In Texas they’re trying to prosecute anyone who helps such driving someone out of state, which is why I mentioned the doctor’s advice to women who have their menstrual cycle on their phones or fitbits. Such data can be used in evidence.

It is much more serious than that - Texas has placed a bounty on anyone who assists a woman trying to procure an abortion in any way (e.g. giving money) - the law allows any individual to sue any other individual who they believe has assisted a women in any way in a procuring an abortion and if successful they receive a minimum $10,000 reward. Effectively Texas has privatised the policing of women's reproductive organs and it will also lead to a rash of revenge lawsuits.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

I didn’t know that. It’s all a bit North Korea.

The law on abortion in North Korea is now more liberal. The USA is heading into Taliban territory.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Unsure if the point has been made but Democrats could have codified the right to abortion into federal law under Obama when they had outright control of the Senate and Congress. They chose not to presumably as it was a useful political tool to have (e.g. the fear of Roe being overturned as a way of energising their base).

Bit rich of them to complain now- they could have avoided this.

Amazing. It’s all Obama’s fault!

 

[usernamed]

Unsure if the point has been made but Democrats could have codified the right to abortion into federal law under Obama when they had outright control of the Senate and Congress. They chose not to presumably as it was a useful political tool to have (e.g. the fear of Roe being overturned as a way of energising their base).

Bit rich of them to complain now- they could have avoided this.

This isn’t an issue on which political point scoring is appropriate.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

There are only two questions about abortion - one, is it OK to kill living human beings at an early stage of their life; and two, when do they become living human beings. Part one is surely a no, from all sides. Part two is where the difficulty lies because it isn't subject to compromise - if you believe that a foetus is a living human being worthy of protection from the day of conception, then you aren't going to agree with abortion; if you are convinced that it does not become a living human being until sometime later, then you aren't going to be bothered by its death.

Not accurate - the reality is that since people have walked upright on this planet the female of the species has been aborting foetuses (indeed, humans are not the only animals that intentionally abort foetuses).

This is not a question of morality - it is a societal question. Irrespective of anyone's views - some people facing a crisis will seek an abortion and they will do so for a vast variety of reasons, many of them related to money or the prevailing patriarchial, misognyist, homophobic and transphobic views that prevail in a capitalist society.

So the two questions that need to be asked are :
1. What can society do to reduce the necessity for those facing a crisis pregnancy to feel they need to procure and abortion
and
2. How can society make it as safe as possible for individuals who feel they have no other option but to have an abortion.

In answer - 1. Proper non-judgemental objective sex education is schools - proper free and easily accessed childcare facilities - the extension of maternity leave to a minimum of three years - the provision of a living income for all - the provision of free health care at the point of delivery (including mental health care) without any delay - the elimination of a society that fosters prejudicial attitudes towards women and its replacement with a society, democratically run, that protects the right of every single individual to decide what to do with their own body.

Then - and only then - can the second question be addressed - 2. Ensuring that every single person who is pregnant has immediate access to full health, including mental health, services, - the provision of anything necessary to assist anyone with a crisis pregnancy - and then, if they decide to have an abortion, the respect of the right of that individual to make the decisions that are necessary for them.

No society should have a right to dictate what an individual can and cannot do with their bodies - particularly a society like the USA riven by misogyny, homophobia and transphobia, and where the laws are dictated by fundamentalist religious beliefs (and the decisions about what someone facing a crisis pregnancy can do with their bodies is determined by a number of individuals who have been accused of serious allegations of sexual 'misconduct' against women).

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

Amazing. It’s all Obama’s fault!

The Democrats have had 60 years to codify abortion rights into Federal Law - if they had done so then this Supreme Court ruling would have been irrelevant because Federal Law in this matter would supercede State Law. But instead the Democrats chose to use abortion rights as a political bat to beat the Republicans and a weapon to terrify the electorate into voting for them out of fear that a Republican president would stack the Supreme Court - and it has come back to bite them in the ass. A month ago they attempted to engage in a PR stunt to codify abortion rights into Federal Law - knowing it would fail because it needed 60 votes in the Senate - and they were further embarrased by losing that vote by 51-49. In the 1960s and 1970s the Senate would have had the 60 votes (Democrat and Republican) to codify the law - but not now because of the way American society has developed since the Reagan era. Now Biden is trying to convince people that they need to vote in 60 Democrats to the Senate - an extremely unlikely possibility - but even then there is no guarantee that all 60 Democrats would vote in favour (just like Joe Manchin failed to do a month ago).

Just like all other democratic rights in the USA (and everywhere else) abortion rights were won on the streets - and abortion rights will be defended by the building of a mass movement globally.

 

[beorhthelm]

This isn’t an issue on which political point scoring is appropriate.

its valid to highlight Democrats have had opportunity to legistlate, but chose to rely on a court precedent instead. probably not as a political tool though, more likely the catholic influence

 

[Guinness Boy]

Not accurate - the reality is that since people have walked upright on this planet the female of the species has been aborting foetuses (indeed, humans are not the only animals that intentionally abort foetuses).

This is not a question of morality - it is a societal question. Irrespective of anyone's views - some people facing a crisis will seek an abortion and they will do so for a vast variety of reasons, many of them related to money or the prevailing patriarchial, misognyist, homophobic and transphobic views that prevail in a capitalist society.

So the two questions that need to be asked are :
1. What can society do to reduce the necessity for those facing a crisis pregnancy to feel they need to procure and abortion
and
2. How can society make it as safe as possible for individuals who feel they have no other option but to have an abortion.

In answer - 1. Proper non-judgemental objective sex education is schools - proper free and easily accessed childcare facilities - the extension of maternity leave to a minimum of three years - the provision of a living income for all - the provision of free health care at the point of delivery (including mental health care) without any delay - the elimination of a society that fosters prejudicial attitudes towards women and its replacement with a society, democratically run, that protects the right of every single individual to decide what to do with their own body.

Then - and only then - can the second question be addressed - 2. Ensuring that every single person who is pregnant has immediate access to full health, including mental health, services, - the provision of anything necessary to assist anyone with a crisis pregnancy - and then, if they decide to have an abortion, the respect of the right of that individual to make the decisions that are necessary for them.

No society should have a right to dictate what an individual can and cannot do with their bodies - particularly a society like the USA riven by misogyny, homophobia and transphobia, and where the laws are dictated by fundamentalist religious beliefs (and the decisions about what someone facing a crisis pregnancy can do with their bodies is determined by a number of individuals who have been accused of serious allegations of sexual 'misconduct' against women).

Blimey.

I mean, I agree and all that, but the lack of self awareness of someone from Ireland writing that last paragraph........

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

Blimey.

I mean, I agree and all that, but the lack of self awareness of someone from Ireland writing that last paragraph........

Believe me - I am only too well aware of what happened in Ireland - I went to a school run by the Christian Brothers where paedolphiles abused kids and sadists beat the crap out of us - and I teach in a school that is still under religious patronage (as are 93% of the schools in Ireland). The difference in Ireland is that the Catholic Church has been terminally undermined and it is now in its death agony (which is why it is fighting tooth and nail to mantain control of 1. the education system - and 2. the new national maternity hospital). Same sex marriage rights and abortion rights were won in Ireland over the past few years by mass movements on the streets of Ireland (with, in particular, a very prominent role by young people). There is a rapidly growing section of the population that identify as non-religious (from about 2% in 1991 - to well over 10% now - and most of the rest are very much a la carte Catholics - only 27% of those who identify as Catholics attend mass, and the latest indicators that it will dip as low as 15% by the end of next year). The only thing that could possibly reverse this decline of religion is the emergence of a sectarian civil war in Ireland where religious identity becomes the corner-stone of the conflict (but even in that situation it is likely to be a political identity - rather than a religious one).

 

[Scappa]

This is just horrific, and another sign that we need to be distancing ourselves from America, which has become something broken and revolting.

I cannot believe the size of the gap between their rhetoric and their actions. Land of the free indeed.

With liberty and justice for all*

*Terms and conditions apply. Must be 18, void where prohibited

 

[scamander]

This isn’t an issue on which political point scoring is appropriate.

You might have misread me, I'm not into political point scoring. It just seems as this has been missed, the Democrats could have prevented this from becoming a reality.

 

[rippleman]

"Land of the Free". Yeah. Right

Religious fundamentalism is a grave danger in all of its guises.

 

[scamander]

Amazing. It’s all Obama’s fault!

Only in that he could have prevented this. It's obviously not Obama's fault that this has happened but he could have ensured it never became a possibilty.

I think I'm being confused with someone who is looking at this from a Republican perspective (or similar). I'm not, but the Dems should have prevented this.

 

[Acker79]

Only in that he could have prevented this. It's obviously not Obama's fault that this has happened but he could have ensured it never became a possibilty.

I think I'm being confused with someone who is looking at this from a Republican perspective (or similar). I'm not, but the Dems should have prevented this.

From what I'm seeing there's plenty of blame to go around. I don't know that I would blame Obama, he was stifled by a republican congress (hence Merrick Garland not being given a seat on the supreme court). But there is a certain amount of anger at the current set of democrats who have the house, the senate and the presidency and have not acted to codify Roe. There is, of course, some mitigation - they only have a narrow majority, not enough on it's own. T'hey'd need to eliminate or agree a carve out for the filibuster, which the republicans would use to stop them just doing what they want. Th problem is that some democrats are against abortion (or have to act that way to have a chance of re-election and keeping the senate).

There's also been criticism of the 'Bernie Bros' who refused to vote for Hilary because she wasn't Bernie Sanders (or because she was a woman, or a clinton, take your pick). By sitting out, they opened the door for Trump to win the presidency and load the supreme court with three republican judges (and pack the lower courts with republican judges, too).

 

[Bold Seagull]

Only in that he could have prevented this. It's obviously not Obama's fault that this has happened but he could have ensured it never became a possibilty.

I think I'm being confused with someone who is looking at this from a Republican perspective (or similar). I'm not, but the Dems should have prevented this.

You have a legislative agenda that is difficult to get through. I’m not sure you come into power that make that agenda reinforcing legislation from a lurch to the far right - it’s democracy, they’d still be able to unpick whatever legislation you put in place. I’m not sure how the Republican Party taking a path to right wing fundamentalism is the fault of another party?

 

[halbpro]

I think some states also prosecute anyone helping a woman to cross a state line to get an abortion.

It's gonna be a WHOLE can of worms if those laws are successful. Would come down to saying there is no right to freedom of movement, which would really accelerate any civil war or dissolution of the union. Protecting abortion is, correctly, a very big issue but one that is relatively self contained (in terms of the ruling itself anyway). If a court rules you can either be prosecuted for something that happened in another state or that a state has a right to stop you exiting or entering then things are going to get very bad very fast. Much, much worse than anything now.

 

[scamander]

From what I'm seeing there's plenty of blame to go around. I don't know that I would blame Obama, he was stifled by a republican congress (hence Merrick Garland not being given a seat on the supreme court). But there is a certain amount of anger at the current set of democrats who have the house, the senate and the presidency and have not acted to codify Roe. There is, of course, some mitigation - they only have a narrow majority, not enough on it's own. T'hey'd need to eliminate or agree a carve out for the filibuster, which the republicans would use to stop them just doing what they want. Th problem is that some democrats are against abortion (or have to act that way to have a chance of re-election and keeping the senate).

There's also been criticism of the 'Bernie Bros' who refused to vote for Hilary because she wasn't Bernie Sanders (or because she was a woman, or a clinton, take your pick). By sitting out, they opened the door for Trump to win the presidency and load the supreme court with three republican judges (and pack the lower courts with republican judges, too).

An old boss of mine said that a f**k up has many parents.

Just to clarify, I don't blame Obama. But he had the majority in both houses to seal this off and possibly prevent the situation the US are now in.

The Republicans have made this their no1 prority for years, so it needed to be secured against.

 

[scamander]

You have a legislative agenda that is difficult to get through. I’m not sure you come into power that make that agenda reinforcing legislation from a lurch to the far right - it’s democracy, they’d still be able to unpick whatever legislation you put in place. I’m not sure how the Republican Party taking a path to right wing fundamentalism is the fault of another party?

It's obviously not the fault of the Democrats how the Republicans have moved and I haven't argued that. But the Democrats had an opportunity to seal this. The only reason the Christian right endorsed Trump was specifically for this purpose (e.g. get those Justice picks in).

I think the Democrats saw Obama's tenure as one which had broken the Republican party and perhaps got lax. I remember their being a lot of chatter at the time that the Republicans had lost their base vote (or that it was no longer enough).

 

[halbpro]

An old boss of mine said that a f**k up has many parents.

Just to clarify, I don't blame Obama. But he had the majority in both houses to seal this off and possibly prevent the situation the US are now in.

The Republicans have made this their no1 prority for years, so it needed to be secured against.

Dems had a super majority in the Senate for a fair chunk of 2009 and early 2010 as well. They could have passed ANYTHING they wanted then. It's not Obama's fault entirely, but he certainly deprioritised it and didn't urge Congressional leadership to get it through in their relatively narrow window.