[Politics] US Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade

[Stat Brother]

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).

Nah, not how I remember it.

The Republican party had their influx of The T-Party and thought they could control their noise by offering them a few crumbs from the captain's table'.

Not realising the moment they validated them and gave them a voice the jig was already up.
All the looney came out and the tail started wagging the dog.

The Democratic looney left saw what was going on and formed behind their unelectable poster boy.




All similarities between the US and UK are purely coincidental.

 

[dsr-burnley]

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).

you're still missing the point. I'm not particularly trying to get people to agree my point, just to see that it exists.

You are taking it as an article of faith that an abortion involves only one person and that an unborn foetus has no rights and can be disposed of. Other people believe that an unborn foetus is a human being in its own right and that an abortion involves two people both of whom have rights.

 

[dsr-burnley]

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.

It depends how you define "Christian". Obviously the way you define it, there can be no war, there can be no capital punishment, and if a Christian catches someone in the act of raping or murdering a member of his family, he will stand back and let it happen. In practice, Christianity has a wider definition than that and someone who kills or is willing to kill in defence of society can still be considered to be Christian.

Anyway, Jesus redefined the commandments. The earthly commandments were condensed into "Love your neighbour as you love yourself". Followed by the parable of the Good Samaritan.

 

[Guinness Boy]

It depends how you define "Christian". Obviously the way you define it, there can be no war, there can be no capital punishment, and if a Christian catches someone in the act of raping or murdering a member of his family, he will stand back and let it happen. In practice, Christianity has a wider definition than that and someone who kills or is willing to kill in defence of society can still be considered to be Christian.

Anyway, Jesus redefined the commandments. The earthly commandments were condensed into "Love your neighbour as you love yourself". Followed by the parable of the Good Samaritan.

That's a massive over simplification.

And predicated on a 33 year old being miraculously risen from the dead, against all known science and fact.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

you're still missing the point. I'm not particularly trying to get people to agree my point, just to see that it exists.

You are taking it as an article of faith that an abortion involves only one person and that an unborn foetus has no rights and can be disposed of. Other people believe that an unborn foetus is a human being in its own right and that an abortion involves two people both of whom have rights.

I am not missing the point - and I am not taking anything as an 'article of faith'.

I am arguing that, as a male who cannot get pregnant, what I believe is utterly irrelevant and for everyone else on the planet who do not find themselves in a position of facing a crisis pregnancy, what they believe is utterly irrelevant. It is directly down to the individual facing the crisis pregnancy.

It doesn't make any difference whether abortion is legal or not - some individuals facing a crisis pregnancy will have an abortion. The only difference that illegality brings is that a lot more of those people will die or suffer serious health consequences, than would happen if abortion is legal.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

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).

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.

No, Obama didn't have the numbers. The first big battle he tried to use his supermajority for was his healthcare plan, certainly more important than abortion rights at the time, and even that was a huge fight which had to be compromised when Ted Kennedy died early in the Obama administration. Joe Lieberman became the 60th vote and he prevented a public heathcare option being included in the bill, a major watering down of what Obama wanted. And Lieberman certainly would never have voted to legalise abortions, along with several other redstate-representing Democrats at the time.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

you're still missing the point. I'm not particularly trying to get people to agree my point, just to see that it exists.

You are taking it as an article of faith that an abortion involves only one person and that an unborn foetus has no rights and can be disposed of. Other people believe that an unborn foetus is a human being in its own right and that an abortion involves two people both of whom have rights.

Agree with your presentation of the two sides of the argument, but it doesn't mean it has to be legislated. If you believe a foetus is a living human, don't get an abortion. If you don't believe that, have one if you want or need one. Overall, I'm sure very few people actually want to have an abortion, it's done out of necessity in most cases. But follow your beliefs, don't always impose them on others.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

It depends how you define "Christian". Obviously the way you define it, there can be no war, there can be no capital punishment, and if a Christian catches someone in the act of raping or murdering a member of his family, he will stand back and let it happen. In practice, Christianity has a wider definition than that and someone who kills or is willing to kill in defence of society can still be considered to be Christian.

Anyway, Jesus redefined the commandments. The earthly commandments were condensed into "Love your neighbour as you love yourself". Followed by the parable of the Good Samaritan.

Here is the problem with basing law on religion - religious texts are vague and open to interpretation - and purposefully so. The bible is a selective collection of writings dated back 2,500 years in the case of the old testament - to 1500-1800 years for the new testament. Indeed the bible contains four gospels - when dozens were actually written (and when women were treated as property in slave societies). It was only when Catholicism was on the verge of becoming a state religion that the four conical gospels were selected (and were done so for political reasons). So we are talking about writings from the iron age being used to dictate law in the 21st century (same with the Talmud). The same with Islam - the Koran is a selective early medieval text - again being used to dictate law in the 21st century. The same applies to Hindu texts (iron age), Buddist (iron age), Shinto (iron age) etc.

But the other problem is that all of these religions hold different views on abortion - and the religion's view on abortion has changed over time. In reality abortion was accepted until after the consolidation of capitalism. In Britain, for example, abortion was criminalised in 1803 - as part of a series of laws introduced in response to the French Revolution. In the USA it was 1821 when post-quickening abortions were made a felony and pre-quickening abortions were made a misdemeanor - and in both cases these laws were primarily about injuries to the person, rather than about the,legal status of the foetus. It was also directly related to the rise in the number of male physicians who felt that midwives (who carried out abortions up to this time) threatened their new-found status that resulted from medical advances.

Within the Catholic Church abortion was accepted up until the quickening until 1869 (in Ireland the most important female saint, St. Brigid, was known for 'making pregancies disappear') - and only then because the Pope dictated that the 'immaculate conception' was dogma (something that was a factor in the theological debates during the Reformation - which was a political rather than religous schism - and something which continued to threaten to tear the Catholic Church apart for the following 300 years). The four separate strands of Islam all have different views on abortion - but all accept abortion to some degree or another. In the USA the kickback against abortions began in earnest in middle third of the 19th century when somewhere between 15% -35% of all pregnancies ended in abortion - and particularly with the fact that most of the abortions were being procured by married women - and it was primarily directed against growing demands from women for equal rights (remember this was also the period of the civil war and slavery). It is worth noting in America that up until the 1970s the Religious Right in the USA were ambivalent to the issue of abortion - they were more concerned with attempting to keep segregated schools. The campaign against abortion by the conservative right in the USA actually has its origins in the Cold War - the moral, free, and democratic USA in contrast to the atheistic, controlled, immoral dictatorship that existed in the USSR. Anti-abortion campaigning became a key component of the views that the USSR was (in the words of Ronald Reagan) 'an evil empire'. The issue of abortion became a cornerstone of the Reagan presidential campaign against Jimmy Carter. The entire campaign by the Trumpites is now based on a pushback against scientific knowledge - climate change, evolution, the effort to increasingly privatise the education system and place it under religious control, etc - and ultimately to protect old money capitalsm in the USA which is in dramatic decline since the emergence of globalisation. Indeed it is ironic that it was the success of Reagan that precipitated the recent decline of old money capitalism in the USA that has led to the current situation.

So - at the end of the day - this has diddly squat to do with religion - religious belief is merely a mechanism (and a fluid one at that) - it is an attempt to resolve the conflict for dominance within US capitalism between old money (from oild and property - represented by the Republicans) and new money (financial capital - represented by the Democrats) - and abortion rights, contraception, secientific knowledge etc., are mere pawns in the middle of this.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

No, Obama didn't have the numbers. The first big battle he tried to use his supermajority for was his healthcare plan, certainly more important than abortion rights at the time, and even that was a huge fight which had to be compromised when Ted Kennedy died early in the Obama administration. Joe Lieberman became the 60th vote and he prevented a public heathcare option being included in the bill, a major watering down of what Obama wanted. And Lieberman certainly would never have voted to legalise abortions, along with several other redstate-representing Democrats at the time.

The numbers existed in the 1960s and 1970s - up to then the Republicans were totally ambivalent about the issue of abortion - there would have been no problem codifying abortion rights into federal law at that time. Indeed - it is likely that it would still have been possible right up until the emergence of the Tea Party. The Democrats had ample opportunity to get this sorted - they didn't and they didn't do it for political reasons.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

The numbers existed in the 1960s and 1970s - up to then the Republicans were totally ambivalent about the issue of abortion - there would have been no problem codifying abortion rights into federal law at that time. Indeed - it is likely that it would still have been possible right up until the emergence of the Tea Party. The Democrats had ample opportunity to get this sorted - they didn't and they didn't do it for political reasons.

That may be true, I don't really know anything about that time. On the surface, I'd assess Kennedy as a rather unlikely figure to ban abortion, Johnson was quite preoccupied with Vietnam, did Carter have a big majority? He struck me as a pretty weak president.

 

[Stat Brother]

The numbers existed in the 1960s and 1970s - up to then the Republicans were totally ambivalent about the issue of abortion - there would have been no problem codifying abortion rights into federal law at that time. Indeed - it is likely that it would still have been possible right up until the emergence of the Tea Party. The Democrats had ample opportunity to get this sorted - they didn't and they didn't do it for political reasons.

The influence of the Catholic church, in American politics, suggests otherwise

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

That may be true, I don't really know anything about that time. On the surface, I'd assess Kennedy as a rather unlikely figure to ban abortion, Johnson was quite preoccupied with Vietnam, did Carter have a big majority? He struck me as a pretty weak president.

It had nothing to do with who was president - at the time many Republicans would have supported the codifying of Roe V Wade into federal law. It was only in 1979 when Reagan challenged Carter that the Republicans began to whip up abortion as an issue (which is ironic given that when Reagan was governor of California he signed a law decriminalising abortion).

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

The influence of the Catholic church, in American politics, suggests otherwise

Most senators are not Catholic - today it is more than 2:1 and while the Catholic Church did have influence, it would not have been able to prevent the necessary legislation.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Here is the problem with basing law on religion - religious texts are vague and open to interpretation - and purposefully so. The bible is a selective collection of writings dated back 2,500 years in the case of the old testament - to 1500-1800 years for the new testament. Indeed the bible contains four gospels - when dozens were actually written (and when women were treated as property in slave societies)..

The order of the New Testament was fixed between 393 and 397 AD, so it's certain that none of it was written as recently as the 6th century. And I don't think there is much scholarly doubt that Paul's letters, at least, were written in approx the AD 50's.

 

[Albion my Albion]

At first I thought it was a penalty situation.

But if there ever was a time when the minority went out and stole a decision by the US Supreme Court it was this one. By a far margin the majority of Americans felt okay with the decision of Roe vs Wade. Now the minority that stole this decision will feel the wrath of an unhappy public. Not many politicians will lose an election but with both houses of Congress being extremely close in party make up just one or two changes in results of the election there may be a change in the party in power in the US Congress.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Banning abortion, still have the death penalty and guns*-4-all….strange nation.

*Semi automatic assault rifles.

 

[Stat Brother]

[tweet]1541120794780114947[/tweet]

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

At first I thought it was a penalty situation.

But if there ever was a time when the minority went out and stole a decision by the US Supreme Court it was this one. By a far margin the majority of Americans felt okay with the decision of Roe vs Wade. Now the minority that stole this decision will feel the wrath of an unhappy public. Not many politicians will lose an election but with both houses of Congress being extremely close in party make up just one or two changes in results of the election there may be a change in the party in power in the US Congress.

If this is irony I apologise in advance, because of course the Democrats currently control both houses, but are set to lose one or both in the upcoming midterms and I doubt this decision will change that.

But certainly the minority stole this decision. Three of the six votes that ratified this change were appointed to the court by a President who lost the popular vote, and subsequently approved by a Republican senate who collectively received fewer votes than the Democrat minority. The Republicans also succeeded in preventing Obama filling one of these seats during an election year, but facilitated Trump filling a seat even closer to an election. Just that one seat would have been critical here.

All of this makes it very hard for people to vote to change the outcomes - and unbelievably frustrating. You don't just have to win, you have to landslide it. Democrats have won the popular vote 7 of the last 8 times but have seen both Bush and Trump be elected as losers. In the House they need an 8% advantage in the votes to win, because of extreme gerrymandering when drawing district boundaries, this same problem doubles up in elections for State Senate's and Congresses. In the Senate the problem is magnified with each state getting 2 senators regardless of its size, again something that benefits the Republicans.

Then there are the restrictive voting rights laws being enacted, the nature of primaries that rewards extreme views on either side and stifles moderates, leading to almost zero cross-aisle partnerships, campaign finance rules and then the arcane processes in Congress itself, the filibuster or the fact that withholding the budget can be used to hold the country hostage every couple of years.

I'll have missed loads. Its an absolutely messed up system from top to bottom - but one that absolutely suits the select wealthy interest groups that control the nation.

 

[sydney]

The influence of the Catholic church, in American politics, suggests otherwise

you're kidding right....do you have any idea how many different god bothering denominations there are in the U.S , Pentecostals , Evangelical , Presbytarian.....to name the major ones, as discussed in the BLM thread America is a ****ed up place with millions of insular , poorly educated morons , their attitude to birth control and abortions is verging on paleo-neolithic.

you can have an assault rifle but you can't have an abortion .....absolute idiocracy in the 21st century that a woman should be forced to have an unwanted child.

 

[Stat Brother]

you're kidding right....do you have any idea how many different god bothering denominations there are in the U.S , Pentecostals , Evangelical , Presbytarian.....to name the major ones, as discussed in the BLM thread America is a ****ed up place with millions of insular , poorly educated morons , their attitude to birth control and abortions is verging on paleo-neolithic.

you can have an assault rifle but you can't have an abortion .....absolute idiocracy in the 21st century that a woman should be forced to have an unwanted child.

I'm not entirely sure, as correct as you are, what that has to with why the right to abortion wasn't enshrined in US law when the political margins were (just) in its favour.