Breaking... US Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade

xxxxxxl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119263984#Comment_119263984

No true any government of the day can change them. I support abortion in Rape and incest and medical needs for example.

Tonesjones

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119263871#Comment_119263871

It's supposed to be but France and Germany run the Eu.

Faugheen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119264003#Comment_119264003

How would you legislate in the case of rape?

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119263336#Comment_119263336

Rewriting history now?

Nothing was "reformed". The 1861 law that was in place before the 8th amendment stayed in place until 2013. The only change in 2013 was to try to give doctors enough clarity about the law to not leave women to die.

The amendment wasn't Fitzgerald's idea. The wording was actually endorsed by FF out of pure political opportunism, he regarded it as deeply flawed (As pointed out by such as Mary Robinson and subsequently proven right), he wanted a different wording, but in a free vote in the Dail the FF-endorsed wording prevailed.

Still though it's a great black mark on his political career that his government were unable to prevent this vile misogynistic amendment being put to the people. It should never have been allowed to happen and was a real low point in Irish politics. Thankfully, ever since the tide has been going out on the power of the Catholic church generally in this country, and politically in particular.

usernamegoes

Is this thread about the policy of abortion or about whether the US Supreme Court correctly interpreted their constitution?

I voted for removing the 8th from the Irish Constitution, but it isn't clear to me that the US Constitution has anything to say about abortion. I have read the opinion (Roe and the new Dobbs one) and I have listened to Oral Arguments in Dobbs. As frustrating as it may be, I'm not sure allowing 9 people on the Supreme Court to just decide what the law is without a basis in the text is a good idea.

xxxxxxl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119264025#Comment_119264025

No idea, it's a tricky one. Would you have to report the rape for example ? or would your word be enough. Why i'm not a legislator tbh. this kind of minutiae of the law is best left to those that understand the ramifications.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119263862#Comment_119263862

This "founding fathers" BS is one of the most ridiculous things about America. As if it's not crazy to attempt to decide 21st century issues by somehow divining the supposed views of a bunch of 18th century slave owners.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119263871#Comment_119263871

No. Not in the EU Parliament. Imagine if Ireland got the same number of MEPs as Germany or Spain?

At the council of ministers, yes, but the EU is not a federal state so comparisons with the US are not valid. Each EU member remains a fully sovereign nation state.

The EU has no jurisdiction over matters like health or abortion or divorce, despite all the scaremongering from conservative catholics in the 80s and 90s that "Europe" was going to impose divorce or abortion on holy catholic Ireland.

xxxxxxl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119264044#Comment_119264044

Tbh they should have a vote on bining the current one and creating a new one set in this century. but we no that will never happen via dems or reps.

usernamegoes

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119264044#Comment_119264044

What's the alternative? 9 unelected judges decide what they think the law should be? Obviously, amendment is the answer but it's not the judges' fault if the political branch can't manage to do it.

ArthurDayne

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119261681#Comment_119261681

Oh I agree that the Supreme Court shouldn’t be attacked too vociferously, but their reasoning of course can be. In my view, the abdication of responsibility by the legislature (which you very correctly point to) means that the court should step in, not to settle the debate but to provide a balance of the right. That’s what Roe (and Casey) provided — a balance where abortion was allowed under the Constitution until viability, after which the constitutional right expired and the legislature could step in. In a country where getting legislation like this through suffers from bothpractical difficulty and lack of willpower on all sides, Roe / Casey provided a balance. But the effect of this new decision is not balance at all — it is effectively a bald statement that from the moment of fertilisation a woman has no constitutional rights whatsoever as regards any decision not to continue with the pregnancy. The argument that it is balance, or judicial neutrality, seems shakey to me because the Court has actively stripped away a decades-old constitutional right which women have been able to rely on for many, many years.

The dissenting opinion of Justices Breyer et al is a good read. They compellingly argue that the majority’s literalist interpretation of the Constitution means that interpreting constitutional provisions as at the time they were ratified (exclusively by men of course) means interpreting the Constitution as at a time where women had no influence, no say, and no power.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119264003#Comment_119264003

Can.

But won't.

growleaves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119264026#Comment_119264026

'Unable to prevent' Lol. You're some naif. Fitzgerald was constantly saying things he didn't believe and trying to please multiple powerful interest groups simultaneously including the Roman Church. He kicked the ball into the back of his own net. I know the origin of the amendment. Charles Haughey, Frank McCluskey and Fitzgerald were all broadly supportive of holding the referendum in the first place and then in the end Fitzgerald got cold feet over the wording and voted against it. Is that your idea of principled? Then you accuse me of re-writing history? Get a clue.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119264135#Comment_119264135

That's the big problem. The US constitution is almost impossible to amend.

nullzero

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119263911#Comment_119263911

I think your memory is a little hazy. The rhetoric pre omicron was becoming increasingly militant, thankfully the bloody virus weakened. Had that not happened when it did we would likely be in a much different situation now.

I think you just don't want to admit there's a connection regarding bodily autonomy. At this stage you're just being belligerent. If you want to continue knock yourself out, the narcissism of lefties never ceases to impress.

xxxxxxl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119264155#Comment_119264155

I don't have your faith in that. Ireland I think has broached the subject and come to the best compromise. But there is nothing stopping a gov seeing where the wind is blowing and changing curtailing or removing this right.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119264163#Comment_119264163

You might point out exactly where I called him principled? That's right, nowhere.

Just in case I hadn't made it clear enough for you, I think the whole incident was a disgrace, and like I said a black mark on his political career.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119264171#Comment_119264171

Again, over the multi-year pandemic name just one Democrat ran US state which brought in jail term for those who simply refused to get vaccinated?

I can provide a big list of 'big-government' Republican run US states who have already brought in laws that would jail women for making choices regarding their own bodies. Some Republican US states were so 'big-government' that they already had trigger laws in place.

xxxxxxl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119264207#Comment_119264207

Tbh I don't know how they could stop anyone from going to another state. How would they prove what you were doing due to medical privacy. I don't see any court overturning that. So do they rely on snitch on your neighbour ? what then road side pregnancy tests. IIRC only on a Federal lvl your information can be used.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119264135#Comment_119264135

Political branch is terrible there but this extreme grouping in SCOTUS has shown it is happy to make up reasons at a whim to completely disregard laws when they are put in place when they don't suit their ideology - even if Roe v Wade was codified they would find an excuse to throw it out. For example, they had/have no problem making rulings against gun control laws voted by the states with arguments that wouldn't hold up if they were consistent with their other rulings.

Constantly they flip their interpretation of the constitution to whatever suits the result they want. At this stage it is as clear as day - they have absolutely no shred of ethics when it comes to their role, they start with the result they want and work backwards.

xxxxxxl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119264252#Comment_119264252

On the last part has that not always been the way then ?

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119264239#Comment_119264239

Not sure of the technicalities but they could leave the Texas approach of the civil suit by their neighours in place (which this SC didn't block).

Problem is that even if they dont actively control that so many women are too poor to make it to states where it might be legal (especially when surrounded by other red states).

Obviously, that is ignoring the high likelihood of an attempt for a national ban on abortion.

usernamegoes

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119264252#Comment_119264252

Is that what a lot of people actually want? A Supreme Court that basically decides what the law should be.

Seems to me that a very plain reading of the US Constitution doesn't mention abortion, further more "substantive due process" doesn't make a whole lot of sense and was made up to give people rights they thought they should have.

Pussyhands

Gotta love how the left went crazy over the jan 6th events yet now there's plenty of support for protestors storming homes of the justices and chanting cut his dick off. I was on a r/news thread on reddit today and there was substantial support for taking guns to pro abortion protests.

Here's a comment with over 600 upvotes:

Left of center folks in this country need to get armed, trained and organized. I have been saying this for years.

And another:

We need a presence like the black panthers, armed observers of police action to put the fear of god into them

Another with nearly 1k upvotes:

Time for pro-choice people everywhere to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Open carrying at these protests will put an end to a lot of this ****.

Stop protesting unarmed. Go protests fully armed with body armor. The police do not mess with fully armed protestors. Use that fact.

Pussyhands

Just a reminder aswell for many people that there is no right to abortion in Ireland, despite people claiming we got our right while the US had theirs removed.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119264273#Comment_119264273

It was always possible but for the most part a decent proportion ruled with some level of ethics and on the case in front of them (of course they still had their own biases). There wasnt the exact same split like we're seeing here with every vote.

It is why that despite how many more GOP nominated justices over the last few decades vs those nominated by Dems that it has taken until this latest batch to turn the country so much. What repeatedly happened was that the GOP would nominate someone they thought was a hard liner and they'd end up ruling on the cases on their merits so to combat it right wing groups poured loads of cash to vet and indoctrinate judges for years before openings came up to be certain they'd do what they wanted (along with questionable disappearance of the debts of certain judges)

xxxxxxl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119264288#Comment_119264288

But TBH we have covered the poor already. They cannot already in fact afford an abortion. 1 in 4 was it ? dont have $400 for any emergency medication. so effectively already forced to continue with the pregnancy regardless of the availability of legal abortion. I have been on google and in fact the medical abortion can be upto $1000 without health insurance. It's always been an issue for the poor. Only now are they being used as a lighting rod for the middle class.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119264293#Comment_119264293

Nowhere does the constitution mention the right to conceal carry a gun yet the same SC judges a few days ago had no problem finding against the laws that restricted this.

There is absolutely no consistency with their logic

extra gravy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119264308#Comment_119264308

Oh my god 600 upvotes on reddit!! You better alert the authorities asap!

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119262911#Comment_119262911

The SC, including the man in question that you are quoted, are proven to twist truth to suit their ideology.

'Personal religious observance' is not doing it in the most public place on the field - on the halfway line. 

Again, the Conservative hypocrisy is caught in full view where now a teacher can lead a class in prayer in a public secular school while not being able to mention that they are gay to the same students.

Again, that’s your own interpretation of what actually happened, based upon the narrative you wish to promote as being what actually happened. It’s not what actually happened though. In the most basic terms - the school over-reached, and got told nope, can’t do that.

Utter nonsense. Unlike those who are cheering this decision by the SC, I am treating each person as a human being and not pushing my opinions on anyone's unique situations. I am calling for each individual to be given their right to choose what suits their life, that myself nor 'big-government' mostly full of old white men should be telling them what to do with their bodies.

And again, when your original point is shown to be nonsense, that women do actually understand plenty about women and babies, you defer to the old “stale, pale and male” trope, which ignores the reality of millions of women who are pro-life, who have been protesting in favour of protecting life for decades, who don’t want abortion legislated for.

Nobody is telling anyone what they can and can’t do with their own bodies, it’s the law which determines the freedoms and limitations on what anyone can or cannot do with their own bodies, and what freedoms and limitations anyone has with anyone else’s body either, such as abortion services providers who receive Federal and State funding, or bodies like the FDA who will try and find a way to challenge legislation which prohibits the procurement of abortion pills by telesales, etc.

No individuals are being deprived of the right to choose what suits their life, within the context of laws which apply in those circumstances. Turns out that the right to liberty and privacy doesn’t infer a right to abortion after all.

It could have been addressed long before now with Democrats having been in power since Bill Clinton shot his load on Monica Lewinsky’s dress (he was obviously familiar with the pull-out method but for the love of God, on her dress?), and then there was Obama, and his Obamadon’tcare plan, and then there was Biden, and he’s pale, can’t call him stale as he’s fairly spritely for his age, but he is male, and between them, and all the other pale, stale, and wealthy, lest we forget, types, and those who have decades of experience in law - they didn’t think to put abortion on a more solid foundation than relying on it being inferred by the 14th Amendment. It’s not Government is telling anyone what to do, it’s not even the Courts, they only interpret existing law, and in Roe v Wade, the SC recognised the States interest in protecting the potential of human life -

What did the 14th amendment have to do with Roe v. Wade? 

Writing for the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, Justice Harry Blackmun said that the court held a woman’s right to an abortion was implicit in the right to privacy protected under the 14th Amendment. However, while the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a woman's right to choose, it also acknowledged the state's interest in protecting the "potential of human life."

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/what-is-the-14th-amendment-and-how-is-it-connected-to-abortion-rights-roe-v-wade-2/2865134/?amp

You don’t say anything about that though. Is that because you prefer to imagine it’s a limitation which doesn’t exist? Similarly, once they had achieved their aims, the lawyers representing Roe wanted to pretend she didn’t exist either -

Publicly, the pro-choice movement more or less shrugged. McCorvey's former lawyer, Sarah Weddington, said, "All Jane Roe ever did was sign a one-page legal affidavit." But Charlotte Taft, the women's-rights advocate, regrets that the pro-choice camp did not make McCorvey feel more needed or more special. And, she says, evangelical religion provided Norma with something the pro-choice movement could not: the comfort of absolute truth. "She got to know she is right" says Taft.

https://archive.vanityfair.com/article/2013/2/the-accidental-activist

Instead of taking your “my hands are clean, my conscience is clear” approach to addressing the main causes of socioeconomic deprivation by means of having the Federal and State taxes provide funding for abortion providers operating in socioeconomically deprived areas in the US, I mean, it’s one way of trying to eliminate a whole underclass of people living in poverty, do you think a better strategy might be to provide funding for supports and services which will enable and encourage socioeconomic equality, rather than having women forced into a position where they are faced with no other choice but to have an abortion? That’s not choice. That’s not choosing what they want to do with their own bodies. It’s promoting abortion, and attempting to sell it as healthcare.

You need people to be stupid enough to buy into it. It’s already a no-brainier for anyone who wants an easy way to avoid any social responsibility they have towards other people in society - wash your hands of it and pretend you’re arguing for anyone to be given the freedom to do what they want with their own bodies, and if it weren’t for 'big-government' mostly full of old white men, they would be too. But you treat everyone as individual human beings… of course you do, looks like it and all 😒

Loafing Oaf

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119264308#Comment_119264308

Gotta love how the left went crazy over the jan 6th events yet now there's plenty of support for protestors storming homes of the justices and chanting cut his dick off. I was on a r/news thread on reddit today

usernamegoes

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119264341#Comment_119264341

Well to be fair that's a little disingenuous, the 2nd amendment could very fairly and reasonably be understood to be a right to conceal carry a gun. Of course there could be arguments around the edges like are fully automatic guns aren't covered or the affect of the prefatory clause but it's not comparable to Roe.

Roe is based on the concept that "no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property save in due process of law" which is much harder to see where the right to abortion comes from in that. Clearly this was a right to have a fair trial and all of the general rights a process which was customary in a common law jurisdiction.

xxxxxxl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119264401#Comment_119264401

Just to chip in. The 2nd is pretty much meaningless at this stage. Intended for a well regulated militia to be able to overthrow a despotic government or the king of England ? So unless you can buy an Abrams or Cruise missiles it's not fit for purpose.

usernamegoes

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119264419#Comment_119264419

So there is argument about whether it is only applicable to a well-regulated militia (hence my mention of the prefatory clause) but the SC said that its says the right of the "people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" not the "right of the militias..."

But I agree, it is ridiculous and should be repealed but it's not the job of the SC to decide that this right is no longer applicable and should be removed.

nullzero

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119264207#Comment_119264207

So you couldn't "win" on the topic I was discussing so you veer off into something else entirely?

Interesting tactic.

BorneTobyWilde

https://youtu.be/i74_vH-Ov9g?t=26

Christian groups celebrated like it was the next coming of Christ when Row v Wade was overturned, yet here is Mormon telling his mom he got a stripper pregnant and she's like '' TELL HER TO GET AND ABORTION!!!!'' It's funny how their feelings change when it's her precious son involved.

Tonesjones

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119264546#Comment_119264546

Don't believe everything you see on the Internet

Faugheen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119264630#Comment_119264630

Says they who believes everything they see on the internet if it suits their narrative.

kowloon

This is the most active thread on the forum in a while. Shows just how emotive the issue still is in Ireland, referendum or not.

xxxxxxl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119264805#Comment_119264805

No idea why, Unless your planning on flying to the USA for an Abortion. Seems very very odd to me.

riclad

We could boycott states where abortion is illegal in cases of rape or incest, don't visit those states, avoid buying from company's that are based in those states. I'm not saying do not buy any American products. Its interesting that certain company's were making big donations to Politicans who campaigned to make abortion illegal. It appears America will be more divisive republican controlled states versus states controlled by Democrats and the supreme Court will be voting for laws that allow more religious discrimation against lgbt minoritys .

Tonesjones

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119264713#Comment_119264713

This is just argument for the sake of it.

The video is a clip from a YouTuber named Juan Guanzalez. A prankster type with a net worth of 16 million.

A chancer with scripted videos

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119264308#Comment_119264308

None of those are actually advocating violence. They are all advocating being armed so others don't attack them. I mean I don't think I agree since it will lead to escalation but none of it is advocating violence.

We shall see when elected officials have to go into hiding and barricade their doors with furniture.

As you brought up the 6th as a comparison the equivalent statements I saw coming up to that were that Biden and Pelosi should be dropped out of a flying helicopter.

ArthurDayne

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119264293#Comment_119264293

The court's view on the interpretation of the constitution does seem very inconsistent though, as pointed out in the dissenting opinion.

Firstly, the majority of the Supreme Court essentially held that a right to abortion was unknown before the mid 20th century, and this greatly informed their decision that the rights conferred by Roe v Wade were, in essence, an overreach. However, the majority also stressed with great emphasis that their decision absolutely did not affect the constitutional rights pertaining to other things like access to contraception -- even if this concept (and the others they mention) were also not known rights until the mid 20th century.

So, essentially, they came to a somewhat confusing conclusion that the lack of a historical basis for the constitutional right conferred by Roe was a significant reason to overturn it -- but in the same breath they also say confidently that this view does not affect other things like contraception or interracial marriage. A consistent approach would mean saying that the Court's decision means that essentially all constitutional rights are insecure unless they have a requisite explicit trace of origin back to the 19th century.

The Court essentially seems to apply a different reasoning towards Roe because, as the dissenting judges plainly put it: they despise abortion, found an argument to frustrate it, but were expressly unwilling to apply that argument consistently across the strata of other rights.

Hotblack Desiato

Makes about as much sense as saying slavery is grand because many people saw no problem with it until well into the 19th century, and indeed fought a war to maintain their "right" to own slaves.

Or persecuting LGBT people is fine, after all they had laws explicitly discriminating against them in most of the US until very recently... and unlike slavery, there is a real risk of a return to this.

Legal abortion is a 20th century concept in most places, but abortion has been around throughout human history and always will be.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119264805#Comment_119264805

Nah, it's just the usual small number of anti-choice posters posting the same drivel furiously and repeatedly.

growleaves

Opposition to abortion throughout history was not exclusively Christian.

Caesar Augustus, Ovid and Juvenal would be the most famous pagans from the classical world to be against it.

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119265034#Comment_119265034

Fine. Here's an article I've posted before talking about forced-birthing advocates like yourself who avail of abortion services, often at the places they picketed.

https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119265856#Comment_119265856

And supported by major religions like Judaism. Biblical support for abortion, heh.

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119265363#Comment_119265363

Actually, and imo unsurprisingly, the most recent demonstrations have featured violence *against the pro-choice* from the forced-birthers:

https://www.salon.com/2022/06/28/did-violence-follow-roe-decision-yes--almost-all-of-it-against-pro-choice/

Lots of prior art for forced birthers resorting to violence including bombings, murders, vandalism, let alone the 'gauntlet' women were forced to run when visiting health clinics.