US Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs Wade

The point about the contrast between the EU (and other places where it is legal) v the US is that the question has been resolved and put to bed. It's really far less about how it works legally. This will not need to be addressed again but they'll still be trotting up to the SC in another 100 years.

Part of concern about those restrictive US abortion laws, is the chance of criminality being tacked on to the laws for women who travel outside their state. There are also people who would gladly undo a wide range of other rights if they could, off the back of this.

Ehh I am confused?.

Surely you mean lots of guns in blue states ?

Also how are you bringing in "stare decisis" as I thought the decision here on revoking Roe v Wade was based on fact there was no right given for abortion in constitution in the first place ?

Likewise with rights to same sex marriage, birth control, inter racial marriage, etc.

You are correct, Alito used the 'it's not in the constitution' argument. This is farcical reasoning. Women weren't in the Constitution. Slaves were in the constitution. Lots of stuff the USSC rules on isn't in the constitution. But, Alito specifically called out abortion as not being in and hence, no previous decisions about it matter (e.g., Roe.) So, previous decisions don't matter wrt to all sorts of things around the 2d amendment (for example, DC vs. Heller).

Here's a comparison - Dred Scott. The court passed this awful opinion but they used *what was in the Constitution* as the basis for it's reasoning, and once the... (forget the numbers) 13/14th/15th amendments were passed, Dred Scott became invalidated. Roe v. Wade (and Planned Parenthood v. Casey) were invalidated because 'it's not in the Constitution.' The Constitution is 230+ years old, lots of stuff the USSC rules on is based on previous USSC decisions. Lots of things State courts rule on, are based on the previous State court decisions. This ruling is a repudiation of that practice. Good luck, US Democracy.

Just to be clear: What exactly do you mean by "feel pain" and "lots of pain" and what is your evidence that this is in fact the case?

I am not sure the consensus is quite that muddled. Let's take the first link you provided to explain what I mean.

The comment from GalwayGuy35 is related to the fetus "Feeling" pain. That is, I assume, that it actively experiences that pain and suffers subjectively as a result.

The link you provide however says absolutely nothing about any of that. Rather the link is about how the fetal response to pain stimuli has potential negative long term effect.

They say it well inside the study "In other words, concern over whether pain can be perceived by a person who does not yet have a mature, conscious awareness, has obscured actual evidence that an immature person’s physiology is changed by pain."

In other words the link you have provided is predominantly about how prevention of pain stimulus during development is a good thing to do because, despite the fact that the fetus does not subjectively EXPERIENCE any of that pain.... the biological system itself does. So if we plan to develop the fetus to term and create a human being... we would do well to prevent such pain stimulus.

As I understand it, though I requested clarification, GalwayGuys point is entirely about the EXPERIENCE of pain in the fetus. Not the physiological effects of pain stimulus on a fetus.

That said though, the vast majority.... in fact given numbers as high as +98% the near totality.... of elective abortion happen in or before week 12 and certainly by week 16. It is alas only the more rabid of anti choice speakers who constantly make it about later and later term abortions which generally and predominantly only happen due to medical or other necessity. So AT BEST GalwayGuys point.... even if true..... is an argument for using pain medication during such late term abortions to ensure the unavoidable termination of the fetus causes no suffering.

The idea of removing the 60 vote filibuster sounds great until you get a conservative trifecta and they bring in a national ban on abortion, same sex marriage etc.

I understand the hesitancy to remove it, given the rigged structure of the Senate in its current form it will be tougher for the Democrats to get even to 50 votes for marginal policy wins than it will for Republicans to get to 50 votes for some of the worst elements of their policies, that is supported by their base.

It isn't surprising that those who are the biggest cheerleaders for abolishing it are the same folk that historically had the least foresight of how their actions for short term purity gains can have terrible long term consequences (e.g., not fully supporting Clinton in 2016). Any change to the filibuster is impossible at this point due to the Senate makeup but if a change was to be made for it to have a chance of not blowing up in the faces of the democrats it would need to be done at the same time as making DC and PR states and packing the SC.

No it hasnt. Abortion laws have been changing a lot in EU members. Poland for example has recently become more restrictive on abortion, not less. Even in this country theres still a bit of churn behind the scenes regarding provision of abortion services , how much/to what extent. Its far from a settled debate anywhere really

Politically it is in decline because it has a dubious electoral system exploited by both sides. Gerrymandering actually goes all the way back to Elbridge Gerry, a founding father. He started the game in Massachusetts in 1812, allegedly reluctantly. Redistricting as they also call it is the way to maintain that status quo in order to be able to drive their respective agendas.

its not though, laws can be changed, its no different in the US, in fact if it was a law it would have been changed already in the US, you just need to wait for someone to literally die before you can get a chance to change the supreme court

You get the Prez, congress the senate and the supreme court in a sequence, then good night

I know how it works, I watched the simpsons

if you get them all on one side of the fence, well anything goes

its the reason for all the shitthousery, its setup to not work

Oh, it's always been hovering in the background in the US, a lot more in recent times with the swing of the courts to the right. Like ourselves, other countries would have legislated for it and the majority of political parties support that right so it's doubtful it would change elsewhere.