Supreme Court Draft Opinion on Abortion Rights

[Istiblennius]

Oh you and your logical fallacies.

You seem to be imagining how people might freely vote in a representative republic when considering the question of what religious means in this context.

Ignoring how a small group of radicals from several religious denominations, but mostly one, have come together to undermine our representative republic doesn't serve anyone well, including those radicals who are driving away former and potential followers.

[marshwiggle]

Oh you and your logical fallacies.

You seem to be imagining how people might freely vote in a representative republic when considering the question of what religious means in this context.

Ignoring how a small group of radicals from several religious denominations, but mostly one, have come together to undermine our representative republic doesn't serve anyone well, including those radicals who are driving away former and potential followers.

The same argument could be made about how a small but highly vocal group of activists on the left have driven legislation which doesn't reflect the majority of voters, (such as biological males being placed in women's prisons just by self-identification as female.)

No religion required.

[Istiblennius]

Right on. Let's move on to the what about-ism logical fallacy.

Putting a woman in women's prison does not create harm (aside from the usual harms associated with incarceration). Forced birth does.

The only parallel here is Women's rights are human rights and LGBTQA rights are human rights.

[jimbogumbo]

For almost everybody, the outcome will not be different if Roe goes.

First, this issue matters most to pregnant women. Given that group, anyone who has less money in the roughly half of states this could impact will be significantly impacted. I think the above is an overstatement.

[Parasaurolophus]

If you want an informed analysis of the decision and it consequences by an actual expert rather than The Atlantic's bare recapitulation, here's one.

[jimbogumbo]

It is also the case that states' specific laws can have a big impact. Current legislation in Missouri is much like the Virginia laws against interracial marriage that were struck down in Loving. Specifically, it would be a crime to go to Illinois, have an abortion, and return to Missouri.

[dismalist]

Specifically, it would be a crime to go to Illinois, have an abortion, and return to Missouri.

Don't know that that's true yet, but if it were, let Missouri try to enforce it. There will be no new Fugitive Slave Act [and even if there were...].

Whenever in doubt, support the Senate filibuster.

[marshwiggle]

Right on. Let's move on to the what about-ism logical fallacy.

Putting a woman in women's prison does not create harm (aside from the usual harms associated with incarceration).

Except for the female inmates who were raped by the other "woman". That probably counts as harm.

[Istiblennius]

You are levelling up by mixing multiple fallacies on this one - strawman and red herring all together all wound up in one grossly offensive little package.

Trans people are far more likely to be victims of sexual assault and other assaults than perpetrators. Cis people (including cis women) can also sexually assault other cis people (including cis women) in prison or any other environment. 

Your assaults on the dignity and humanity of trans people are not okay. Please stop. 

[Sun_Worshiper]

Assuming that the draft opinion becomes the official opinion, overturning RvW will primarily affect poor women in red states who can't afford to go to a blue one for an abortion. Since these women can't even afford an abortion, they will mostly struggle to afford the child. The likelihood is a difficult life for the mother, the father (if in the picture, as the modal abortion patient is single), the child, and her/their other child/children. So, while I can understand where anti-abortion folks are coming from, limiting the availability of abortions will make individuals and (probably) society more generally worse off.

Also, and I'm sure this has been said elsewhere in the thread, if Republicans care so much about families and babies, they should be supporting the social programs that will ensure health and well being for them after leaving the womb.

[jimbogumbo]

Specifically, it would be a crime to go to Illinois, have an abortion, and return to Missouri.

Don't know that that's true yet, but if it were, let Missouri try to enforce it. There will be no new Fugitive Slave Act [and even if there were...].

Whenever in doubt, support the Senate filibuster.

We'll see what SCOTUS does with the Texas legislation. If that is upheld, it's New Zealand time for me. Missouri's abortion legislation will pass, and CA along with other states will go after guns.

Obergfell is on the chopping block, as well as Griswold. IMO, thinking otherwise makes you a cockeyed optimist.

[paultuttle]

You know, I've predicted feared anticipated a roll-back of civil and personal rights to the extremely limited set that existed at this country's founding ever since I learned three decades ago that there were Supreme Court justices and protege(e)s who interpreted the Constitution through the lens of so-called "originalism" (which I understand to be, in practical terms, party legislate like it's [still] 1789).

(One benefit: It does make "screw you and the horse you rode up on" [a favorite Southern expression] still relevant. Conveniently.)

:rolls eyes:

[dismalist]

Specifically, it would be a crime to go to Illinois, have an abortion, and return to Missouri.

Don't know that that's true yet, but if it were, let Missouri try to enforce it. There will be no new Fugitive Slave Act [and even if there were...].

Whenever in doubt, support the Senate filibuster.

We'll see what SCOTUS does with the Texas legislation. If that is upheld, it's New Zealand time for me. Missouri's abortion legislation will pass, and CA along with other states will go after guns.

Obergefell is on the chopping block, as well as Griswold. IMO, thinking otherwise makes you a cockeyed optimist.

The draft says that it would not imply anything for other issues in other cases.

It's fascinating how a decision on one case is used as an argument about decisions on other cases. I guess it's not convincing enough politically or juridically to oppose the case at hand.

I don't take the spillover seriously.

[Parasaurolophus]

The draft says that it would not imply anything for other issues in other cases.

So did Bush v. Gore, and yet it's been used as precedent hundreds of times by state and lower federal courts.

More importantly, the draft ruling devotes nearly zero space in its ~100 pages to distinguishing the case against Roe from the case against the other privacy laws, several of which relied on Roe as precedent. He say whatever he wants to say, but he hasn't shown anything of the sort. Remember also that Roe had 49 years and a 7-2 vote behind it; Obergefell has 7 years and a 5-4 ruling. Not that they care about stare decisis, obviously, but it has a lot less stare in its decisis than Roe did.

I don't take the spillover seriously.

You don't, but actual experts do.

[dismalist]

The draft says that it would not imply anything for other issues in other cases.

So did Bush v. Gore, and yet it's been used as precedent hundreds of times by state and lower federal courts.

More importantly, the draft ruling devotes nearly zero space in its ~100 pages to distinguishing the case against Roe from the case against the other privacy laws, several of which relied on Roe as precedent. He say whatever he wants to say, but he hasn't shown anything of the sort. Remember also that Roe had 49 years and a 7-2 vote behind it; Obergefell has 7 years and a 5-4 ruling. Not that they care about stare decisis, obviously, but it has a lot less stare in its decisis than Roe did.

I don't take the spillover seriously.

You don't, but actual experts do.

So did Bush v. Gore

Sure. It was the right decision!

Para, we disagree --- on everything, I might add.  Indeed, I think we live in different realities.

The peaceful solution is to live in different countries, or, as I hope is possible, in different States.