Breaking: claims that the American Supreme Court will strike down Roe v. Wade

GB News on the sniff for an appetite in the UK to limit access to abortion. Fuck off, GB News. No, women in the UK don't use abortion as a form of contraception. Women who need an abortion need an abortion. It's not a 'lifestyle choice without consequences', it's a need. Forced pregnancy and birth is not an option.

Look, this isn't twitter. Generally on here we use reasoned arguments and evidence and avoid logical fallacies (association fallacy being one of them).

We're also aware of how easy it is to send a quick tweet saying "Oh no this is terrible", and how that achieves fuck all.

TRAs with their snidey little digs amd shit memes are really showing themselves up on this thread. Nobody is stopping you from discussing this subject properly and maturely.

Exactly mandodari

and interesting that a poster having a pop at somone NOT commenting

also appears to have NOT commented themselves 🤔

(maybe on another thread?)

@RufustheFloralmissingreindeer

It was probably the usual , how dare she speak about this one aspect of womens rights when she doesn't speak about xyz. If she were to spend her time talking about all the wrongs women face, she'd have no time to eat, sleep or do anything else.

Not sure exactly what the point was but i think it might be something along the lines of ‘desperate attempt to have a pop at JKR…again’

About your first two paragraphs:

In theory that could happen, in practice it never will. Deep Red States are so heavily gerrymandered the Republicans will never lose control of them. That produces a cycle of Republican-controlled State Legislatures and Assemblies that then push Republican-controlled propaganda specifically designed to foster a culture that is pro-Republican. Add that to the gerrymandered seats and this guarantees a massive majority vote to return Republican lawmakers to the Legislature or Assembly and the cycle continues.

Yeah - all the rednecks bleating on about ‘freedom’ at the Jan 6 riots, and when they don’t want to wear a mask - couldn’t give a shit about women’s actual freedoms.

It is interesting how the US considers itself a beacon of individual rights and freedom, but even "third world" countries allow abortions up to 20 or even 24 weeks.

Joe Biden seemed to be very off message yesterday when he spoke about 'a woman's right to choose'. Will he be cancelled for associating the 'w' word with female biology or might it make some US Democrats, particularly the female ones, think a bit harder about the real-life implications of accepting male people as women when it comes to fighting for our sex-based rights?

Some people oppose abortion for religious reasons and they are entitled to. We have no reason to think JKR takes a religious stance on abortion, so I don't see the point there, Duck.

The reason why JK Rowling hasn't commented on Roe v. Wade.

‘The position of abortion not being a 'right' but legally granted or taken away, is the same as here in the UK, or other western countries isn't it?’

Yes. It’s complicated by human rights law but I’m not sure exactly where that comes out.

Well yes the US has flaws with its deomcratic systems, but that criticism stands for any law making there.

The position of abortion not being a 'right' but legally granted or taken away, is the same as here in the UK, or other western countries isn't it?

It's just there it is now the individual states who now decide rather than individual countries such as in Europe?

‘On what the electorate in each state might do, the US is far from democratic, with barriers to voting, no limits on campaign spending, gerrymandering and so on.’

Yes, there are issues there.

This seems to be a ‘states’ rights’ issue, really. The Fourteenth Amendment itself has an interesting history. It was ratified in 1868 and (according to Wikipedia) contested by the defeated Confederacy states. It underpins decisions on segregation and same-sex marriage. You get the impression that all these cultural conflicts we’re seeing (the culture wars themselves) go back to the divide between ex-Confederacy states in the South versus the Democratic states in the North.

Scary stuff.

On what the electorate in each state might do, the US is far from democratic, with barriers to voting, no limits on campaign spending, gerrymandering and so on.

‘f the decisions go back to the individual states, won't law makers have to make decsions in line with what the electorate want or they will get voted out for someone who will.

So states planning to ban abortion will only do so if the electrorate supports it and the law will be changed again if they don't.’

Yes. But what the Constitution does is set out areas where States can’t legislate, because the matters contained in it are considered to be inalienable rights, even when a majority of your fellow citizens disagree.

If this goes through, abortion will be something you can be granted, or not, depending on what other people think.

Cross posted with TabbyCat who explains it legally so much better!

If the decisions go back to the individual states, won't law makers have to make decsions in line with what the electorate want or they will get voted out for someone who will.

So states planning to ban abortion will only do so if the electrorate supports it and the law will be changed again if they don't.

While we might diagree with the view, isn't this at least democratic? e.g Ireland had a referedum on abortion which seemed a fair way forward given the division among the population on this issue.

You may hold the view that there should be no laws at all goverening womens bodies, inclusing abortion, but democratic states and countries are free to make that decision for themselves in line with the electorate. If it is not a majority supportde view in the state it will not be implemented.

Not any comfort for women who live there, but a fair and legal & democratic process?

I should say, I support the right to safe and legal abortion.

‘Surely women’s bodily autonomy must fall under ‘privacy’ or ‘liberty’?!’

In my personal value system, yes it certainly would (and that’s why I support abortion). But what they are arguing is that the clause in the Constitution relied upon for the actual Roe decision never covered this particular interpretive matter of ‘liberty’ and (I think) never covered privacy at all.

The decision instead moves us towards territory where the Court is trying to avoid ‘judicial activism’, ie making law when it should only be stating law. The Alito draft decision claims Roe and Casey overstepped what the Court could actually declare as a matter of Constitutional provision, and that the decision on abortion rights is a matter for ‘the people’, ie State legislatures.

That’s the same as saying it’s a matter for Parliament here. Each State legislature is a Parliament of its own.

(I’m not defending it here, just trying to understand the reasoning.)

Yes, that theory makes sense.

Surely women’s bodily autonomy must fall under ‘privacy’ or ‘liberty’?!

And that’s why the going theory seems to be it was a conservative clerk or staffer leaking. To set the decision.

I’m reading the Alito decision and it seems to rest on the flaws perceived in the reliance of Roe v Wade on the Due Process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, that (if I’m reading right) makes any state action without due process of law unconstitutional, and can mean some state actions are deemed unjust whatever process is attached to them, because the matter is considered to be one of fundamental liberty (and privacy?). But the Alito draft decision claims that abortion isn’t one of those matters, as there was no history of unlimited abortion ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and traditions’.

Can anyone comment on this as a matter of Constitutional law?

I imagine they write draft arguments so they can be tested against other arguments, as part of the process of coming to a final vote. They’re not meant to be writing an opinion on what they think about abortion, but what they think the Constitution says about abortion. That will be subject to a lot of debate.