To agree with the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v Wade?

[thereareotherways]

Obviously I can predict the voting already! Ha.

TL;DR (at the top!): I support abortion but think Roe v Wade (and later cases) are not legally sound, and there are better ways to secure women's rights that would have more public support.

I'm personally not opposed to abortion in most real-life circumstances. I think after viability I would prefer other options to be explored, but I think most women having later-term abortions are doing it for serious medical reasons and I don't think that should be prosecuted. That said, I also am okay in principle with regulating abortion and I'm not an absolutist re: women's control: I think the fetus/baby does have some rights (which I weight proportionally more as the baby grows).

As I understand it, Roe v Wade and Casey rely on a right to "liberty" in the US constitution (primarily the 14th amendment), which otherwise doesn't mention abortion. I'm not a lawyer at all, I find this tenuous at best. Liberty has always had implied limits based on what's acceptable in society, and abortion was illegal until fairly recently. I don't think there's any justification for claiming that there's an implied consent of the people that abortion is morally acceptable - and the polarisation of the US on this issue reflects that.

I think the decision in Roe/Casey to impose abortion via activist judges was a poor decision both legally and politically. This is a clear case where elected representatives need to pass legislation that reflects their constituents' positions. If that legislation differs from state-to-state, well, that's the whole point of a federal system. Pro-choice candidates need to get elected in red states and then they will have the actual consent of the people, not tenuous implied consent.

The decision in Dobbs is here and good reading: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

I also have a faint hope that now that this has been overturned, both Republicans and Democrats might now return their focus to legislation instead of Supreme Court nominees. The power of the Supreme Court is too dominating in US politics: we should be pleased to see them ceding some power back to the legislature, i.e., the people's representatives!

"Does the US still have a problem with baby formula supply?"

Yes @PeekAtYou but apparent it's not a problem as breast milk is free 🙄🙄🙄

"OP don't you think that this is the tip of an avalanche of changes ? People are expecting gay marriage to be the next issue looked at"

Yes and that too. And apparently birth control too. Wtf???

If it goes down that line then I think compulsory vasectomy can fix that.

Yes, and as a supporter of same-sex marriage I hope somebody in power is planning ahead for this.

There isn't a clear general right to privacy in the constitution so relying on it for important decisions is madness. If Americans want such a right to exist, there is a process for amendments.

(Waiting for the replies calling me a homophobe who wants all the gays to be stoned to death, or something)

I'm British not American but this constitution thing is actually bullshit in real life in the new millennium, isn't it?

It doesn't work now

Like an abusers freedom to continue defamation because constitutional"free speech"

Like gabby petitos parents have to go through a civil court because laundries parents constitutional right to stay silent

Like those children in Uvalde because of the constitutional right to hold a firearm, even a semi automatic weapon under the age of 21.

Constitutional rights,my arse

We might have a load of twats in the UK but im so grateful we don't have you you have in the US. The mighty US.

All that's making you great is money and capitalism

The strict constitutionalists don't want it to work for today because they do not want any of the modern, progressive ways of living to be permitted.
They want the United States to function the way it did in the eighteenth century.

I'm ex army. I know how to handle a semi automatic firearm. Would I have one In my house? Not a chance in hell. No way. Why?

Also, abortion. Im 50 and from day one in my life I was taught it was the woman's choice. None of my business.

Religion. I went to Sunday school but I went for the Cadbury crème eggs they sold at the tuck box. As soon as I wanted out, my parents respected that

The USA was something a lot wanted to go to. Now I see a backward misogynistic, racist, violent country that can't pull its head out of its arse.

"The strict constitutionalists don't want it to work for today because they do not want any of the modern, progressive ways of living to be permitted.
They want the United States to function the way it did in the eighteenth century"

This!!

I agree, I think the route to go down is surely an amendment one…? - rather than leaving to the whim of the Supreme Court.

I have always found the whole thing quite bizarre.. the way the justices are appointed by the President (whichever one at the time) with seemingly the MAIN consideration being whether they are pro choice or not.. but no one comes out to explicitly say it.. And the way it all comes down to whether the liberal / conservative justice can manage to die during a presidency of their preferred party so to get replaced by someone they agree with.

OP will you list some of the nuances involved in the question of abortion rights? You refer to nuances at least twice but haven't explored any of the following:
Birth control that is regarded as abortifacient,
Permanent sterilization denied by medical institutions,
Dead or dying fetus that has not been expelled from the body, especially in the case of twins,
IVF,
Miscarriage and the mother's accountability,
Pregnant women who require medical treatment for other medical issues like cancer,

Who gets to make these decisions? Do you think that every state and municipality is responsible for legislation positively codifying a woman's rights for each of these scenarios?

Ita is absolute bullshit. The US measures its laws against a 200 year old document and thinks that makes sense. Amendments are few and far between and often also not rational. The entire country is several centuries behind the times and sliding backwards. My DDs have citizenship through their dad and I am encouraging them to renounce. It isn't a good time to be female and American.

I also don’t really understand basing a society around a constitution written from a completely different period. Why does it need to be interpreted constantly? Why can’t it change and evolve?

The people who wrote the constitution weren’t infallible. The constitution is treated like a scared text and I don’t think that really works with the (constitutional!) idea of separation between church and state .. It’s replacing one old book with antiquated laws that need constantly interpreting for modern life with another.

As it happens, I am quite happy to not have a (formal) constitution and in the UK I support the sovereignty of parliament, which is much more agile and can move with the times.

But that's not how it works in the US, which does have a written constitution and where the role of the Supreme Court is pretty explicitly to determine whether laws are valid according to the rules of that document.

"The entire country is several centuries behind the times and sliding backwards"

Absolutely. My daughter is worried but she's British. I told her culturally the Brits have been on this planet far longer than the Americans. They might think they lead the world as they are an economic giant, but they're shit we left behind centuries ago. It ain't happening here. Not a chance

"But that's not how it works in the US, which does have a written constitution and where the role of the Supreme Court is pretty explicitly to determine whether laws are valid according to the rules of that document."

I'm sorry for you and your country.

Mankind would be extinct without women. End

Completely agree with this. It is the system they have. Just in the same way that lack of proper gun control is not the fault of the Supreme Court - if law makers want change they should change the constitution.
The Supreme Court is simply charged with upholding an antiquated document that doesn’t really work with life in the 20th or 21st Century. That it is an antiquated document that says nothing on women’s reproductive rights and was written back when “arms” didn’t mean semi-automatic assault rifles is not the fault of the Supreme Court, it is the fault of those in Congress and the WH that aren’t trying hard enough to change it.

If you made a clear amendment on reproductive rights and took it out of the hands of the Supreme Court, is there not an argument that you’d end up with better SC Justices too rather than just ones picked because the President thinks they’ll vote the “right” way on abortion? (Brett Kavanaugh etc… Surely he was picked for one reason and one reason only??)

I'm sorry I'm not even going to get into that post. Politics and constitutional crap and religion have absolutely nothing to do with a woman's autonomy over her own body. None of the aforementioned will be there when that child is born.

Your expressed sense of satisfaction with this ruling and admiration of the legal cleverness involved is very repugnant to me, especially when you consider the diabolical levels of oppression of women this will result in, not to mention the ramifications for gay marriage and birth control.

OP will you list some of the nuances involved in the question of abortion rights?

I don't have an issue with any of the scenarios you listed, probably along with most people including most Americans.

Some nuances of my argument are:

• It's possible to support overturning RvW on legal/constitutional grounds, and also support 100% of all abortions, even for, say, art projects - these are orthogonal questions
• It's possible to recognise that the developing fetus DOES represent a competing interest, and still believe that that interest is in most cases outweighed by the mother's
• Public support for early-term abortion is high; public support for late-term non-medical-reasons abortion is low, and are more emotionally difficult for the woman; ideological purity regarding "any time, for any reason" is out of step with mainstream opinion despite claims to the contrary ("60-odd percent of Americans support abortion" has been cited a few times - not saying that that's for FIRST TRIMESTER only)

The absolute last thing I want is for abortion in the UK to turn into a Stonewall-style #nodebate ideological battle, where we all have to pretend we support abortions as art projects or 8-month terminations on principle in order to count as "pro-choice" and therefore "on the right side of history". It's not aligned with how normal people think about this issue - and isn't aligned with the actual problems with access (e.g. NHS waitlists and GPs not offering contraception) that we could be channeling our energies towards.

Do you think that every state and municipality is responsible for legislation positively codifying a woman's rights for each of these scenarios?

Yes. They are of course welcome to inherit whatever laws their "parent" level sets, with specific overrides as necessary/within their jurisdiction. Residents in these states and municipalities are welcome to lobby their representatives and/or convince other voters to vote for candidates who support their views.

Is it controversial that there are subdivisions of government who sometimes have devolved powers...?

Goodness me. Do you know how many women will now have illegal unsafe abortions?! What is wrong with you?!

If you made a clear amendment on reproductive rights and took it out of the hands of the Supreme Court, is there not an argument that you’d end up with better SC Justices too

Completely agree!

"The absolute last thing I want is for abortion in the UK to turn into a Stonewall-style"

Americans have been on the planet only a few hundred years. Your money makes you powerful

British people, and some are twats, have come from thousands of years of history, wars and culture. There's not a knats chance in hell that shit will come here.

Without Roe parents and doctors providing IVF are now at risk in 34 states. The changes in the laws may mean any disposal of the frozen embryos, could come with manslaughter charges.

Any women involved in an accident which causes misscarrige, they will now be at medical risk as doctors in those states could be charged for providing any drugs to help the pregnancy fully come out at end.

Still births will see more criminal charges for women than there are now in the U.S.

So it’s not just women having abortions who will be at risk.