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!

Thanks @MadameMinimes. Utterly, utterly disappointing.

SM is on fire about this and good. Keep the momentum going. I saw this and it really, really hit me. I think I should put TW in first (talking about CSA):

vm.tiktok.com/ZMNMHyRg2/?k=1

So many other aspects and consequences I suspect many haven't thought about, but it's all going out there to be heard. Sometimes SM can be a power for the good. The people speak out.

I am also heartened by others posting out offering a safe place to go, no questions asked, where they can access medical treatment and fuck the law.

This one is typical of one but it's absolutely terrifying at the same time: how can we have got to this point? And I say we, though I'm in the UK. Women stand together with our hard earned rights:

vm.tiktok.com/ZMNMHVTUL/?k=1

What do you think about the fundamental inconsistency in your argument: the people of New York state democratically elected (actual consent vs tenuous implied consent as you put it) a government that imposed gun restrictions. New York residents approve of those gun restrictions by a margin of 8:2. The Supreme Court failed to cede power to the state in that instance.

Are you saying you don't like it when the Supreme Court overrides the democratic will of people in a particular state on the basis of overly-broad interpretations of the rights granted by particular constitutional amendments?

You'll get no argument from me!

I don't know how abortion services are provided in the UK but in the US surgical abortions can only be performed at heavily regulated clinics. The regulations imposed on these clinics are separate from the laws in each state that allow or restrict the right to an abortion. It's a de facto restriction to access even if a state technically permits abortion.

Some states have very few or only one clinic. So a woman may need means to travel. Some states require 24 or 48 hour waiting periods between the initial appointment and the actual termination. This also is a form of de facto restriction. So is cost. Abortions are not free, around 500 dollars. Idk what it would cost in the UK

Medical abortion, by pill, is an easier option but in the US pharmacists can refuse to fill a prescription. Even though there are other medical uses for the particular drug involved. In rural areas, there may be only one pharmacy for miles around.

Pharmacists also have the right to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions. Birth control is the next on the chopping block. Some people consider it to be an abortifacient. This isn't paranoia. Kavanaugh brought it up in his nomination hearing and Clarence Thomas has already mentioned it.

I don't think that I can convey how very bleak this situation is for women here. OP wants to talk about 37 week fetuses and women having abortions as art projects while poopooing the idea that what is happening to us is really much more insidious.

We have one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the developed world, no universal health care, no mandated maternity leave, no guaranteed child care and an enormous childhood poverty rate. The solutions being offered by the fundamentalist religious groups pushing this is that they'll take these babies away from the mother's (if they live) and adopt them out to families they are permitted to select via their own discriminatory process and for that service they will be reimbursed by the government. That's a whole separate ball of wax, the money that will be siphoned to so called non profits to deal with all of these unwed mothers.

@thereareotherways

she can’t clarify it because it’s bullshit

@Boxowine , I know it may seem as though I've been disagreeing throughout this whole thread but I think your comments have been quite thoughtful. I think if we met in person we'd agree on much more than we disagreed about.

I agree 100% that access issues are a major barrier. However, these pre-date this week's ruling, and IMO are a reflection of the fact that public buy-in has not been secured.

The reason I talk about 37 week fetuses is because it's my honest belief that "any time, for any reason" is a counterproductive slogan which alienates people who would otherwise be fine with first-trimester abortions which account for the majority of real-world cases. I don't want pro-choice "membership" to be conditional on supporting these kinds of edge cases and I think this kind of rhetoric risks painting all pro-choice activists as "crazy blue-haired SJWs", easily dismissed.

Most people have an instinctive sense that there is "something" worth preserving during the later stages of pregnancy, or at least considering during the decision-making process. If the religious right are the only people acknowledging that, and there is no space in the pro-choice movement for ANY acknowledgement of the trade-offs involved, can you really be surprised that people start to have sympathy for the religious position?

I've been trying to read this with an open mind and thinking maybe there really are legal implications we need to consider here, the law being an ass and all. But I'm really coming to the conclusion that it's just an exploitative attempt of OP to attempt to flex intellectual muscle. And that the reason for this particular choice of material for it is because opportunities for such flexing are somewhat thin on the ground.

I don’t think it’s especially controversial to use “activist” in the sense of “judicial activism” to describe Roe. Casey is not an example of “judicial activism” as it upheld previous precedent. This, most recent decision, could also be argued to be “activist” in the sense that it overturns previous precedent. I know these justices would probably bristle at it being described as such, but I think it’s telling that Roberts was in dissent here because of stare decisis.

Yes, fair point. I liked a lot of things about Roberts' opinion.

YABU…. And trying to do it by making out you are smarter than the average bear.

@thereareotherways

a woman should be able to abort at any time for any reason.

end of.

a woman should be able to abort at any time for any reason.

end of.

You say “end of” but the reality is that this is a fringe opinion. There would be zero chance of getting democratic, plurality support for that position in the states. The overwhelming majority of Americans are against “any reason” third trimester abortions. 77% in 2018.

news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

FiveThirtyEight also has some really interesting analysis on this.

fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-americans-stand-on-abortion-in-5-charts/

fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-its-possible-for-some-americans-to-support-abortion-yet-oppose-roe/

The current justices, put on the court precisely for this result, the imposition of a political rather than legal philosophy, are true 'activist judges.'

I definitely don’t disagree with that. It’s also clearly what Roberts was driving at in the first page or so of his opinion where he talked about the importance of “judicial restraint”.

I thought the ruling was bad initially. Now that I've listened to a talk on how it gives more power to individual states, it's not as bad.

I support abortion in the UK, though you can have extremely late term abortions in America the UK and Europe won't allow.

Once a baby can survive outside the womb, I don't support the right to end its life.

Once a baby can survive outside the womb, I don't support the right to end its life.

What does that mean?
What is survive?
A few days with severe dissbilities?
Survuve but mother dies?

Define "survive"

But you're not celebrating a decision that eliminates the possibility of late term abortions. You're celebrating a decision that in some states abortion will be restricted at any stage of gestation, to include prior to implantation in the uterus.

This ruling is also already regarded as the basis for allowing states to restrict abortion and outlaw gay marriage.

I wonder if US women en masse 'shut up shop', so to speak, as a protest, how that would play out..?

Once a baby can survive outside the womb, I don't support the right to end its life.

Babies with anencephaly or other conditions incompatible with life included? That isn't a hypothetical scenario, it happened to a friend of mine. She had a termination at 26 weeks because her much wanted child had such a condition. Couldn't be discovered any earlier for medical reasons.

You want people like her to be forced to carry to term, knowing their baby will die. Nice.

It would work. Really, it would.

If the men truly couldn't get any women - and I do mean any at all - they would cave fast. So fast it would make our heads spin.

Of course, that's anti-feminist because women have sex drives, not to mention completely impossible for many obvious reasons. They'd bring women in from abroad and introduce laws to legalise anything they needed to get sex before they relinquished control over women's wombs, including marital rape and God knows what. But theoretically, if we really could prevent them from getting any woman, at all, until they capitulated, they'd fall like fucking dominoes and it wouldn't even take that long. Especially if they couldn't even get porn.

I don't think that women in the UK can understand how terrible this is because most women in the UK only have familiarity with urban areas and relatively well off people in the US who won't be affected as badly. Yes, I admit that this is a broad general statement but there is a side to the US that experiences unspeakable poverty and there are great swaths of rural areas with an utter lack of options, I just don't think that the average middle class woman in the UK can really comprehend how awful this is for us or how much control conservatives have over us in some areas.
South Dakota is already trying to ban telemedicine for the abortion pill, this by executive action by the governor.

Land of the fucking free.

The situation for us is dire. I'm not exaggerating. Unless you've lived here you can't understand how bad it is, some areas worse than others.

It's more than just saying I think abortions at 37 weeks is frightfully inappropriate. They want us to not be able to have them at all, to not be able to access birth control, to not have sex education, to allow child marriage. It's multi level and it is intentional.

Yes our cities are mostly liberal and everyone is running around like lunatics but the rural areas are very patriarchal and still very much dominated by fundamental religious groups.

Throwing basic bodily autonomy decisions back to the states is delivering that power to mostly male legislative bodies and governor's and Attorneys General who are often tied into the same political party and religion and have a singular mindset on this issue.

You also have to understand that in a country with almost no government provided social services, religious non profits set up as providers under contract to the government. See the church that receive a hundred million dollar contract to house detainee children at the border. Or the millions upon millions of dollars colleges like Liberty University have racked up in just about twenty or thirty years. There's an economic incentive here that people don't appreciate. They want to get paid to run crisis pregnancy centers, they want to get paid to run adoption agencies. Heck, the Catholic Church runs several hospitals in western states that are the only medical providers around. Try getting an elective hysterectomy or tubal ligation.

I can't really explain how big this is but we are very different from you and a lot of that has to do with how many fundamental churches we have. Who literally settled certain areas and have always been the dominant political force in that area.

@Boxowine you are right, I cannot truly understand just how bad things are. I can be utterly apalled, I can feel deeply sorry that things are as they are, and I can thank you for being so blunt about the situation. It's much needed.

This has opposed constitutional weaknesses in the US - modern human and fundamental rights are not enshrined in it and there is no right to a referendum on such issues. Devolving power on abortion to the individual states is a recipe for inconsistent, ever-changing legislation on this vital issue. And the decision is unsatisfactory in that the constitutional point it makes is applied inconsistently, although one justice did appear to think that the rights to contraception and to gay marriage could be similarly challenged (whilst ignoring the race discrimination issue similarly founded).

I posted this too on another thread: I think some of these US states should continue this theme by criminalising people who leave their children (i.e. mainly men) or who don't pay maintenance! Lets see how long the opposition to abortion lasts then.

Fucking hell @Boxowine that's a terrifying picture you just painted.