So, Roe v. Wade was just overturned

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

So now you can choose the kind of state you live in.

Many of us can. I'm sure the majority of people on this board have the resources to have that freedom. Sadly, many people in this country are not fortunate enough to have the finances and flexibility to relocate a long distance across the country just to live a place that more closely aligns with them politically.

Laws that reinforce existing cultural/political divides and encourage people to self segregate, I think make us worse as a society, not better.

I wonder about the long-view of a country with more individualized state rights. A USA that is more "States of America" and less "United." Laws that get "locked in" as a way of persuading citizens "you want to live here? You'll deal with our laws forever." 

Will we have situations where states go rogue, with such high populations of one voting populace that they are almost entire Republican or Democrat, and then we end up in situations where the Feds restrict money to those states whom it doesn't align? We saw threats of that during the Trump administration - and quite a few lawsuits as well.

I'm all about state rights, local and hyper local sovereignty to an extent. I think that cities and towns should be able to have more freedom to determine their local tax laws, among other things. Where this gets fuzzy and frustrating is when states rig the game in one parties favor through gerrymandering, voting laws, etc. "State Rights" should be representative of the voting populace, not those merely in power. 

That said, there is some interesting reading on how while USA has struggled with a lack of "liberal" populism in its current political climate, Europe has had the opposite issue - conservative populism. Either way, there does seem to be more of a push, just about everywhere, for citizens to have more of a say in political policy decisions. 

I have a hard time believing more of the populace being more involved (ie direct democracy or participatory democracy) in big local, state, and national issues would be a bad thing.

In reply to Beer Baron :

That is correct.

The Constitution does not exist to enumerate the individual rights of citizens.

The Constitution exists to limit the ability of the federal government to restrict the individual rights of citizens.

Nicole Suddard said:

In reply to Tom Suddard :

....Miscarriages are even more common than abortions - about 1 in 3 pregnancies end in miscarriage...

Also an interesting / important note here.  From what I here, the vast majority of abortions are chemical, and thus VERY similar to miscarriages.

"Theoretically" you could charge a mother who has a miscarriage with manslaughter?

I am sure "intentional" will come into this, but manslaughter, generally is considered unintentional.  Medically unavoidable?

aircooled said:

GameboyRMH said:

I just think it's interesting that the US has a political and legal system capable of doing exactly what 66% of the population did not want.

Just to be clear on this, and another important point.  The supreme court is very specifically designed to NOT be beholden to public demand (thus life time appointments).  They are supposed (!) to be simple interpreters of how law align with the constitution (unfortunately, "sides" are clearly present, which is very inappropriate)

 

Correct.

However the political side of the system is capable of changing (or clarifying) the constitution the legal side interprets. 

You can bet that loads of taxpayer dollars will be spent in attempts to prosecute women and their health professionals while trying to determine if failed pregnancies were naturally or medically aborted. 

Makes me wonder about a black market for Plan-B bills. 

If you believe that government should allow consenting adults to love who they love,  connect how they chose to connect and not have to hide it, it is a sad day. 

Duke said:

aircooled said:

GameboyRMH said:

I just think it's interesting that the US has a political and legal system capable of doing exactly what 66% of the population did not want.

Just to be clear on this, and another important point.  The supreme court is very specifically designed to NOT be beholden to public demand (thus life time appointments).  They are supposed (!) to be simple interpreters of how law align with the constitution (unfortunately, "sides" are clearly present, which is very inappropriate)

I was struggling to find a clear and polite way to say this.  Thank you.

Technically correct, absolutely, but what I'm getting at is that the country appears to be increasingly held hostage by the opinions of a few wealthy men from the 1700s, overriding anything its current inhabitants might like to do.

Too bad that the question of settled precedent wasn't raised during Merrick Garland's Supreme Court Nomination hearings. 

Did I just patio the thread?

In reply to Nicole Suddard :

There are quite a few doctors who are concerned that every miscarriage could lead to an investigation by the local police, and may even lead to higher insurance costs. Concerned to the point that they might actually get out of obstetrics and find another specialty.

In reply to pheller :

Interesting thing about Plan-B pills. They actually don't work that well for people who weigh above 165lb. That's a lot of people. So Plan B is not even a safe bet or a widely accessible option for many.

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

That is exactly the point I was raising.

Mr_Asa said:

bluej (Forum Supporter) said:

Lof8 - Andy said:

So what does it actually mean?  abortions are now completely illegal?  Or illegal after a certain length of pregnancy?

It means it's currently up to individual state laws.

Which is kinda interesting, cause SCOTUS just removed NY state's ability to make laws on the second amendment. 

Its like there's no internal consistency in SCOTUS for some reason.

They removed State laws on restricting the 2nd Amendment because it is specifically a right spelled out in the Constitution.  There is no Federal right to an abortion spelled out, so it is left up to the individual States in that case, as stated in the same piece of paper.  If anything this shows consistency in reading that document, not lack of. On a strict legal basis, unfortunately this is the correct ruling.

In reply to aircooled :

Chemical abortions are very similar to miscarriages, except that they leave a paper trail.

Beer Baron said:

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

So now you can choose the kind of state you live in.

Many of us can. I'm sure the majority of people on this board have the resources to have that freedom. Sadly, many people in this country are not fortunate enough to have the finances and flexibility to relocate a long distance across the country just to live a place that more closely aligns with them politically.

Laws that reinforce existing cultural/political divides and encourage people to self segregate, I think make us worse as a society, not better.

How many young women will decide to go to California or New Mexico instead of Texas, and how many companies will take this into account when they relocate to another state. Then there are those who can work remotely from anywhere. Of course people without resources can't afford to move, but the people who do have resources and can move are the ones who pay higher taxes and spend more money on everything. Exactly the kind of people that states want moving in.

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

Beer Baron said:

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

So now you can choose the kind of state you live in.

Many of us can. I'm sure the majority of people on this board have the resources to have that freedom. Sadly, many people in this country are not fortunate enough to have the finances and flexibility to relocate a long distance across the country just to live a place that more closely aligns with them politically.

Laws that reinforce existing cultural/political divides and encourage people to self segregate, I think make us worse as a society, not better.

How many young women will decide to go to California or New Mexico instead of Texas, and how many companies will take this into account when they relocate to another state. Then there are those who can work remotely from anywhere. Of course people without resources can't afford to move, but the people who do have resources and can move are the ones who pay higher taxes and spend more money on everything. Exactly the kind of people that states want moving in.

Further draining those poorer states of jobs, opportunities, and public resources to support those who are in a position of lacking the wealth to move to those locations, further perpetuating the cycle of poverty.

I guess we're doing political stuff then.  Okay.  Well, I'm only disappointed that it took so many years to get here, but I suppose it's better late than never.

And with that, I'm off to make object storage and put a Mercedes back together.

Worryingly is that states are trying to make it illegal for their residents to leave the state to get an abortion.  That if they find out, the woman can get charged.

Sorry but this is a *bad* thing.  Never in my life would I have thought I see this, this is a huge step backwards in personal rights

Beer Baron said:

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

Beer Baron said:

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

So now you can choose the kind of state you live in.

Many of us can. I'm sure the majority of people on this board have the resources to have that freedom. Sadly, many people in this country are not fortunate enough to have the finances and flexibility to relocate a long distance across the country just to live a place that more closely aligns with them politically.

Laws that reinforce existing cultural/political divides and encourage people to self segregate, I think make us worse as a society, not better.

How many young women will decide to go to California or New Mexico instead of Texas, and how many companies will take this into account when they relocate to another state. Then there are those who can work remotely from anywhere. Of course people without resources can't afford to move, but the people who do have resources and can move are the ones who pay higher taxes and spend more money on everything. Exactly the kind of people that states want moving in.

Further draining those poorer states of jobs, opportunities, and public resources to support those who are in a position of lacking the wealth to move to those locations, further perpetuating the cycle of poverty.

Of course the women in my office can afford to get on a plane and go to a nice private clinic in New Mexico or California. The women who work part time at the Wal Mart down the street, not so much.

Or the woman who experiences a pregnancy that fails and needs an emergency abortion which they otherwise wouldn't want to do.  This is a basic health question and apparently the answer is "you can die instead of have access".

docwyte said:

Worryingly is that states are trying to make it illegal for their residents to leave the state to get an abortion.  That if they find out, the woman can get charged.

Sorry but this is a *bad* thing.  Never in my life would I have thought I see this, this is a huge step backwards in personal rights

I see a lot of Constitutional problems with this kind of law, but then again, who knows what will happen next.

My wife is getting ready to be a surrogate mother, and we live in a red state that is expected to pass very restrictive anti-choice laws. So what happens if the baby dies in the womb? Will my wife be forced to carry a rotting corpse inside her and possibly die of septic shock, or go somewhere to have an abortion and wind up in prison?

Doesn't sound much like "freedom" or "pro-life" does it?

You know, I'm an author that writes dystopian cyberpunk books. It's really distressing when they become prophetic. 

docwyte said:

Worryingly is that states are trying to make it illegal for their residents to leave the state to get an abortion.  That if they find out, the woman can get charged.

Sorry but this is a *bad* thing.  Never in my life would I have thought I see this, this is a huge step backwards in personal rights

I agree, but legally it's correct. Many personal rights are left up to the State, this is one. 

In reply to Nicole Suddard :

Interesting point about the 165lb.  I was not aware. I'm past that phase but, as I look back on my team photo, I can only think of one who may have been near the tipping point. At least, the ones I remember. 

In reply to wae :

So far this discussion seems to focus on human rights more than politics, and staying remarkably civil.

And it seems like this space is helping the community cope with a pretty serious change in the world.

For now, this thread can stay.