Should this go in innumeracy? Surely more births than maternal deaths will result from banning abortion.
2 Likes
The Texas law has hospitals afraid to do what’s best for the health of the mother.
Devastating!
It’s almost like the laws were designed without consulting those (and/or understanding how) it’ll affect.
I just sent that story to my state legislator. I suspect he has sold his heart to the Republican party but I still remember the common sense he used to have before he was elected. Maybe there is a sliver of that person still left.
It’s almost as if the laws were designed by people who don’t actually give a shit about human suffering or whether “God” kills some people for becoming pregnant. So long as there aren’t any abortions, it’s all good.
1 Like
Well, births by poor people keep them down.
My personal belief is the Nicolae Ceaușescu story that would come to light in about 20 years, should abortion be banned nationwide.
And, yes, in CA here we STILL have people desecrating the cars/trucks with phrases about banning abortion. So, protests are still going on.
That’s not what the article is alleging. It seems to imply that racists want to take advantage of maternal mortality differences, which is orders of magnitude of smaller than births. It also ignores the racial/eugenics origin of the modern birth control movement led by Sanger.
So as a mostly conservative person, I am interested in the overall tone of what the Supreme Court has decided this year. One thing for certain is that they have stripped quite a bit of their own power and handed it back to the legislature. This ruling although unpopular gives power back to the legislature. They have also unwound quite a bit of executive branch finagling in making laws through the bureaucracy. This too puts power back in the hands of the legislature. I’m curious how people feel about this trend overall verses just in this specific case. The legislature being in control puts power in our hands as we elect them.
1 Like
Except for guns.
More generally, it is hard to escape the feeling that they handed power back to the legislature when it accomplished political ends they agreed with, and did not otherwise.
I admit that this feeling is based on anecdote, and that i do not follow most of their decisions.
3 Likes
For many things, I am fine with power being put back in the hands of the legislature. For example, I disagree with the decision on the Clean Air Act but am fine with bouncing that back to Congress.
I don’t think basic human rights should be at the whim of whatever party is in power, or whatever state they happen to reside in.
5 Likes
Interested in what you think these are? I think our rights as a US Citizen are outlined in the Constitution. I don’t otherwise think there is any such thing as basic human rights. You make it sound as if it’s objective when it’s obviously not.
1 Like
But is that what they really did? The ruling basically says the EPA can’t do XYZ unless Congress gives explicit permission. But Congress itself could have passed a law to the same effect if that is what they wanted to do. This ruling + the ruling overturning the NY gun restrictions make me feel a bit like mG
I’ve commented a few times before that I think Congress is broken, and can’t be saved. So the power isn’t going to the people, but into the void. You might argue it’s better that way, hard to say.
Agree with others it depends a lot on details, and Conservative courts tend to throw power in different places, depending on the issue. I tend to prefer a liberal court, because of their rulings on things like Patent Law, Campaign Finance, Corporate Personhood, Gerrymandering…
I disagree. i believe the power was always with the legislature, and these issues should have been codified a long time ago
There are many rights not specifically enumerated in the constitution. For example, your right to take shit without a government camera observing. Since there is no specific right to privacy enumerated, do you believe the government has the ability to invade your personal life however it chooses without recourse?
Many of the items under attack now have their legal underpinnings on an assumed right to privacy. It seems the founding fathers were very concerned about government overreach in general, so I find this entirely consistent with the rights not specifically enumerated as described in the IX amendment.
Things I’d put in that category: the right to make personal healthcare decisions with your doctor and the right to marry who you want to.
We used to think state legislatures or school districts had the power to decide that tax dollars couldn’t be used for tuition at schools which openly promoted one religion as on the “one true religion”. The SC took that power away from them.
We used to think that state legislations or school boards could tell football coaches that they couldn’t go out into the middle of the football field to “pray” immediately after a game. The SC took that power away from them.
We used to think that state legislatures or city governments could restrict gun carry inside their jurisdictions. The SC took that power away from them.
3 Likes
FWIW, here are some rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution that the Supreme Court has recognized:
- right to an abortion based on right to privacy
- right to choose and follow a profession
- right to attend and report on criminal trials
- right to receive equal protection not only from the states but also from the federal government
- right to a presumption of innocence and to demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt before being convicted of a crime
- right to associate with others
- right to privacy
- right to travel within the United States
- right to marry or not to marry
- right to make one’s own choice about having children/ right to reproductive autonomy/right to be free from compulsory sterilization
- right to educate one’s children as long as one meets certain minimum standards set by the state
- right to vote, subject only to reasonable restrictions to prevent fraud, and to cast a ballot equal in weight to those of other citizens
- right to use the federal courts and other governmental institutions and to urge others to use these processes to protect their interests
- right to retain American citizenship, despite even criminal activities, until explicitly and voluntarily renouncing it
- right to consensual sexual practices among adults in the privacy of their bedroom
Poached from here, with the last 1 added by me
Amendment IX – Non-Enumerated Rights (1791) – System.
It wouldn’t be so bad if the results weren’t always rolling back protections that were previously considered constitutional.
Repealing the 13th and 19th amendment would give more power back to the states. The states and the local voters would have the power to remove the right for women to vote and reengage in slavery. I certainly would view this as a horrible thing, but it would be doing all the same things you just listed as good things.
This is exactly what they did. They also did this when it came to religious issues. In Maine, the state legislature banned public funding for schools from going to private religious based schools. The SCOTUS is now forcing the state to direct tax money to religious schools because they claim it violated the free exercise clause.