Roe Vs Wade Overturned After It Being The Law Of The Land For Decades

@shindig: What could go "either way" exactly?

@shindig: it’s not a case by case scenario, it nationally banned, and the states that don’t have their own individual laws keeping it legal are already criminalizing the process, meaning jail time for the people that perform and receive the procedure. There is no “either way”, this is a disaster. The dam has broken. You don’t adopt wait-and-see stances after the whole town is underwater.

And dude, you should look up the rates of sexual assaults. It’s not a rare crime, and that’s just the statistics for just the REPORTED assaults, which is likely not even half of all that occur. Any number of those can result in a pregnancy. Births caused by rape will spike in those states with bans, as will deaths in childbirth, miscarriages and other complications.

Not to mention the basic concept that someone should not be denied their bodily autonomy based on a single religious groups imposing of their morals on all other people. It’s anti-freedom. It’s against the idea that flag waving die-hards say they are all about.

@shindig: Let me put this pretty plainly, there are a number of states that already have laws that do not allow abortion for any reason, including the mother's health, incest, or rape. In those states women will die if they cannot cross state lines for life-saving care. In some cases they can be legally prosecuted if they return to their home state. In some states it's up to the capricious decisions of lawmakers on a case by case basis. So in those states a simple medical procedure is now a legal fight about the worthiness of your case. In blue states it is completely up to the patient without any prying by the state.

This is not a wait and see situation. Red states have been honing laws to impose draconian penalties on anyone providing, seeking, or aiding someone who seeks an abortion. Those laws all went into effect yesterday because they were literally waiting for Roe v. Wade to be overturned. So now over half of the states in the US have effectively outlawed abortion overnight with little warning to patients. People are going to die that didn't need to. Lives will be forever changed to provide peace of mind to goblins who were never seeking abortion care in the first place.

What do you mean by "a case-by-case scenario"? What does "down to how far this goes" actually mean? The states that are banning abortion are largely doing it wholesale. Rape? Too bad. Danger to the health of the mother? Pray harder!

Even if only one woman per year gets pregnant by rape, that's enough reason to keep abortion available for all women at any time no questions asked. As soon as you start saying "you can't get an abortion but you can", what you get is a tangled, confusing mess of exceptions and laws and loopholes that only serve to confuse everyone. A handful of anti-abortionists (I guess that's the right term, I refuse to use "pro-life") get to smugly sit back as they watch people frantically try to figure out a stupid system that might fuck them over anyway.

@tartyron: It is not nationally banned. The repeal of Roe just means that it's not constitutionally protected. There is no federal ban, it's on a state by state basis at this point. Not every red state has a ban in place yet, people need to check the current status of their jurisdiction.

@thatpinguino: It is not as simple as red vs blue yet because not every state has legislation passed at this juncture. Also even in blue states with legislation passed it is not as simple as "completely up to the patient without any prying by the state." For example New York passed a new law recently that permits abortion for any patient in the first two trimesters but only allows third trimester abortions if the mother's health is at risk (including mental health) or for a nonviable fetus. In practice this is not a very onerous restriction, but it's still a restriction. Different states have different laws and people need to check theirs carefully before attempting to get care.

@tartyron: Just as a point of clarification there is no national ban (yet). Without Roe there are no more protections but it doesn't mean it becomes automatically banned.

Small comfort, of course, given how many trigger laws were in place waiting for it though.

VOTE

@efesell: It's of pretty large comfort to people in states where it's still legal, or who have the means to safely get to those states if they need an abortion, though.

Fuck it then. I'm backing away from this shitshow. I hope this bollocks gets overturned ASAP.

@sparky_buzzsaw: I mean... sure yeah don't give up on the process that's how we lose even more in the long term but I'm really tired of this as a stock response.

@bigsocrates: @efesell: you are both correct, I used the wrong wording. A ban is not in nationwide effect….yet. But without a constitutional protection, it’s one bad midterm + one bad presidential away, and even in sanctuary states like mine (Oregon), the negative effects can and will be felt. And the poor folks in red states, hell, even the lower income republicans and going to suffer due to this. Like, the world this shit represents sucks for the people pushing for it to happen too. And the idea that folks can just travel to Canada or a blue state is not as easy as people think it is when you barely make enough to drive to work each day. Plus, I would not be surprised if states started setting up border checkpoints and arresting pregnant women on suspicion of seeking an abortion. That might seem like it would never happen, but so did literally everything the past 6 years or so of Republican evil and democrat ineffectualness.

I’m very angry. Not at anyone here, sorry that I sound so aggressive. I’m just fighting mad and I already vote, protest, volunteer and donate and things just keep getting worse. Im so sick of losing the fight for basic humanity.

@tartyron: I'm angry too and I don't disagree with anything that you've said (though I don't think pregnant women will be arrested; they just may not be permitted to travel, though that's not happening yet.)

I just think it's important to be precise about what's happening not because "it's not so bad" but because people need to know what rights they still have. I would hope nobody is getting information about reproductive health law from a video game message board but you never know, and people pick up info and don't remember where it comes from. There may be teens reading and they need to know that abortion may not yet be banned in their state or in neighboring states they can get to if they need care. You should be careful about your Internet search history but you are generally safe to look up the law in your jurisdiction so long as you use neutral terms like "abortion law in New York State" if you live in New York, or whatever. Still it's best if you anonymize as much as possible using VPNs and incognito mode etc (though neither are perfect) and making sure that if you're planning to leave your state to get care elsewhere you leave as little of an Internet trail as you can.

Things are going to be bad for a lot of people but part of fighting back is making sure people are equipped to use the tools still available to get the care they need.

To add to this, also absolutely stop using those period tracking apps completely, don't leave a trail as best as you.

@thebobster92: One of the cases bigoted piece of shit Thomas cited as being on the chopping block next was interracial marriage. If that is not reinstating segregation, I don't know what is.

@paul_tillich: I think that's one that he specifically didn't mention.

For some reason... could be anything.

@thebobster92: Here you go.

@efesell: You are correct; I must have been confusing case names. I still maintain that idiot has just set himself up to make his own marriage illegal (which I think he wants to do) because he is such trash. He will do it if he can. Four years of Trump in which he did lots of verbal harm but no "real" harm are going to produce generations of very real harm because this court is young and will send this country back to the 1700s before they all die in 40-50 years. I have started looking for academic jobs overseas, but prospects are not great.

@paul_tillich: 🤦🏻‍♂️

This is fucked.

I don't understand American politics reading this thread is making me wonder how America is still considered a first world country, I'm googling things right now about this. But I have a question to those in the know:

If they ban abortions in certain states, shouldn't those states make provisions for women that didn't want the child? better adoption facilities, free health care etc..?

You taking away their rights, shouldn't there be something at least?

Honestly surprised that something like this can be overturned its basic right. Are all laws reversible in America?

@harinosho: America is not only a first world country it is THE first world country because it remains quite rich and powerful. First world isn't about rights or even standards of living it's about strategic alignment and global power. In the cold war the NATO countries (more or less) were the first world, the Soviets were the second world, and the third world countries were those aligned with neither. Today you might view the second world countries as those aligned with China but in truth the term is nuch less meaningful since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

What the U.S. should not be considered right now is a strong democracy. It is experiencing serious democratic backsliding.

All laws and rights can be overturned everywhere, it's just a question of how difficult it is. Every country can backslide in terms of human rights regardless of what people think that country's constitution says or means. If Le Pen had won in France we would have seen serious losses of rights there. Laws and rights exist only so long as there are institutions to enforce them. Once the institutions are controlled by people who don't want to enforce them they are not worth the paper they are written on.

The U.S. has certain structural issues (including a presidential system with undemocratic representation and a strong tradition of deference to courts that are not democratically elected with judges with life tenure) that make it more prone to democratic backsliding than many, but not all, other countries. It also has one political party that is a true outlier in the wealthy and democratic world in its radical politics and authoritarian leanings.

It is very fucked. Better adoption facilities and health care are not substitutes for reproductive rights in any way, but they should exist as a general rule, however people who want to deny others fundamental rights don't work that way. They are not interested in what's fair or right, they are interested in hurting other people for their own ideological reasons.

It's real interesting how government is this big machine that takes ages to do anything, but getting these hateful laws passed has been giving this group such a hateboner that they just can't wait to enact it. You'd think it was some sort of emergency situation or something. Honestly i still don't know what the practical desire for conservatives is. Naturally the whole 'oh god they kill the babies' is a smokescreen for something else, given that once babies are born it's the whole 'pick yourself up by your own bootstraps' mantra again for families & children in need.

Are they thinking making abortions illegal will prevent poor groups from procreating and limiting the amount of democratic voters for the future? Is it a deep urge to have control over women to make it clear that men are in charge? Is it just one aspect of bringing USA back to their ideal image for the country with the added benefit that those that might not like it will just move away from America?

It's a little bit of all that. The data is quite clear in that abortions have actually decreased since the original passing of Roe, so this will probably result in an increase in abortions again(of course there are other contributing factors such as government programs to support child care, which Republicans have also stripped away and refuse to support). Wealthy woman will continue to have access to safe abortions, the poor and minority populations however will be left with traveling to a safe state(if they can even afford to, and they can still be prosecuted in there home state for this possibly), back alley abortions which are incredibly risky, or just death in some cases. Alongside the inherent sexism and "Know your place" of it all, the idea is that this will help decrease the minority population while also providing minority children with no chance in the world that will likely end up in the highly profitable prison system. There is a reason why sitting congresswoman Mary Miller (R-Illinois) said at a Trump rally the other day that "This is a victory for white life", she's also quoted Hitler in the past.

Republicans are Nazis and should be treated as such.

I don't live in America but can someone explain why you vote for Democrats and they say things like they'll codify Roe and they'll fight for abortion rights and then they just let this happen and come back with "but vote!"?

Like vote for what? If there's some SCOTUS that can just be made up of 5-6 people or whatever and they can do stuff like this - and the current Democrats just go "aw shucks" what are you actually supposed to do?

Who are they saying to vote for? To vote blue in all states because apparently at a state level they can do something? Even though there's from what I understand a blue guy in the whitehouse and a majority blue in the senate?

How are Democrats not just able to do essentially what they will with that combo? (Unless I'm wrong, which I could be, American politics is very confusing)

@efesell: @paul_tillich: The other cases that he cites have their basis in "substantive due process," which essentially means that they are rights interpreted by the courts as existing. Substantive due process is controversial and generally hated by conservatives who view such decisions as the work of "activist judges." The decision in Loving v. Virginia used the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. That isn't ironclad, of course. Especially not to these assholes. But that is at least part of the reason that he didn't cite Loving. The legal reasoning is different.

Who knew the course I just took on Anglo-American legal history this past semester would come in handy so quickly?

@jesus_phish: There is a lot but the simplest TLDR version is that the way our congress/senate system is setup doesn't truly represent the people(it really represents land more, so rural low population areas have outsized influence) and that we don't really even have 2 parties(it's more Republican and everyone else). It's also far easier to destroy rather than to create, and the Republicans have stopped even pretending to actually do there jobs and just habitually vote down everything with no chance of compromise.

@jesus_phish: The US has a very non-representative government structure that exists for complex historical reasons. This is why it is possible for a President to win without a plurality of the popular vote and why the senate is very non-representative of the population (for example California, a huge state, gets the same number of senators as Wyoming, which doesn't even have a million people.)

The Democrats currently do not have a majority of the senate. Instead it is 50-50, with the vice president (who is a Democrat) having the tie-breaking vote. This means that any single Democrat in the Senate can stop the Democrats from passing a bill (assuming they can't get a Republican on board, which they can't.) Unlike in parliamentarian countries individual Senators have their own constituent base and can defy the party if they want. For example Bernie Sanders is not technically a Democrat (though he caucuses with them and is on board for issues like this.)

In addition there's something called the Filibuster that means that in practice you need 60 senators to pass any legislation. This is a rule of the Senate not a law and the Senate can change it whenever it wants to, but you need at least 50 senators to want to change it and a couple Democrats don't want to for various (bad) reasons so it is very difficult to get anything done.

Democrats say vote because it does matter. It matters on the state level where individual abortion laws can be good or bad under the current regime (abortion law in New York is still very liberal, moreso than in parts of Europe.) It matters because if the Republicans ever get control of the presidency and both houses they will pass a national ban. It matters because the President needs the senate to appoint new Supreme Court Justices. If Hillary Clinton had won rather than Donald Trump then Roe would never have been overturned. So voting is very important even though it is not a perfect cure in our system.

The part of me that has spent 30 years watching/reading/playing stories about one person righteously* standing their ground against all odds and against a system that won't listen is like, "yeah, okay." But in reality, it's just fucking wild and baffling to me that someone like Joe Manchin, who represents just over one-half of one-percent of the population has so much power in the halls of government.

*Of course, the characters in stories are usually righteous. Manchin isn't.

Our country needs to go back to being nice. And really there is a difference between protesting and rioting there. So far no riots like in 2020 but who knows sadly. For now it is only in like twenty or so states, give or take. But could be a federal law if the Conservative Justices Of the Supreme Court Get their way and wish.

@jean1974: This country has never been Nice.

Because this is where I live, to add to what has already been expertly illustrated by @panfoot and @bigsocrates you need look no further than Nebraska. As one of the most sparse states in the Union, we have just three districts that apply to the Presidential election. To some bizarre turn of fortune and great credit to a less partisan generation of Nebraskans, unlike almost every other state these districts have their own electors, which makes this next bit slightly more nuanced than in most states. But for sake of simplification, forget that while reading the following sentence because these numbers still represent 2/3 of Nebraska's Presidential vote:

1.9 million people live in Nebraska. Of those 1.9 million, 479.5 thousand live in Omaha proper with that number expanding to roughly 1 million in the full metropolitan area with annexed towns like Ralston, Elkhorn, Bellevue and Papillion. Sidebar: the census has an official count of course, but for local government purposes it can fluctuate by thousands of citizens depending on whether including portions of Council Bluffs, Iowa - where Omaha's airport is located because, like, y'know! - is important for tax or property valuation reasons that don't actually affect citizens of that city...uh, nevermind...

This is District 2, which recently excised Bellevue from it's voting bloc because the Republican State Legislature - which initially accepted Bellevue into the bloc after last decade's census hoping the heavily Offutt Air Force Base-employed population would tilt the vote away from Obama in 2012, only to learn many of the military employees in Bellevue were Black - and has become known as the Little Blue Dot over the past 20 years as it often supplies a single, usually meaningless vote for a Democrat in national elections. However, if you were living in the States and feverishly watching the 2020 election, you might remember a handful of hours where there was a very real possibility this one vote was going to push Biden over 271...

In any case, this is getting way more long winded than I intended because I'm Nodima and that's what I do, but the point is over half of this state's population resides in this district, with another 286.5 thousand or so in the state capital and large college town, Lincoln. That makes for what amounts to a scrappy 766,000 to 1,266,000 citizens out of, again, just over 1.9 million total Nebraskans. In other words, a lot of this state is centralized in two cities and yet it's three voting districts are drawn in such a way that Lincoln, being a college town, is subsumed by many surrounding rural communities and even a significant portion of Omaha's more affluent, caucasian suburbs creating a deeply red electorate. District 3 needs no explanation; I have many relatives in this part of the country, and while it's a beautiful place to visit you'd never want to live there (or talk about anything other than Husker football and dog breeds).

This was an unintentionally deep dive into how all that works, but the well-intentioned reasoning behind it is so those less populated communities don't feel left out or unheard on the national stage (because I got so in the weeds, here's a reminder that for almost all states that is how the Presidential election plays out, but it's what makes the House of Representatives the messy daytime soap opera that it is and the Senate a bland volley of he-said she-said blame throwing). It's easy enough to flip it around and wonder how impotent citizens of conservative towns and counties in states like California or New York would feel if votes were left entirely to the popular vote. But that conceptual fairness couldn't, or didn't, foresee the consolidation of wealth and depth of diversity that a technology- and corporation-focused society would demand congeal in large cities. The intention was to make sure the little guy had a seat at the table, but the sheer size of this country has arguably allowed for the opposite to happen: a political reality in which the majority of the country's population is eager to reckon with its ugly history, sprint into social welfare programs on par with our European contemporaries and deeply reexamine our relationships with incarceration and mental health, but the borders-within-the-borders draw a map that gives the minority of the population a louder, if not by default stronger, voice.