QuoteThe fallout is what concerns me. Where America goes, the world tends to follow. It's not that long since the eighth amendment was abolished here. Will this change embolden the no campaign to restore it to the constitution?
I've called America a failing state for many years now, but I think this is the final nail in the coffin, it'll encourage GOP idiots and evilmongers to do worse and worse -- the SC is already taking about going after contraception and gay marriage. I think it's destination Gilead now, with no backsies. Am I wrong?
The fallout is what concerns me. Where America goes, the world tends to follow. It's not that long since the eighth amendment was abolished here. Will this change embolden the no campaign to restore it to the constitution?
Honestly, abortion is the least of our worries, it's the far-right I'm worried about, globally; this and what's to come will embolden them. And I think the odds of a civil war in America in the next 5-10 years just went way up.
Whats wrong with abortion being decided by Democracy in each State ?
for one thing, it won't be decided by a public vote, it will be decided by each state senate. So the state of (picking a random one) Georgia could decide to ban abortions with a majority vote, and there's nothing the people of the state can do about it, at least until the next state elections, and even then if majority of pro-life senators are elected, it won't change. Even if the majority of people do support abortion, depending on where that majority lives in the state, you could still get a majority of pro life senators elected.Originally Posted by seanfhear
You will have the case of someone living on the border of (again, random state) Colorado being unable to get an abortion in their own state, but being able to cross the state line into Nevada to get one. That's like being unable to get one in Kerry, so you drive to Cork
FYI I've been to Georgia a few times in a previous job, and the state capital, Atlanta, is pretty liberal, but the rest of state can be quite conservative.
They should do a Nation-wide Referendum like we did in Ireland = = Democracy is way to sort such a matter.
In an ideal world, yes, but states can set their own laws. Opposite sides of the same state line can have different speed limits, punishments for different crimes, decide to sell marijuana, and now abortions.
That's why it was so important that abortion was decided by the supreme court, it meant that it had to be provided by each state, even if some of them made it incredibly difficult to get one
If it's failing, the real question is what's causing it to fail.
Does anyone know if the ruling is legally sound? So taking away the moral and political aspects of the ruling, is the interpretation of the 14th Amendment that allows abortion (under a woman's right to secrecy/privacy?) correct now and incorrect previously?
I know several of the SC judges said during their assessment process that they consider the precedents sound but now they've done a U turn.
I have to say I'd share dahamsta's assessment of the US and fears for a Gilead-like future but at the same time I have a nagging doubt that the constitutional right to abortion might not have been soundly embedded in the 14th amendment.
The actual origin of the US Right's adoption of abortion as a culture war cause is really interesting and addressed here, episode 1 of Things Fell Apart, a podcast by Jon Ronson of the BBC. In fact the whole series exploring the origins of the US culture wars from abortion, LGBT+ rights and culminating in the rise of Q-Anon is dealt with really well in this series - though gun control isn't discussed. Anyway, unknown to me, the US evangelical right never opposed abortion, thinking it was a topic for the cranks in the Catholic church who they hated. But a little known film maker, son of a Swiss-based philosopher, engaged the evangelical right to become politically active and once successful spent most of his career regretting it and working towards reversing it! Story also here.
The Coming Storm, also on BBC, by Gabriel Gatehouse has some similar content. This series explores the rise of the Q-Anon conspiracy and discusses its implications.
I find it all pretty alarming tbh and think there's now a non-trivial chance of some form of terminal schism, America failing, liberal states seceding and a thoroughly nasty far right core emerging as a separate state.
I might be stating the obvious on this but America is desperately in need of a move to the middle in its political discourse and shift to a more comprehensive form of dialogue on some core issues. Both sides of the aisle are far too quick to shout down, demean, label and vilify the opposing side in a two-party system with an approach of "if you are not me, you are the extreme opposite of me and therefore my enemy" which just entrenches people in a stubborn refusal to discuss or debate and further reinforces division and polarization. I'd imagine the reality is far more nuanced than that. Individuals are complex, opinions are fluid and issues often have a large degree of grey but these three tenets seem to matter less and less in a rush to demonize.
Two of the biggest issues at the moment are obviously gun rights and abortion. I refuse to believe that there is not a middle ground there where the vast majority of the population would be fine (ignore the 10% of lunatics on either side of the spectrum who are given far too much prominence in discourse) with the outcome and tensions would release but there is so much dishonesty on both sides. Social media is obviously a massive part of what causes this toxicity and overreliance on extreme voices.
There is a middle ground between "no guns" and "military grade weapons for all". There is a middle ground between a "blanket ban on abortion" as we will see in some states now and "voluntary abortions to 9 months" as we will see in others.
On the issue of abortion, I think that advancements in science have been as much to do with the resurgence in pro-life movement as the narrative shifted away from "just a clump of cells" to ultrasounds that are incredibly depictive and show that these foetuses respond to stimuli, can feel pain, viable outside the womb at 20 weeks etc etc etc. When this is layered on top of a move by some states to what essentially has become a model of "abortion on demand", it is not a surprise that it became an issue after approximately 40 years of it being largely accepted and a norm. The norm being something akin to what Bill Clinton said in the 90's that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare" - - now we have politicians who refuse to say that abortion in the 9th month should be restricted. At some point along the 9 months, the standalone womans healthcare argument begins to weaken and there legitimately is another party that must be considered in the decision-making. My overarching point is how in the hell can a middle ground not be found here that balances the rights of all. It is baffling to me.
As i said, it is stating the obvious to call for dialogue that seeks a reasonable middle ground - - as it is the norm in most functioning democracies and political system. But it is seemingly impossible in the two party system in America. And i agree with many of the posts above - - America is broken and in danger of disintegrating.
Last edited by SkStu; 27/06/2022 at 6:44 PM.
The SC examines constitutional issues and issues of rights and Healthcare is typically left to State government and legislature to handle. Roe v Wade conferred a right to abortion based on an interpretation of the right to privacy in the 14th Amendment (I think) due to a constitutional challenge where a state had legislated abortion to be a criminal act. The subsequent Casey case actually reaffirmed Roe to the "point of viability" subject to "undue burden". As i said above, i do think that viability means something in this context and conversation.
By way of another popularly passed referendum? What exactly do you see happening here?
It never ceases to amaze me how when a political change takes place in the US that an Irish person doesn't agree with they suddenly realise the US has a federal structure and believe the system of governance of a transcontinental state of approximately 330m people needs to be structured and governed in a fashion that produces results that match their political preference.
There's nothing "random" about the US states. Georgia has a population of ten million, larger than the island of Ireland, and has held statehood status since 1788 with a state legislature older than the US Congress. You can argue about the legal nuances of the decision but there's nothing inherently bizarre or strange about individual states legislating for themselves within a federal state structure via democratically elected representatives. There's a greater democratic deficit within the structures of the EU for example. Yes, a supranational structure but one that can pass regulations and directives that must be transposed into Irish law and with powers of veto and qualified majority requirements that make the US Senate look easy to navigate. We'd think it bizzare if someone in Georgia felt it was crazy that all Irish legislation isn't set by Brussels.
I agree with everything in this post. I generally avoid posting anything on Abortion as if you don't agree that abortion in the 9th month is legitimate you are anti woman and if you dont agree that abortion is murdering babies you are an accessory to murder. The 10% that skstu mentions unfortunately represent 90% of the social media posters.
The stumbling block to the middle ground is finding legislative wording that doesn't fall at the first hard case. The mental health argument basically makes legislating a nightmare.
On gun control, middle ground should be easier to find.
1 gun per man and 6 shot clips ....here that sounds like lunacy but in the states it would be the equivalent of disarmament
Let Americans run America, Democratically as they decide.
Because its going well for them at the moment in fairness.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/07/h...021/index.html
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/08/h...ntl/index.html
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...hs-in-the-u-s/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...h=6a7f908a4c90
Last edited by Real ale Madrid; 29/06/2022 at 2:04 PM.
I'm not sure I understand this point, or its relevance. I think the objection here runs deeper than "isn't it terrible abortion rights are no longer a constitutional right". It's every bit as much that the decision seems to be a politically motivated decision by a now highly partisan Supreme Court, deliberately stacked with big C Conservative judges, and the most senior of these has said other constitutional rights should probably be rolled back now too. What other interpretations might this Court now also make? Is the Supreme Court really just making decisions based on dry legal arguments or is it now rewarding a (seemingly now disgraced) former President intent on sowing division?
Last edited by Stuttgart88; 29/06/2022 at 2:58 PM.
Democracies are run by the Democratic Decisions of the People in that Democracy. That is how Democratic Countries work.
I'm not sure what your point is here - I don't believe it is in any way undemocratic to point out what a terrible job they are doing. There is a lot undemocratic about the way they run their country anyway, no different to a lot of other countries tbf.
Elections have consequences. If Hilary had won, do you think the SC would not be similarly stacked in the other direction?
Regarding the bit i have bolded, you said yourself that you had a nagging doubt the constitutional right to abortion might not have been soundly embedded in the 14th amendment. Thats precisely what this SC has said.
I wouldn’t exactly hold up the Republic of Ireland as an example to anyone = = Just look at the Politicians it has produced since it was founded and FFG of course.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks