Roe v Wade

[dahamsta]

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?

[tetsujin1979]

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?

[dahamsta]

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.

[seanfhear]

Whats wrong with abortion being decided by Democracy in each State ?

[tetsujin1979]

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.
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.

[seanfhear]

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.
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.

[tetsujin1979]

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

[The Fly]

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?

If it's failing, the real question is what's causing it to fail.

[Stuttgart88]

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 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0011cpq), 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 (http://https://theintercept.com/2022/05/12/abortion-roe-v-wade-francis-schaeffer-evangelical-christians/).

The Coming Storm (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001324r/episodes/downloads), 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.

[SkStu]

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.

[SkStu]

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

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.

[Poor Student]

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?

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.

[sbgawa]

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.

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

[seanfhear]

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.
Let Americans run America, Democratically as they decide.

[Real ale Madrid]

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/health/us-life-expectancy-drops-again-2021/index.html
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/08/health/child-mortality-rates-by-country-study-intl/index.html
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2020/09/09/low-literacy-levels-among-us-adults-could-be-costing-the-economy-22-trillion-a-year/?sh=6a7f908a4c90

[Stuttgart88]

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.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?

[seanfhear]

Because its going well for them at the moment in fairness.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/07/health/us-life-expectancy-drops-again-2021/index.html
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/08/health/child-mortality-rates-by-country-study-intl/index.html
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2020/09/09/low-literacy-levels-among-us-adults-could-be-costing-the-economy-22-trillion-a-year/?sh=6a7f908a4c90
Democracies are run by the Democratic Decisions of the People in that Democracy. That is how Democratic Countries work.

[Real ale Madrid]

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.

[SkStu]

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?

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.

[seanfhear]

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.
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.

[seanfhear]

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 wonder why the Democrats and their fellow travellers are so worried about this going back to the Democracy of the Individual States ?

[SkStu]

I wonder why the Democrats and their fellow travellers are so worried about this going back to the Democracy of the Individual States ?

to be fair, the decision (whether or not it is legally, technically, constitutionally correct) will result in a broad range of unfortunate outcomes so i get why it wouldn't align with the bulk of the democratic party, their values and preference for big government. Equally, republicans in blue states (or at least those that care about this issue) probably wont be too happy with some of the outcomes there (e.g. abortion tourism, late term abortions). Thats kind of why i would have preferred more open debate and dialogue on what is really reasonable and balanced. Stupidly ideological, i know. But "my body, my choice" is not really a coherent argument that holds water for me for the reasons i set out earlier. Neither is "hurr durr Christianity". They're definitely all considerations in what should be a scientific discussion about any rights of the unborn that might be protected.

[Poor Student]

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?

I'm making the point in respect of Tets' post where he, among other things, discusses how Georgia's democratically elected representatives may outlaw or restrict abortion as being problematic and how states in as close proximity to one another as Irish counties may have differing laws. I'm also speaking to a wider trend I note among some, not all, Irish people discussing US politics who make out that it's inherently strange or anachronistic that US states legislate on their own behalf and indeed differ in legislation.

To my mind the constitutional right to abortion wasn't explicitly provided for by by the 14th Amendment. It was a nuanced enough decision and even the trimester criteria left some level of restriction in place so it wasn't considered an open ended right. This was replaced by the viability criteria of the Planned Parenthood v Casey judgement in 1992. Do you believe the justices who made the decision have acted in bad faith and there's no legal basis for their decision? Do you believe only the conservative judges act in bad faith and the non-conservative judges do not let their views influence their judgements?

[dahamsta]

Church and state today, school prayer. All these cases conveniently lining up for the nutters, yet still no mass protests. What the hell is wrong with them?

[Stuttgart88]

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. That's precisely what this SC has said.I'm not sure the consequences of a liberal-tilted SC would be as divisive though. You're closer to the ground there than I am, but I'm not sure what major constitutional issues would have changed. I also think it's off that Reps blocked Garland's appointment as it was too close to an election, but then when it suited them proximity to an election was no obstacle to Reps approving a Conservative to the court.

Yes, I do have a nagging doubt and you're the first person to answer my question - though I'd love to hear a logical synopsis of how the decision is justified. I also have doubts that the decision isn't politically motivated though, especially as some of the same judges have previously said they believed the legal precedents in RvW were watertight.

[Stuttgart88]

Do you believe the justices who made the decision have acted in bad faith and there's no legal basis for their decision? Do you believe only the conservative judges act in bad faith and the non-conservative judges do not let their views influence their judgements?I believe it's possible, yes, especially as they had said previously that the legal precedents were sound. I don't think liberal judges are immune to politically motivated reasoning but I'd say there's less current inclination among liberal judges to reverse long-standing controversial legislation that is guaranteed to raise opprobrium in the current febrile atmosphere.

[John83]

Their whole political system is a joke. First past the post elections that are gerrymandered to within an inch of their lives, a federal system that makes the value of a person's vote depend strongly on where they live, and toxic and polarized media bubbles. It's come to a point where people have no faith in their system at all. I agree with dahamsta here: they're flirting with the idea of a civil war there.

[seanfhear]

Abortion has turned out to happen in much bigger numbers and much later in the pregnancies than the People that brought it in said it would, and believed that it would be. There is nothing what so ever wrong with this issue having a Democratic Evaluation after this amount of time.

With out Democracy, Countries are lost. Why are the pro-abortion People so afraid of Democratic Evaluation ?

[osarusan]

What is interesting is that it in some of these states with harsh anti-abortion laws ready to come into effect, it seems like those behind the legislation never really expected them to come into effect - it was a handy political trick to make a law knowing that RvW made it irrelevant, but now it's suddenly relevant.

[SkStu]

I'm not sure the consequences of a liberal-tilted SC would be as divisive though. You're closer to the ground there than I am, but I'm not sure what major constitutional issues would have changed. I also think it's off that Reps blocked Garland's appointment as it was too close to an election, but then when it suited them proximity to an election was no obstacle to Reps approving a Conservative to the court.

Yes, I do have a nagging doubt and you're the first person to answer my question - though I'd love to hear a logical synopsis of how the decision is justified. I also have doubts that the decision isn't politically motivated though, especially as some of the same judges have previously said they believed the legal precedents in RvW were watertight.


I believe it's possible, yes, especially as they had said previously that the legal precedents were sound. I don't think liberal judges are immune to politically motivated reasoning but I'd say there's less current inclination among liberal judges to reverse long-standing controversial legislation that is guaranteed to raise opprobrium in the current febrile atmosphere.

Just a couple of little bits to address in there...

Regarding the point about it being difficult to see what major constitutional issues would have changed, its a simple case of activism and opportunism with certain groups (many on both sides) scouring the landscape for potential constitutional issues to bring through the State court systems and ultimately Federal / Supreme Court. From what i have read, the scale of activism/lobbying (call it what you will) is just a part of the judicial landscape in the USA in a way that i havent seen elsewhere (back home or here in Canada). Many cases of individuals or organizations that get significant financially backing from a multitude of politically influenced special interest groups to advance their cases. So, while i cant definitively say what issues might have changed, i can say that a heavily tilted liberal Supreme Court would be as easily ripe for picking by these groups as a heavily tilted conservative court. And, and i could be wrong on this, i do believe that the issue that was before the Supreme Court last year that led to this reversal was actually taken forward by the abortion clinic in Mississipi against the State which had legislation on the books that abortions after 15 weeks were illegal.

On your giving the benefit of the doubt that liberal justices are less inclined to let their political bent influence how they rule (I totally disagree by the way - i think they are equally as beholden to their principles and preferences), i will just quote something interesting that i read from C.J. Roberts opinion "both the majority and dissent displayed a relentless freedom from doubt on the legal issue that I cannot share". That doesnt sound, to me, like anything other than polarization based on strongly held values.

The only other piece i will clarify there is the piece in bold - the court didnt reverse legislation. They reversed a precedent which many, many, many courts do all over the world in keeping with the principles and norms behind the concept of stare decisis. Often courts will look for nuanced differences in a case from the preceding case in order to avoid having to follow the precedent. That (avoidance) is not, however, what the Supreme Court did here. They reversed it, as you point out, saying that the 14th amendment doesnt confer, through their interpretation, a right to privacy and certainly not one that extends a right to abortion i.e. the precedent is wrong. My point here is twofold:

1) Roe v Wade could have been codified many times in the last 50 years, most recently by Obama who had the numbers in senate and congress to do so in the first half of his first term. He ran on it as his #1 priority and then ditched it almost immediately. That legislation would have enshrined RvW. Many of the protests we are seeing are livid with the DNP for this reason.

2) Matters of rights and public mores are actually fairly fluid over a long time horizon. What was considered right or wrong 50 years ago can reverse completely in the court of public opinion. This means that precedents will always be subject to change. We have gone through - and are still going through, i think - a period of rights extension which is a good thing but what are considered rights may look very different again in 50-100 years. I'm not saying they will, it is just how things have tended to play out over a longer time horizon. Already, i think you are seeing some correction of what is (a) "right" by the recent decisions by many sporting authorities to restrict participation by trans athletes in their competitions. There was a huge call for rights-based inclusion going back a few years now, it happened and now people are saying... "hold on a minute, this isnt right". Not the best example, maybe, but just pointing out how it happens.

[SkStu]

Re: Garland v Barrett. Absolute political chicanery, no doubt. But my answer is the same as an earlier post. Elections have consequences. They did what they did because they could. They had the numbers in the Senate both times.

[Stuttgart88]

Not the best example, as you say, but point taken. The trans issue is an interesting one and seems to have its origins from a schism within the feminist movement.

[ontheotherhand]

Abortion has turned out to happen in much bigger numbers and much later in the pregnancies than the People that brought it in said it would, and believed that it would be. There is nothing what so ever wrong with this issue having a Democratic Evaluation after this amount of time.

With out Democracy, Countries are lost. Why are the pro-abortion People so afraid of Democratic Evaluation ?

Not sure that's true Sean? You're also assuming some sort of pure form of democracy which America isn't really. Most States (and arguably the country) are run by whoever has enough money pumped into them for tv ads, smear campaigns and billboards by lobbyists, corporations and worse. There won't be a vote on abortion.

In 2019, 629,898 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. Among 48 reporting areas with data each year during 2010–2019, in 2019, a total of 625,346 abortions were reported, the abortion rate was 11.4 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years, and the abortion ratio was 195 abortions per 1,000 live births.
From 2010 to 2019, the number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions decreased 18%, 21%, and 13%, respectively. However, compared with 2018, in 2019, the total number increased 2%, the rate of reported abortions increased by 0.9%, and the abortion ratio increased by 3%.
Similar to previous years, in 2019, women in their twenties accounted for the majority of abortions (56.9%). The majority of abortions in 2019 took place early in gestation: 92.7% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. Early medical abortion is defined as the administration of medications(s) to induce an abortion at ≤9 completed weeks’ gestation, consistent with the current Food and Drug Administration labeling for mifepristone (implemented in 2016). In 2019, 42.3% of all abortions were early medical abortions. Use of early medical abortion increased 10% from 2018 to 2019 and 123% from 2010 to 2019. MMWR Surveill Summ 2021;70(No. SS-9):1–29 (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm).

[mark12345]

Not sure that's true Sean? You're also assuming some sort of pure form of democracy which America isn't really. Most States (and arguably the country) are run by whoever has enough money pumped into them for tv ads, smear campaigns and billboards by lobbyists, corporations and worse. There won't be a vote on abortion.

In 2019, 629,898 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. Among 48 reporting areas with data each year during 2010–2019, in 2019, a total of 625,346 abortions were reported, the abortion rate was 11.4 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years, and the abortion ratio was 195 abortions per 1,000 live births.
From 2010 to 2019, the number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions decreased 18%, 21%, and 13%, respectively. However, compared with 2018, in 2019, the total number increased 2%, the rate of reported abortions increased by 0.9%, and the abortion ratio increased by 3%.
Similar to previous years, in 2019, women in their twenties accounted for the majority of abortions (56.9%). The majority of abortions in 2019 took place early in gestation: 92.7% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. Early medical abortion is defined as the administration of medications(s) to induce an abortion at ≤9 completed weeks’ gestation, consistent with the current Food and Drug Administration labeling for mifepristone (implemented in 2016). In 2019, 42.3% of all abortions were early medical abortions. Use of early medical abortion increased 10% from 2018 to 2019 and 123% from 2010 to 2019. MMWR Surveill Summ 2021;70(No. SS-9):1–29 (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm).

The specifics you provide are quite helpful. Just thought I'd add a couple more. Per a New York state law of 2019, a baby's life can be terminated up to any point before the mother (who just gave birth) leaves the hospital. To do this is not a crime in New York.
Secondly, the state of Maryland had scheduled a vote this past March to decide the fate of Bill 669. As it happened the vote was postponed. Bill 669 allows for the termination of a baby's life upto 28 days after birth with no crime attached to the person who would do such a thing.
Bit of an outlier that Maryland vote you might think. Not really. Shortly afterwards the WHO made an announcement calling for an end worldwide to restrictions and term limits on abortion.

[osarusan]

The specifics you provide are quite helpful. Just thought I'd add a couple more. Per a New York state law of 2019, a baby's life can be terminated up to any point before the mother (who just gave birth) leaves the hospital. To do this is not a crime in New York.

Post up a link to that if you don't mind. I'd be very interested to see it, as I'd be very surprised if what you posted is true.

[John83]

Post up a link to that if you don't mind. I'd be very interested to see it, as I'd be very surprised if what you posted is true.
NY 2019 suggests it's this: https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/addressing-new-yorks-new-abortion-law/
It doesn't seem to support Mark's claims.

[D24Saint]

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?

Unfortunately the checks and balances system of government designed by the founders has failed. They originally thought the courts would be the weakest part of the government as a court has no direct army or police to enforce their rules , they ultimately rely on the consent of citizens. Little did they know that the Supreme Court would become one of the most powerful parts of the republic and an unelected wing of government at that . I’ve no great love for the concept of abortion but I know enough about it to allow women to have their choice on the matter. I voted for it here as the right to choose should be a womens prerogative.

[mark12345]

You would be surprised if what I say is true? You should be fully convinced shouldn't you if you're going to question someone's veracity. I know I'm being a little testy here but when I'm the only one of 37 posters asked specifically to provide a link it gets old. Looks up Maryland Bill 669 with key words 'pregnamt person' and you should get what you're looking for.

[tetsujin1979]

Here's the public record of the 669 bill: https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2022RS/bills/sb/sb0669f.pdf
Point out where it says "allows for the termination of a baby's life upto 28 days after birth with no crime attached to the person who would do such a thing."

[mark12345]

https://thewashingtonstandard.com/maryland-senate-bill-669-legalizes-infanticide-up-to-28-days-after-birth/

Posted the link above from the Washington Examiner. It contains info about the 28 days after birth. I also heard discussion about it on Catholic radio at the time. I would also direct you to Gab.com where you can find a lot of open discussion about everything going on in America right now that the media is not telling you. In fairness, some of the comments are quite off the rails, but it is one of the very few places left where you are allowed freedom of speech

[passinginterest]

This seems to be a decent analysis of it. https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/03/29/maryland-bill-codify-abortion-rights/

[tetsujin1979]

Posted the link above from the Washington Examiner. It contains info about the 28 days after birth. I also heard discussion about it on Catholic radio at the time. I would also direct you to Gab.com where you can find a lot of open discussion about everything going on in America right now that the media is not telling you. In fairness, some of the comments are quite off the rails, but it is one of the very few places left where you are allowed freedom of speech

People have been banned from gab. But tell me more about this freedom.

[pineapple stu]

Posted the link above from the Washington Examiner. It contains info about the 28 days after birth. I also heard discussion about it on Catholic radio at the time. I would also direct you to Gab.com where you can find a lot of open discussion about everything going on in America right now that the media is not telling you. In fairness, some of the comments are quite off the rails, but it is one of the very few places left where you are allowed freedom of speech
I think the request though was to point out where it appears in the legislation?

Gab.com seems to be a site similar to facebook, so to direct us to that is as helpful as saying "Go to facebook" (and its wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network)) isn't exactly encouraging - "Gab has been widely described as a haven for neo-Nazis, racists, white supremacists, white nationalists, the alt-right, antisemites, supporters of Donald Trump, conservatives, right-libertarians, and believers in conspiracy theories like QAnon")

"I heard it on the radio" is even less helpful.

And you didn't link to the Washington Examiner, you linked to the Washington Standard, which seems to be a clickbait site.

[pineapple stu]

This seems to be a decent analysis of it. https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/03/29/maryland-bill-codify-abortion-rights/
Yep. I think to clarify how I see it (and maybe Mark can correct where I'm wrong)

Lines 22-27 of the legislation say -


(H) THIS SECTION MAY NOT BE CONSTRUED TO AUTHORIZE ANY FORM OF INVESTIGATION OR PENALTY FOR A PERSON:
(1) TERMINATING OR ATTEMPTING TO TERMINATE THE PERSON’S OWN PREGNANCY; OR
(2) EXPERIENCING A MISCARRIAGE, PERINATAL DEATH RELATED TO A FAILURE TO ACT, OR STILLBIRTH.

To experience a perinatal death is not the same as to kill a baby. Killing a baby is homicide, and this act doesn't mention homicide. That is covered under a different, unchanged, law.

The act is saying that if, in the course of an abortion, the baby is born but dies of natural causes (most likely related to the abortion), then this is effectively considered part of the abortion even though technically the child is no longer unborn.

That seems reasonable legislation to me (without going into the moral questions a birth during abortion raises in the first place)

[osarusan]

You would be surprised if what I say is true? You should be fully convinced shouldn't you if you're going to question someone's veracity. I know I'm being a little testy here but when I'm the only one of 37 posters asked specifically to provide a link it gets old. Looks up Maryland Bill 669 with key words 'pregnamt person' and you should get what you're looking for.
You made a specific claim about NY law. I'm asking you to provide a link to back up that specific claim.

Any time I make a specific claim about anything being a fact, feel free to ask me for links.

Now, can you please provide a link to something that demonstrates that in NY, a born baby's life can be terminated anytime before the mother leaves hospital?

[tetsujin1979]

Posted the link above from the Washington Examiner. It contains info about the 28 days after birth. I also heard discussion about it on Catholic radio at the time. I would also direct you to Gab.com where you can find a lot of open discussion about everything going on in America right now that the media is not telling you. In fairness, some of the comments are quite off the rails, but it is one of the very few places left where you are allowed freedom of speech
I asked you to quote from the actual bill that is being voted on where it says that, and you can't

[dahamsta]

@mark12345, you've been warned many, many times about posting evidence for your claims here. Post real evidence for that last claim or retract it. Failure to do so will result in a suspension from this forum. And don't post about gab on Foot.ie again. It's a disgusting cesspool of racists, white supremacists, neo-nazis, qanon losers, and the utter dregs of society, I won't have it advertised here. Try posting something left-of-right there and see how "free" it is.

I will ban you completely from this site if you start up your nutty far-right crap again. There's no first amendment here, the site is owned and operated by me, and I get to decide if I don't want vile, disruptive nonsense posted here.

Same goes for everyone else, on both sides of this discussion. Post evidence or don't post.

[pineapple stu]

I think mark (inadvertently) flags an important factor, which SkStu mentioned earlier - social media. It's probably worthy of its own thread tbh (cos this post is going to veer off-topic...)

It's clearly not the only factor of course - the abortion referendum in 83 was fairly fractious and there was no social media then. Abortion is pretty much always going to be an emotive subject.

But social media does seem to be able to have a big impact on people's views (as mark has shown) I can't remember where I read this, but there was a survey of maybe 100 people attending a flat earth induction (or something like that) and every one of them got their interest in flat earth from YouTube. There was a study last year (https://www.npr.org/2021/05/13/996570855/disinformation-dozen-test-facebooks-twitters-ability-to-curb-vaccine-hoaxes) which said covid denial/anti-vax views could be linked to 12 influential people through social media. There's an article on Forbes (https://www.forbes.com/sites/petersuciu/2021/09/03/social-media-remains-a-source-for-news-and-a-breeding-ground-for-pandemic-conspiracies/) about the link between social media and misinformation too. And National Geographic ran a feature a while back on what it called an attack on science, along the same lines.

It feels like these sort of nutty things - you can add in climate change denial, using your pronouns, alternative medicine, and so on - have been growing in recent years, whereas you would like to have thought increased information would decrease their prevalence instead. Some are harmless as they're clearly stupid (flat earth); others are potentially very dangerous (covid denial/anti-vax)

On a related note, I got the 50th anniversary Apollo 11 boxset there a couple of years ago and one thing it includes is a BBC debate from shortly after on the philosophical and social implications for mankind arising from travelling to another world. It's amazing how respectful the debate is, and how much it benefits from that (albeit it's a social debate rather than a political one, so it'll always be less charged)

Or you can take the infamous Life of Brian debate in 1979 (https://youtu.be/1ni559bHXDg) between John Cleese, Michael Palin, Malcolm Muggeridge and the Bishop of Southwark - the latter two argue in a more "modern style" (for want of a better word - personal attacks without making any real valid points - while the Pythons (and moderator Tim Rice) try engage in a genuine discussion. It's notable that the audience sees this almost straight away and sides with the Pythons. There's a very good background article on Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friday_Night,_Saturday_Morning) about the debate - for example "Cleese said [in 2013] that it left him bored and he realised that there was no attempt at a proper discussion, and no attempt to find any common ground."

I don't watch a huge amount of TV debates (or TV in general), but I don't think debates these days come close to this standard very often. I do think social media - 140 characters, block who you don't like, dismiss people as racist/right-wing/liberals/transphobes/TERFs instead of making a point, and so on - really does play into that.

And if that's the case, this sort of stuff is only going to grow in the coming years unfortunately, and not just in the US.

As I say, it can't be the only factor, but I think it is a big one.

[dahamsta]

Yes, this is the problem America in particular is facing, but also many other countries of course -- liberals and left-leaners* try to be moderate, to debate, to discuss, to be fair and even-handed, to negotiate, to be political. But the right don't make any effort at all these days, and you can't negotiate with someone that simply... won't negotiate. It's the paradox of tolerance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance).

Before Trump, when talking to people, I always said that we needed to avoid sinking to their level, we need to remain conscious of their humanity, we need to be fair and even-handed, but that's over now, I'm done with that now. We need to cut them off, cut them out, deplatform them, take away their voices, shut them up before they do any more harm. How we can recover from that when we take back control I really don't know, but being polite is so over now.

And I make no bones about what I think needs to happen in America, now, right now this minute -- they need to be on general strike, they need to be out in the streets, outside every capitol building, in their millions. If they don't get out on the streets now without guns, they're going to be out in the streets with guns in another year, or two, or three at the most. Their cities will look like Ukrainian streets. Because the racists and lunatics are already out on the streets, wearing "uniforms".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IL4Ld09qXkY


* I refuse to use the word "leftist", which as far as I can see was reinvented by the right as an insult, and is now being used widely by others. Is it an attempt to embrace the term, like "gay", the N word, etc? I still don't like it, I consider it pandering.

[Stuttgart88]

* I refuse to use the word "leftist", which as far as I can see was reinvented by the right as an insult, and is now being used widely by others. Is it an attempt to embrace the term, like "gay", the N word, etc? I still don't like it, I consider it pandering.Leftist is definitely used pejoratively. Same as woke, snowflake, virtue signaller etc. Right wing press in UK's standard rebuke of an argument from the socially centre / left of centre usually takes at least one of these forms, introducing or even placing total reliance on an ad hominem angle to the argument. Priti Patel's Rwanda plans are apparently under attack from woke lawyers or lefty lawyers (better alliteration for a tabloid headline). Maybe they're just lawyers who think the policy is worth challenging on legal grounds.