kimilseung

Draft leak to end Roe vs. Wade by 5-4
This of course is an American issue, but probably better in TiO rather than the Trailer Park.

Lion in Winter

If true, we appear to be going backwards.

It's not clear why it was leaked. To apply pressure to prevent the overturn in some way?

kimilseung

Jumping between the TV channels it's funny to see them assuming who did it and why. All based on ideology. I do wonder if we'll find out.
The decision has been predicted and is expected, but it still shocks.

Shard

Dumbfounded.

Hilary Clinton's reaction sums it up: “It will kill and subjugate women even as a vast majority of Americans think abortion should be legal. What an utter disgrace.”

civilservant

So... I am pretty much pro-abortion up to viability. However I am struggling to see the holes in the the argument foroverruling Roe. I agree with the apparent argument that the original decision, which was made on privacy grounds, is unconstitutional. The 14th amendment, as written, does not seem to provide an explicit guarantee (the due process clause was cited in Roes opinion)

So, with that being said, any power not enumerated in the constitution is specifically given to the States to determine, and the States do so through their elected representatives. This is how our system of government is supposed to work. So what is the explicit objection to the overturning other than on compassionate/moral grounds, on which the constitution is silent?

People are free to move to a State that more closely aligns with their political viewpoint if they wish.

As I stated above, I am generally in favor of abortion, so I don't consider this a 'good' thing at all, but we are a county of laws, and this SCOTUS appears to be giving a correct decision (in my view) based on the strict reading of the founders document. I would argue it is a advocate for amending the constitution, rather than SCOTUS twisting it into ways it was never intend to go a la Roe.

BristolUK

Or to dilute (split) the reaction and weaken opposition?

It's not official yet so reduced reaction and if/when it is official those already in the know say "oh that again"...

Lion in Winter

I am not generally in favour of defining rights under law or anything else based on a document created by a small group of men in the 18th century, a society that did not even begin to value all people equally. Is that really where we have to be stuck, making a fetish of an ancient bit of paper put together by the privileged few?

Lion in Winter

Well, as long as women's reproductive rights under law are limited, that's the main thing, isn't it.

civilservant

I don't disagree in principle - but that's the system of Government that has been set up in this country, and it has stood the test of time thus far.

Lion in Winter

It has not stood the test of time at all.

That is why there has been a long series of social, political and economic movements to adapt and change it, adding amendments where necessary and possible. And there remains profound inequality and lack of equity (not the same thing) in the country. To say "well is doesn't say women should have control over their own reproductive rights, so we aren't doing it" is nothing but another failure of the document to protect rights.

No, it is not serving us well as long as this bit of paper is an obstacle to progress.

civilservant

The fact that it has been amended so many times implies that the process worked as intended. At least until the middle of the 20th century.

What would you propose instead? A loose unwritten constitution the way of the UK? That has it's own problems.

Lion in Winter

Today, I would propose not amending it to remove women's rights to determine their own health care and reproduction.

civilservant

That's kind of the point though isn't it? This decision would not actually amend it, it would simply reaffirm the original document, as written. The decision is not 'removing women's rights' it's returning the decision back to the peoples representatives in the several states. If you want to see change in your state, vote for representatives that share your views.

I find myself arguing for a position here that I don't really hold. As I said before, I think abortion should be legal. I also think it should be 'Judicial Activist' proof too. The present situation was not.

Lion in Winter

Reaffirming the "original" document is to remove rights.

Which others should we remove in order to reaffirm the original 18th century version? The abolition of slavery? Universal right to vote?

It's called progress for a reason and "activism" is how things advance..

BristolUK

I'd have thought the opposite. If it's been amended so many times doesn't that suggest it was wrong in the first place? Or has become outdated.

Maybe have some legislation and when it gets amended X times, write a new version for clarity.