It's Plessy v Ferguson for Abortion

[Jimmy Higgins]

link

A federal appeals court ruled against abortion clinics Wednesday by allowing a Louisiana law to take effect that requires doctors who provide abortions to have admitting privileges at hospitals within 30 miles.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked a federal judge's ruling that had found the admitting privileges unconstitutional.


U.S. District Judge John deGravelles in Baton Rouge last month barred Louisiana officials from enforcing the mandate. DeGravelles has not yet ruled on the state's abortion law itself, though he heard arguments about it in June.

So over time we have gone from Casey v Planned Parenthood ruling that 'restrictions can be added to abortion, but it can't be too obstructive' to 'anything goes but straight up banning'.

Brown v Board of Education got the Supreme Court to pull its head out of the sand and stop dicking around with hypothetical bullshit Plessy v Ferguson tried to pretend could exist, at least in theory, in the real world. Rather, it called a spade "a spade" and say this shit stops now (over a period of a few decades because because the south is rather slow).

We are now seeing the exact same thing happening with abortion (any wonder the Republicans don't want the Supreme Court to have a ninth justice?). The premise in Casey v Panned Parenthood was to allow for regulating abortions, but what has actually happened is the quasi-banning of it in several states, where restrictions have been purposefully put in place to make getting an abortion become out of reach for tens of millions of Americans.

The Texas case gets heard in March to deal with this, maybe once and for all... or not at all if it is 4-4... or maybe punt it. However, unlike Brown v Board of Education which was a unanimous decision, this will most certainly be ruled on political grounds, where the uber-conservatives don't want to enforce SCOTUS's own precedent, and instead want to ban abortion (birth control?). The uber-conservatives won't actually look at this pragmatically like SCOTUS did with Brown, and say the restrictions have created unjustifiable obstructions for women.

The Texas case is huge. It is either the next step in allowing the banning of abortions or it will revive Roe v Wade and cut back the ridiculous and unconstitutional acts of Republicans in states across America.

 

[dismal]

Tip: Overturning Roe v. Wade would not ban abortion but remove the issue from the extra-democratic process and send it back into the democratic process

 

[funinspace]

I'm almost thinking that it might take the virtual banning of abortion in more than a few states, before woman wake up and realize that the Repugs are not their friends, and stop voting for them in the US House and Senate, never mind within their state. Yeah, the fundagelical women will never get there, but they are not the majority.

It would be nice if we, as a country, could settle on a reasonable happy medium between the two polarizing ends....and let the neanderthals understand that they are not welcome at the political table, at least in most states.

 

[Derec]

It would be nice if we, as a country, could settle on a reasonable happy medium between the two polarizing ends...

Most European countries have such a compromise but it is much more restrictive than situation in the US. The problem in the US is that you have extremists on both side. Ones think a zygote has full personhood, the others think abortion for any reason up to the time of delivery is fair game.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Tip: Overturning Roe v. Wade would not ban abortion but remove the issue from the extra-democratic process and send it back into the democratic process

Thanks so much for that very important distinction, because the ruling would allow the immediate banning of abortion by others, not SCOTUS itself. This distinction is very important to raise because it helps to maybe derail from the topic that discusses seeing how the world actually is, instead of trying to obfuscate as to minor technicalities that have little to do with how these laws affect people's lives.

But I'm glad you think that whether a woman should have certain rights should be via the ballot. We must have our guns, but if a woman is to have a say in her reproductive system... that needs a vote! So, should each individual abortion be up for a vote? Can a state make it illegal to cross state lines to get an abortion?

 

[prideandfall]

I'm almost thinking that it might take the virtual banning of abortion in more than a few states, before woman wake up and realize that the Repugs are not their friends, and stop voting for them in the US House and Senate, never mind within their state.

i'll never understand how it is that people continue to think this way...

about 40% of the women in the US vote R, and they vote R because of (not in spite of, or due to ignorance of) the fact that the party does shit like this.
40% of the women in the US vote R because they're opposed to abortion and have no issues with it being restricted into oblivion.
if the SC overturned roe v. wade and states stared outright banning abortion, the women in those states who vote R would be celebrating, not having some sort of revelation.

 

[dismal]

Tip: Overturning Roe v. Wade would not ban abortion but remove the issue from the extra-democratic process and send it back into the democratic process

Thanks so much for that very important distinction, because the ruling would allow the immediate banning of abortion by others, not SCOTUS itself. This distinction is very important to raise because it helps to maybe derail from the topic that discusses seeing how the world actually is, instead of trying to obfuscate as to minor technicalities that have little to do with how these laws affect people's lives.

But I'm glad you think that whether a woman should have certain rights should be via the ballot. We must have our guns, but if a woman is to have a say in her reproductive system... that needs a vote! So, should each individual abortion be up for a vote? Can a state make it illegal to cross state lines to get an abortion?

By "allow" what you mean is it would return it to the democratic process. Like we are currently "allowed" to declare war on and nuke the shit out of Canada. Like we are "allowed" to reduce income taxes to 0%. Or, like we are "allowed" to increase them to 274%

 

[fromderinside]

Thanks so much for that very important distinction, because the ruling would allow the immediate banning of abortion by others, not SCOTUS itself. This distinction is very important to raise because it helps to maybe derail from the topic that discusses seeing how the world actually is, instead of trying to obfuscate as to minor technicalities that have little to do with how these laws affect people's lives.

But I'm glad you think that whether a woman should have certain rights should be via the ballot. We must have our guns, but if a woman is to have a say in her reproductive system... that needs a vote! So, should each individual abortion be up for a vote? Can a state make it illegal to cross state lines to get an abortion?

By "allow" what you mean is it would return it to the democratic process. Like we are currently "allowed" to declare war on and nuke the shit out of Canada. Like we are "allowed" to reduce income taxes to 0%. Or, like we are "allowed" to increase them to 274%

So here we are talking about hair and you bring up fuzzy wuzzy who has no hair. You just derailed the discussion. I claim derail!!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Thanks so much for that very important distinction, because the ruling would allow the immediate banning of abortion by others, not SCOTUS itself. This distinction is very important to raise because it helps to maybe derail from the topic that discusses seeing how the world actually is, instead of trying to obfuscate as to minor technicalities that have little to do with how these laws affect people's lives.

But I'm glad you think that whether a woman should have certain rights should be via the ballot. We must have our guns, but if a woman is to have a say in her reproductive system... that needs a vote! So, should each individual abortion be up for a vote? Can a state make it illegal to cross state lines to get an abortion?

By "allow" what you mean is it would return it to the democratic process.

The Supreme Court has ruled several things are above the "democratic process". The right to privacy, the bedroom, and a woman's body are among these things.

 

[dismal]

By "allow" what you mean is it would return it to the democratic process.

The Supreme Court has ruled several things are above the "democratic process". The right to privacy, the bedroom, and a woman's body are among these things.

You left off a bunch of things that actually are in the Constitution.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The Supreme Court has ruled several things are above the "democratic process". The right to privacy, the bedroom, and a woman's body are among these things.

You left off a bunch of things that actually are in the Constitution.

Teacher: Okay boys and girls, lets look at the Bill of Rights. Bobby, can you please read the Ninth Amendment?

Bobby: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Teacher: Very good Bobby. Can you explain what that means?

Bobby: It means that if it isn't mentioned in the Constitution, then it is not to be considered a right.

Teacher: Umm... Bobby, it says the exact opposite.

Bobby: My Dad is a strict interpreter of the Constitution. And he says if it isn't in the Constitution, it isn't a right.

Teacher: Your Dad doesn't know what he's talking about.

Bobby: Crybully!

 

[coloradoatheist]

The Supreme Court has ruled several things are above the "democratic process". The right to privacy, the bedroom, and a woman's body are among these things.

You left off a bunch of things that actually are in the Constitution.

correct, but it's interesting how much gets override by the interstate commerce clause when it's its something you want the government to control but when it's something you like we can't allow that. Since an abortion requires an exchange of money between two parties it would normally fall under something that can be controlled by the interstate commerce clause. However I also believe the government overreaches all the time with the interstate commerce clause.

 

[Jarhyn]

Tip: Overturning Roe v. Wade would not ban abortion but remove the issue from the extra-democratic process and send it back into the democratic process

What Democratic process are you referring to? The one where the 3 wolves outvote the 2 sheep on what is for dinner?

Democracy needs to be limited to only those decisions which can be ethically decided by a majority, to those decisions which are ethically agnostic or at the very least ethically ambiguous. You are proposing that we let democracy decide on a subject that is NOT ethically ambiguous.

 

[untermensche]

Tip: Overturning Roe v. Wade would not ban abortion but remove the issue from the extra-democratic process and send it back into the democratic process

We don't subject basic human rights to the democratic process.

What a woman does with things growing in their body is not the business of government.

 

[dismal]

Tip: Overturning Roe v. Wade would not ban abortion but remove the issue from the extra-democratic process and send it back into the democratic process

We don't subject basic human rights to the democratic process.

What a woman does with things growing in their body is not the business of government.

Don't you mean we don't subject rights that are enumerated in the Constitution to the democratic process?

The right to bear arms, the right to offensive speech, things like that?

 

[fromderinside]

Tip: Overturning Roe v. Wade would not ban abortion but remove the issue from the extra-democratic process and send it back into the democratic process

What Democratic process are you referring to? The one where the 3 wolves outvote the 2 sheep on what is for dinner?

Democracy needs to be limited to only those decisions which can be ethically decided by a majority, to those decisions which are ethically agnostic or at the very least ethically ambiguous. You are proposing that we let democracy decide on a subject that is NOT ethically ambiguous.

Depends on whose ox is being gored. Those of the depends set still think men are the determiners of child existence because they provide sperm to the incubating egg residing in the birth carrier. If we can cause men to bring babies to term then whose skivvies would be all rumpled up? I''m pretty sure men would insist on retaining their right to flex their muscles, just as women are now insisting they should be allowed to flex their brains.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Tip: Overturning Roe v. Wade would not ban abortion but remove the issue from the extra-democratic process and send it back into the democratic process

We don't subject basic human rights to the democratic process.

What a woman does with things growing in their body is not the business of government.

Unfortunately it's not that cut and dried. It's a grey issue.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We don't subject basic human rights to the democratic process.

What a woman does with things growing in their body is not the business of government.

Unfortunately it's not that cut and dried. It's a grey issue.

Actually it is. Roe v Wade isn't some sort of make believe thing that hippies daydream about. It is the law of the land. Casey v Planned Parenthood came and allowed restrictions, but up to a certain point. We passed that point about a few years ago. The laws are unconstitutional. It really is pretty black and white, unless you want to ban abortion.

 

[untermensche]

We don't subject basic human rights to the democratic process.

What a woman does with things growing in their body is not the business of government.

Don't you mean we don't subject rights that are enumerated in the Constitution to the democratic process?

The right to bear arms, the right to offensive speech, things like that?

No.

Human rights supersede the Constitution.

There were some who didn't want a Bill of Rights, because they thought that some ignoramuses would conclude that they were the only rights protected.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Don't you mean we don't subject rights that are enumerated in the Constitution to the democratic process?

The right to bear arms, the right to offensive speech, things like that?

No.

Human rights supersede the Constitution.

There were some who didn't want a Bill of Rights, because they thought that some ignoramuses would conclude that they were the only rights protected.

We even have a Ninth Amendment to drive that point home!