Do you think Roe V Wade being overturned is going to lead to other rights being taken away, such as gay marriage for example?

[JustinTheGreat]

I don't know for a country that call themselves “the land of the free”, they certainly like to take peoples freedoms away 😬

And I think this is going to lead to more infanticide, flooded foster care systems, suicide rates in pregnant women, child neglect, and botched abortions.

Updates

1 y

Also why is preventing pregnant something that’s always put on women? Creating a baby is a two person thing. Men are just as responsible. But if we told men “if you don’t want a baby, don’t have sex” or if we told them to get a vasectomy (which is a reversible procedure), they get mad because we’re telling them what to do with their bodies. But they turn around and do the same thing towards women.

[nightdrot]

Not likely. To start, the recent case on abortion includes a specific line that states that the opinion relates to abortion only and cites the reasons why abortion is unique.

More importantly, though, is the fact that the repeal of Roe did nothing more than shift the debate back to the states. Even as a nominal constitutional right, abortion was being increasingly restricted under the cases that followed Roe. Things like the three trimester breakdown and prohibition of "late term" abortions happened while Roe was in effect.

The late liberal Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said that while she had supported the outcome of Roe, she actually expected that it would be overturned because it was, as she said in an interview, "poorly reasoned and poorly written." It found a "right" derivative of another "right" and then found not in the language of the Constitution, but in its' "prenumbra."

This was too amorphous and, as noted, its erosion began almost after the initial 1973 ruling. Throw in that the case took no account of science - it begging the question of when life begins and other such matters. The ruling was written on whole cloth and it is only in the nature of glacial change of America's constitutional system that it took as long as it did to overturn. (Roe was very much anomalous in terms of the rapidity of its change to constitutional interpretation to that point.)

Finally, the "erosion" of other rights would have to be based on some legal case. There would have to be shown some harm that would be a cause of action for a court case. With abortion, it was the question of what Roe called "potential life." (Please note, this was Roe's pseudo-science. There is no such thing, in biology, as "potential life.")

With gay marriage, or transgender rights, there would have to be so harm provoking a "cause of action" that could then result in a court case. This is unlikely. The most relevant argument might be those transgender athletes that wish to compete in women's sports. However, there is - not even now - a constitutional right to participate in sporting events, so as simple legal matter, you cannot remove that which does not exist.

Put it all together - and again, the recent ruling actually does address the question of other "rights" - and the odds that there will be a stampede of cases overturning other rights is extremely unlikely. It also to be recalled that no right is absolute - in free speech there are limits on libel, slander, false advertising, etc., even the right to life allows for exceptions of self-defense, etc. Thus always that rights debates are held in the "gray areas," and are rarely about absolutes.

It finally being noted that American culture would not lend itself to a dramatic long term erosion of rights. It being well said that Americans are ardent about rights. Not so much about responsibility and accountability in the exercise of those rights.

Add it all up and the case that the abortion ruling is the harbinger of the erosion of rights to come is mostly hand wringing and not reasoned analysis. Again, it being added that the ruling itself even addressed the question and assured that it was limited to abortion. This abortion case was ultimately about where the issues of rights are debated - states vs. the Federal government. Not that rights exist at all.

[Datboi65]

First of all, the two things are NOT interconnected. Women's rights are human rights yes, and so are other rights like children's rights and so on. It would make no sense whatsoever to say that they would take away everything else, just because they overturned Roe v Wade.

Secondly, I don't believe it is going to lead to all of that. I will maintain that I don't support abortion from consensual, irresponsible sexual behavior, because it is a waste of resources and human life. To say that one doesn't support that is not to say that they don't support foster care for example, those things are different. Remember that a different hearing would have to be held for it, and these are generally considered through case-by-case analysis.

Thirdly, there are countries with more strict abortion laws that do not face any of those issues. The United States is a large country, but even per capita, the rates of infanticide for example in a country like Hungary is not that high with all the restrictions on abortion. On the contrary, it simply means that the "right" to have an abortion is now in the hands of state law makers, so it's not 100% gone.

Ultimately, I believe this means that people are going to be more careful now about who they sleep with, practice using contraception before the act, or complete withdrawal until marriage, which will have a net positive effect on society.

[Anonymous]

I’m pro life for myself but pro choice for others. What bothers me is how a lot people seems to be against abortions but once they get their side chick pregnant I’m sure a lot of guys would run to the nearest planned parenthood to get an abortion lol

But I think the whole point of the overturning was to give each state the “freedom” to make their own rules about abortions right?

[Anonymous]

It seems inevitable that other decisional and informational private rights will be lost in the wake of this ruling. They are based on the same implied right to privacy that the court found faulty in this case. Hold onto your butts. Privacy could be dead.

[lumos]

That seems to be the plan, yes.

[Curmudgeon]

Whatever status that sort of relationship merits, and it certainly merits something, to Constitutionally declare it the *exact same thing* as a marriage is to magically read something into the Constitution that just *is not there*. And this is something the judges of the Left have done time and time again. And worse still, those judges of the Left sometimes read out of the Constitution what blatantly IS there, but those are issues for another day.

It is time to get back to basic Constitutional Law: The 9th and 10th Amendments do mean what they say and say what they mean. Where the federal Constitution is vague or utterly silent about an issue, as it really IS here and on other issues, it is up to the various state governments, and their legislatures and voters, to hash it out. Get enough of a consensus and the federal Constitution is amended.

For the record, I am not anti abortion. Yes, I am pretty much to the Right on just about every issue, except for one, this one. Glass houses, stones, and all that.
But strictly legally, I do get why it was going to be overturned. Judges are not supposed to "legislate from the bench", and the late Justice Blackmun (the guy who drafted Roe in 1973) really did do that. Rather than ruling on a law, he made up one. Even the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg admitted that.

It would have been better for the "Second Wave" feminists of that era to go state by state pushing for legalized or liberalized abortion laws. We probably would have resolved this issue by now if we had!

And that goes for the gay activists too. They should have gone state by state. If you know the history of Women's Suffrage, it was state by state. So was the folly called Prohibition, often by the same people (!), and the later effort to repeal same.

[Stoner710]

You’re the last person I explained this to.
There is no right in the Constitution for abortion as a matter fact that the founding fathers knew the abortion would have led to the death of 60 million unborn children they would have put in the constitution abortion ban.

Also says the constitution does not say anything about abortion it is left up to the states to decide whether or not they would like abortion to be illegal or not and yes this does involve gay marriage Contraception and sodomy. Therefore it is left up to the states or The federal Congress which could pass a law that legalize abortion throughout the land.

You Democrats keep saying this to democracy how was it a threat to democracy what individual states Decide on whether or not a woman gets an abortion or not. If anything it’s a holding federalism and democracy because now individual states have the right to vote on the issue and the federal government which doesn’t have the most to go either way I’m banning or allowing abortion. Trust me if Republicans try to make abortion illegal throughout the United States come across with filibuster same thing if Democrats try to make abortion illegal throughout the United States Republicans would fill a buster,

[Anonymous]

I’m pretty sure we do tell men that if they didn’t want to be a father they should have worn a condom.

I’ve had a few women try to convince me not to use a condom. They told me that they were on birth control. Two of them I found out were not. They were trying to “trap” me with a kid I wasn’t ready for.

Beyond the point where a man ejaculates he has no rights. The woman decided whether to abort or keep the child. If she decides to abort and he wants it, too bad. If she decides to keep it and he’s not ready, too bad that you’re on the hook for 18 years, “shoulda worn a condom”.

So that’s all we’ve got. Therefore I’m not sure what their problem is. They have many different forms of available birth control, and they can make sure the guys they have sex with wear condoms, just like we wear condoms.

And don’t anybody give me that “condoms and birth control aren’t always effective” crap. Number of women I’ve accidentally impregnated because a condom failed: zero. The only time they fail is when people are too retarded to use them properly.

[dragoblack]

Absolutely. The usa government has become so corrupt that they dont care about the rights of anyone who is not rich or in their pocket. Usa is a capitalist oligarchy under the illusion of a democracy. Since 2016 they stopped being private about it, because they have things set up to where they don't have to worry about the common citizens anymore. Only people who actually have their vote matter are the rich & influential. Any person running for politics, the 2 party system has already picked who they want and strong arm, manipulate, and threaten the other runners out of the running.

[BCA6010]

No. There's only one supreme court justice who's even interested in looking into those issues, and most of them have a more convincing constitutional foundation. Abortion had none, which means that without an amendment to the constitution, it has to be a state level issue.

The supreme court is not a body that rules based on popular demand or creates laws; their sole purpose is to determine what the federal government can or can't do. By overturning Wade and Casey, it strips the issue away from the federal government in full and sends it to the states, which also means a nationwide ban won't be possible without an amendment either. There will probably always be states that support abortion to the absolute most radical extremes, so it's not like they aren't still going to be attainable.

[DarkWinterNights]

Exactly. It amazes me how little people understand what actually happened with this ruling.

[NamerOfStars]

They decide to let states make their own decisions, and that's "taking freedoms away". They curb the concentration of power by a federal government that openly worked to cripple the economy and force people into an experimental medical procedure to participate in society, and that's "taking freedoms away". They've enabled legislatures to restrict abortion, and that's "going to lead to more infanticide".

Was there a formal declaration of war on logic, or is this just guerilla action?

[lightbulb27]

I think could impact "gay" rights for marriage. Personally, I agree with freedom.

prevention is not put on women only, but what to do with the life started is as they hold most of the risk and work following.

maybe kids should be advertised such surgery at "Disneyland" and tv shows instead of the other crap they see..."real men are responsible... and get their junk tied up until they are responsible". that be a good offset to lack of abortion. that allows people without control to be "free" and responsible.

[TonyV]

It's put on woman cause it's "their body their choice", I was never able to decide if I got an abortion or not, men loose all rights after she gets pregnant.
You can't tell us we don't get a say then act like it's our fault you had a baby.
I'm told I don't get to have an opinion and you really think I'm gonna care or take on any responsibility for a decision I'm not allowed to make? Hell no.

As for gay marriage I don't know, I don't think the constitution mentions marriage, I think there's one about free to practice believes, which should safeguard it. Unless the constitution says something like "Holy" union then I don't know, maybe they'll try to say gay isn't a religion or force gay to become a religion.
We all need to memories as much of the constitution as we can so we can fight back emidiatly when the feds try to do this overreaching bullshit.

[ChrisMaster69]

It very much opens the gate for a review of what Federal laws “should” be at a state level.
Key among these are I believe -
Federal anti-discrimination and civil rights laws that protect against racial, age, gender and disability discrimination.

This is where the likes of same sex marriage could be banned.

it is also where say a state which is not really open to equality on a racial basis could enact changes such as all white schools, quotas on how many non white persons are allowed at a school.

As for the actual bans that came in from triggers and the potential of a country wide ban, this will kill the care system and also there will be a rise in early years child deaths, as these would normally have been aborted.

It now means a couple rather than abort a foetus on a doctors advise will now have to carry to term knowing it’s only 2 years max of life and will die, yes will be odd exception, the mental health impact on these couples will be huge.

[goaded]

If Clarence Thomas and the other "justices" that were confirmed by fewer than 60 votes in the Senate and lied about respecting earlier SCOTUS decisions get their way, it's all but inevitable. They're also attacking the separation between church and state and there are Republican lawmakers openly saying the church should run the state.

"“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” Thomas wrote on Page 119 of the opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health"

[Po1989]

"But if we told men “if you don’t want a baby, don’t have sex” or if we told them to get a vasectomy (which is a reversible procedure), they get mad because we’re telling them what to do with their bodies" Ridiculous assertion. We do in fact tell men buck up and deal with the consequences, pay child support or go to jail etc. Men have never got any say in abortion or whether they wanted to be father after a woman is pregnant. And then even if the kid turns out not to be theirs, sometimes they still have to pay child support for 18 years or more.

[Avicenna]

The Democrats are already busy trying to take away various rights they don’t like, especially the First and Second Amendments. No doubt they have their eyes on the Fourth Amendment ass well.
Abortion hasn’t been banned throughout the country, but you’d never know that from
the propaganda being pushed by leftists.

[Blackcosmo]

I'm not 100% against abortion. I only find it acceptable to abort if you've been raped or having a child will kill you. However I don't agree with stripping gay marriages even if I don't support LGBTQ+ because you're not harming anyone by marrying someone of the same sex.

[crossdressingrihno]

Agreed

[RolandCuthbert]

So who determines when a woman can abort? That's what too many Trump supporting women don't seem to want to answer. Who decides that you can get an abortion because you were raped? What if you can't prove it? What if you lose the criminal trial, but win a civil suit against your rapist?
What if your rapist gets convicted of a lesser charge? What if he gets away with raping you, but then gets convicted of raping another woman down the road. What is your compensation?

We didn't even get to how to determine who can abort because of medical issues?

Because again, this is not something you can decide yourself. It cannot be decided by a doctor who is consulting you. It can only be decided by a board of politicians.

Do you want that?

[Texasgal95]

Same

[NathanDavis]

not sure if taken away as well... but they sure are going to try, they've been announcing that before, during and after, lol

and this is indeed, the land of the free... unless you're ~long list of this and that~

[matchrestore]

The same legal precedents behind Row were the basis for Loving, Obergefell, and Lawrence. You can bet they're coming for those as well. Although maybe Clearance Thomas will find an exception for Loving since overturning that would invalidate his own marriage... Congress needs to start codifying these rights in law before we go completely back to the 1800s.

[Aerissa_Jade]

Democrats have told me for years, there is no slippery slope that it isn't really a thing... so according to them, that won't happen.

This is of course when I mention gun control, a little here and there will lead to a slippery slope and then they say its a myth, it doesn't exist anywhere.

[TommyMountainFigure]

I think unless this is structured correctly, shootings will go up too. Here's an example:-

Husband and wife in their 20's. Wife goes out with her friends and ends up getting raped. She can't get an abortion, but the husband obviously won't want it.. Husband wants revenge anyway for his wife being raped goes out and finds the guy and wipes out him, his friends and his family.

Granted it won't happen a lot, but given that The US love their guns.. I wouldn't rule it out.

[WindAtMyBack]

I hope they continue to dismantle and reverse the power grab that the federal government has made for a very long time. That will include a LOT of things. I hope they put the feds in their place and make hundreds of things the feds do unconstitutional. I hope they rule against 90% of the things the feds do. Then maybe we can get back to what the country was originally meant to be.

And yes, I hope they take away the "right" to gay marriage. They had no authority to do such a thing in the first place.

[Kumarima]

What do you think of slavery?

[WindAtMyBack]

@Kumarima

I assume the reason you are asking is because want to know what I think about the Civil War and whether the federal government had the authority to outlaw slavery. The answer is no, I don't think the feds had that authority. It's irrelevant what I think of slavery. If the feds don't have the authority they don't have the authority.

[JustinTheGreat]

Yikes…

[WindAtMyBack]

Why yikes? Does the US government have the authority to outlaw slavery in France or Australia? It's the same thing.

[JustinTheGreat]

So you think that states have the right to decide if slavery should be allowed or not? Lol that’s a big “yikes” man

[WindAtMyBack]

France has that right. So do the states. The states are autonomous and can decide their own destiny.

Keep in mind that the original US didn't even have a government. It didn't have a Congress. It didn't have a president. The US government didn't have the ability to outlaw slavery even it wanted to, because the US government didn't exist. The states were the highest level of government. Nothing above that existed.

You didn't answer the question if the US had the authority to outlaw slavery in France. I know the answer. And there is no yikes about it. If there is no yikes about France, there should be no yikes about the states, because it's the same thing.

[Kumarima]

So do you think it would be ok for states to allow the enslavement of blacks, Latinos, miserable whites, etc? What do you think of the state forbidding men to enslave women for sexual purposes? I'm just questioning.

[JustinTheGreat]

I don’t really give a fuck about France tbh lol. You’re sitting here basically defending slavery…again I will say “yikes. Yikes. And an even bigger yikes”

[WindAtMyBack]

@Kumarima

Of course I don't think that. But it's completely irrelevant to what I'm saying.

It's a question of WHO has the authority to make it illegal.

The entire world is made up of various political entities. Authority to make laws are distributed throughout the world. There are sub-entities like states, provinces, cities, etc. Authority to make laws are distributed among those entities as well. Each entity has a certain authority.

It's not a matter of which laws are good. It's about which entity has the authority to make those laws. Almost everyone in the world agrees that slavery should be illegal. Almost everyone agrees that murder should be illegal. But that doesn't give Brazil the authority to make murder illegal in Cambodia.

[jshm2]

It was shitty law anyway.

It will return better written and more in tune with modern medical advancements in the future.

Weak laws do fall eventually, as was the case with slavery , apartheid, prohibition etc.

Also, contraception is much better now than it was in the 70's when Roe v Wade was written.