Most of the examples you mention are actually protected at the federal level, through the constitution, i.e. people voted to protect those rights. No one voted on abortion at the federal level.

And abortion is not just a medical procedure, there is a third party involved: the baby. Now I find the religious view that a baby exists as soon the sperm touches the egg ridiculous. But I find equally ridiculous the dismissal of a viable baby's life implied by calling it just a "medial procedure".

The reality is that there is likely a broad consensus in the US for legalising abortion up to 12 weeks, the way it is in most of europe.

>The reality is that there is likely a broad consensus in the US for legalising abortion up to 12 weeks, the way it is in most of europe

Yeah, that's true, but there's also been a broad consensus in the US for federally legalizing (or even just decriminalizing) cannabis for well over a decade, and we haven't even managed to get that done due to the minority party overwhelmingly blocking even the most popular legislation if it goes even remotely against their moneyed interests.

Just because there's broad support doesn't mean that it will happen. At this point the Rs are going to have to be thoroughly crushed in congressional elections for a while, like what happened in the 30s through 60s, if any popular legislation is going to be passed.

Technically Schedule 1 drugs should be given the same treatment as R v. W just got.

There is no federally enumerated power to ban substances. That should be a state issue according the the 10th ammendment.

Both abortion and schedule I drug prohibition/anti-prohibition require Constitutional ammendments legally.

The ruling isn't actually rooted in state versus federal powers, and in fact opens the door for a federal ban on abortion.

What is the ruling rooted in? This is what I see:

""" hold thatRoe andCasey must be overruled. The Con-stitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such rightis implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, in-cluding the one on which the defenders ofRoe andCaseynow chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. ... is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue ofabortion to the people’s elected representatives. “The per-missibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are tobe resolved like most important questions in our democ-racy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and thenvoting. """ https://www.scribd.com/document/579588941/19-1392-6j37

That spells it out pretty well.

That it's rooted in the court's idea that there is no inherent constitutional protection against abortion bans, and therefore lower tiers of law (including federal US code) instituting arbitrary bans. Currently it looks like a states' rights issue because the bans are only in state code at the moment. The door is left open for federal code to fully ban abortion however, and Republican leaders have been messaging that this is their next step. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/05/mitch-mcconnell-ackn...

> That it's rooted in the court's idea that there is no inherent constitutional protection against abortion bans,

I don’t think they went so far as to definitely say there is no federal right to an abortion under any circumstances. I think they’ve left open the possibility that the due process right to life entails a right to an abortion when necessary to save the life of the mother (and possibly even when necessary to prevent severe long-term harm to her health-such as if continuing with the pregnancy was highly likely to cause her to go blind, for example). I could certainly see a future ruling (even by the current SCOTUS majority) upholding a federal right to an abortion in those very restrictive circumstances. All it might (sadly) take, is for America to have its own Savita Halappanavar

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar

Agreed. Substantive due process was left intact.

Additionally, regarding left or right federal legislation: this would very likely be struck down by the same court under the reasoning that the constitution does not grant the federal government the power to regulate abortion.

Any federal legislation would have to come in the form of an ammendment.

> Additionally, regarding left or right federal legislation: this would very likely be struck down by the same court under the reasoning that the constitution does not grant the federal government the power to regulate abortion.

I think, if Congress enacted a narrow federal right to an abortion – such as the right to an abortion to save the life of the mother – the current SCOTUS majority would be likely to uphold it - the right to life (including that of the mother) is arguably "deeply rooted in the nation's history" – and "life" is even explicitly mentioned in the text – and so such Congressional legislation would arguably be a legitimate exercise of the Section 5 power to enforce Section 1. Plausibly, they might even uphold a statutory federal right to an abortion to save the mother's health, since the right to health has an obvious connection to the right to life.

Seems like drugs might "reasonably" fall under the commerce clause [0] and thus federal regulation, though it is contemptible how much it is abused.

[0]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause

They do, but that only regulates interstate commerce. Intrastate commerce is unimpacted.

We’re going to need a new-deal level mandate unfortunately and my understanding is that will has only been built off catastrophic events as large as two world wars and the Great Depression.

And keep in mind that was before Fox News/other right wing propaganda networks highjacked a third of the nation's critical thinking abilities with scare tactics and conspiracy nonsense.

Basically they built already exactly those extraordinary events in the minds of their followers...

As long as D's continue to push unpopular initiatives like "racial equity" (reverse discrimination), banning gas cars, and increasing taxes to pay for social programs, they're never going to get a mandate. The reality is, whether you like it or not, even California rejected ultra left-wing "racial equity" initiatives at the ballot (Prop 16), people like their big gas cars that pollute the environment (or they can't afford a $50k EV/$30k hybrid and think D's are out of touch), and there is a widespread notion that the government is notoriously inefficient and incompetent. Agencies like the DMV and SSA don't exactly work to dispel that notion either.

Where's the common sense stuff? Where's the stuff most people would vote for?

I had a great time the last time I went to the DMV, but I agree that is usually not the case.

I recently learned that being a kidney donor has lower fatality rates than birthing. With that in mind I absolutely can’t see any reason to override someone’s bodily autonomy on any reason whatsoever. The not hyperbolic analog would be to force someone to be a kidney donor in order to save a live (one who actually lived on the Earth for decades) - on which I’m fairly sure noone sane would agree.

Would you be willing to have an unwanted fetus transplanted into your body to carry it to term, and have all associated parental ties transferred to you

Was that comment meant for me?

It was, though I initially read your comment as suggesting that since kidney transplants were lower risk, that pregnancies should always be carried; missing the significant cost of carrying it out.

On a closer reread I can’t tel what your actual point was. Though it’s not what I thought.

>On a closer reread I can’t tel what your actual point was.

The point was that since carrying a pregnancy to term has a higher risk profile than having an organ removed, a pregnancy should be voluntary in the same way we wouldn't coerce someone into giving up their kidney for someone else.

A bit of a weak argument. The biggest dangerous part of removing a kidney isn’t the act of removal, it’s the long term lack of having it.

That being said, I think it is perhaps noteworthy to say if women lose the bodily autonomy for carrying children, it is outrageous that dead people should retain the bodily autonomy to not be organ donors.

>The biggest dangerous part of removing a kidney isn’t the act of removal, it’s the long term lack of having it.

So? You wouldn't mandate mandatory kidney removals if we could mitigate the long term risk of not having one because that risk isn't the reason we don't unilaterally harvest organs from people against their will.

Regardless of where the risk is clustered (at the event or in the long tail following it), it is the harm to an individual via a non-consensually driven medical event.

I think mandatory blood donations might be closer to the argument you’re trying to make here

If you read around, you'll see that tribalism mode has fully engaged in many here. People aren't reading/thinking, all over in this comment section. Or, as the top level comment does, criticize those that are thinking about/being critical about certain aspects.

Sure, and we need a federal law clarifying this to protect us against selective court interpretations of the 14th amendment, on that much we are in agreement. But that’s not what this decision is about, it is no coincidence that there are trigger laws across the country in anticipation of this, that even attempt to ban abortions in other states (the Texas law). States rights has long been the motte of all kinds of minority social opinions in the Bailey. The broad consensus is being held hostage by a minority in some state legislatures, and in the senate and now Supreme Court. By any measure the functioning of the government is divorced from the will of the majority and this is a symptom of that. To celebrate it as returning powers to a democratic process is a crazy distraction to me in light of that.

Tumorectomy is not just a medical procedure, there is a third party involved: the cancer. Now I find the religious view that a cancer exists as soon the cell starts replicating uncontrollably ridiculous. But I find equally ridiculous the dismissal of the cancer's life implied by calling it just a "medical procedure".

I think it's fine. The cancer is not able to survive in it's own and has a significant negative impact on the person carrying it. To make medical removal illegal even in cases where continuing to carry the cancer threatens the life of the one carrying it displays reckless disregard for their safety.

You would have a point if cancer had a heart and a brain and was observed to develop into a sentient being after 9 months. Or if cancer was the result of a deliberate and voluntary action that the vast crushing majority of people older than 15 years understand its inevitable consequences.

Alas, none of that is true, and your remark can only win you a comfortable position in the mental gymnastics Olympics. And a 1st place in the moral bankruptcy competition, for comparing infants to a disease.

So, I should be forced to give blood if someone’s life is at risk and they need my blood (or, kidney)? There is a 3rd party to consider here and they are already living and breathing. So, blood or organ donations should be made mandatory. And if the argument is that the woman is responsible for getting pregnant then apply the above logic to a person you accidentally injured in a car accident. Now, anyone who causes a car accident should be forced to give blood (or any other part of their body) to ensure the victim is saved.

>anyone who causes a car accident should be forced to give blood (or any other part of their body) to ensure the victim is saved.

Yes.

>So, I should be forced to give blood if someone’s life is at risk and they need my blood (or, kidney)?

If that someone being in risk was the inevitable biological result of your actions, then yes. You should be forced to save him/her. Because you put him/her there.

So if you gave someone Covid and their lungs failed, they have a right to one of your lungs?

Should men be required to donate organs to women they got pregnant, if indicated?

This is obviously very silly and not thought out. Banning abortion is just as silly.

>So if you gave someone Covid and their lungs failed, they have a right to one of your lungs

Yes, if you can

1- Prove that I infected them

And,

2- Prove that no other solution would save the infected person, and organ donation would

>Should men be required to donate organs to women they got pregnant

Not if the impregnation was consensual. The person infected with Covid or hit by a car didn't consent to those actions, but a pregnant woman consented to impregnation unless she's raped, therefore she should accept responsibility for the associated risks. Rape is one of the very few reasons where abortion should be allowed. But it's something like 0.1% or so of abortion reasons, the vast majority of abortions are morally indefensible.

>deliberate and voluntary

You know people can be raped right?

Legitimate rape rarely leads to pregnancy [1].

[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/aug/19/republican-tod...

Just being the devils advocate: Contraceptives do also work while being raped...

Does an 11 year old have access to contraceptives from her father that’s raping her?

> Most of the examples you mention are actually protected at the federal level, through the constitution

until just now, the courts have repeatedly confirmed for several decades that abortion was protected at a federal level through the constitution.

> Most of the examples you mention are actually protected at the federal level

In many cases, like abortion until today, under the Supreme Court’s substantive due process jurisprudence, and in some cases building at least in part on Roe which was just overturned.

It's erroneous to use slavery and segregation as a template for any social issue you can frame as involving a "minority." It's especially ridiculous in the context of women, who are a majority.

Slavery and segregation were a sui generis issue because Black people are not only a minority, they are a discrete and insular minority. That is not true of gender and sexual orientation. Women and gay people are born into all families at predictable percentages. That drives social change as to those groups in a way that does not apply to a racial minority group.

The U.S. has a unique history with respect to slavery and segregation, but it does not with respect to women's rights or gay rights. Nearly every other developed country has left those issues to the democratic process. The European Court of Human Rights came to the exact opposite conclusion as Obergefell a year after that case, finding that the EU Convention on Human Right's marriage article did not apply to same-sex couples. Switzerland did not allow same-sex marriage nationwide until this year, and Italy still does not. Yet the EU continues to stand.

> The European Court of Human Rights came to the exact opposite conclusion as Obergefell a year after that case, finding that the EU Convention on Human Right's marriage article did not apply to same-sex couples.

The European Court of Human Rights, and the Council of Europe under which it operates, are actually not EU institutions.

> Yet the EU continues to stand.

Your thesis seems to be "countries and states can oppress people and society won't totally collapse", which seems like a very weak position to take. I'd hope you don't think "not collapsing" should be our goal. We want life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all people, right? Not life, liberty, and happiness for some, and well, at least the government remains standing, for the rest.

Like, in some sense, an oppressive government standing is worse than it failing, right?

Taking away a society’s right to decide the scope of social institutions like marriage, or questions of when life begins, and giving unelected judges power over those questions is a serious infringement on democratic self determination.

In the long run, it jeopardizes the possibility of ordered progress because people perceive it as a serious intrusion into society and culture by elites—which judges are—and will resist and eventually revolt. That’s exactly what you see happening in the US right now.

> That’s exactly what you see happening in the US right now.

No, with the January 6 riots? we see a minority no longer interested in the democratic process now that they don’t feel they are winning anymore.

How can you look at this Supreme Court, where multiple appointments were the result of heavy lobbying by large wealthy conservative faith groups to a president who lost the popular vote, and parliamentary tricks to keep the seat open, and see it representing a return to majority rule from rule by elites.

At a guess because it results in a country that is closer to the one desired.

Never mind the fact that not a single abortion will be stopped on account of this. What will change is that there won't be any safe abortions, essentially this will cause the same number of fetuses to be aborted, it will also result in the death or in complications with a fairly large percentage of the mothers. It may (will?) even result in suicides.

This is in my opinion the real tragedy, the 'pro life' (I use their moniker but I disagree with it) groups are essentially 'anti mom'.

> No, with the January 6 riots? we see a minority no longer interested in the democratic process now that they don’t feel they are winning anymore.

That minority is now in jail, and according to the laws in the US, those people have also lost their ability to vote. The people who active participated in the riot is no longer even an minority vote, but outside the voting process altogether.

I wish, but while some people are in jail, that minority very likely still votes from seats in congress! https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/exclusiv...

Seems like the root cause of this is that boundary lines of states are drawn wrong, and now encompass a diverse group of people who fundamentally can't agree on what their "society" is or what it should look like.

Time to abolish the states, perhaps, and move to a loose confederation of city-states + regional rump-states that encompass former rural areas, bound together by a Common Economic Protocol. Let the blue areas in Austin, downtown Houston, Miami, Pittsburgh & Philadelphia, etc. be blue, and the red areas surrounding them be red. Conversely, let the red areas in Jefferson (northern California + southern Oregon), eastern Washington, upstate NY, etc. be red, and the dominant metro areas in those states be blue.

Red/blue divides exist within states, but there's a lot more common ground. For example, half of Black people in Georgia oppose abortion. Folks in Atlanta might vote Democrat, but they don't see deeply religious people as aliens the way folks in San Francisco do. In another example, folks in San Francisco would have called Larry Hogan a fascist for sending in the Maryland national guard in response to the Freddie Gray riots. But his approval rating in majority Democrat Baltimore shot up to 70%. The bigger problem is having New York City/San Francisco in the same union with rural Georgia and Alabama. It's not workable.

I suppose you will be cheerleading the secession of Dhaka from Bangladesh too.

> In the long run, it jeopardizes the possibility of ordered progress because people perceive it as a serious intrusion into society and culture by elites—which judges are—and will resist and eventually revolt.

It's reasonable to say that the purpose of the judiciary is to protect rights, even when doing so is unpopular. If the judiciary was consistent in how it did that (for example: providing equal deference to the rights created by Roe and Heller) we might see less revolt. The issue is not "elite intrusion" but inconsistency.

Society's "right to decide" does not impugn my right to life and liberty. And the court is deeply inconsistent about whose rights, lives, and liberties it protects.

> Taking away a society’s right to decide the scope of social institutions like marriage

What gives El Paso residents the right to decide what the scope of marriage is in Austin? Indeed, what gives the government the right to regulate the "scope of marriage" at all?

> The Texas law forbids people from getting abortions in other states, where people have no representation in the Texas legislature by giving Texas citizens the right to sue them in Texas courts.

There is no way this can be upheld, right? How on earth can citizens of state 1 go after citizens of state 2 for something that's legal in state 2?

> More generally problematic, your view would let any state persecute a minority of voters in that state and bind the federal government from guaranteeing equal protection to all Americans.

Who decides when the will of a state's majority is "democracy at work" and when it's "persecution of the minority violating equal protection"?

> There is no way this can be upheld, right? How on earth can citizens of state 1 go after citizens of state 2 for something that's legal in state 2?

I'd suggest reading about the run up to the civil war. "State's rights" in that context was the slave states demanding that the free states capture and return escaped slaves outside of the slave states. Put simply, they wanted to enforce their fugitive slave laws on states that were completely uninterested in enforcing those laws.

The idea that "state's rights" in US political discourse reflects some principled division, rather than just being another lever people in power used to fight other people in power, is fiction. This has and remains fundamentally about a minority asserting their views over the majority, including outside the borders of their state.

>There is no way this can be upheld, right?

I think you and cm2187 above are making similar arguments, but to my thinking it doesn't really matter: with the time and money it takes to rectify the situation, unconstitutional laws do serious damage regardless. I'm not a lawyer, but oh what I would give for legal review on the constitutionality of laws as a precursor to implementation rather than post-mortem.

As another person suggests below - these states don't care anyway, they are following the same game plan as 1859.

Police departments are also very happy to arrest people over unconstitutional laws. The charges may not stick, but a solid tackle, some tight cuffs, and a rough ride can result in life-altering injuries. They also get the chance to keep the victim in jail for a bit, stick on more charges, and attempt to win convictions via plea bargain.

> There is no way this can be upheld, right? How on earth can citizens of state 1 go after citizens of state 2 for something that's legal in state 2?

Yes, it’s insane. But I don’t have faith in our courts to not split this hair and allow it for abortion specifically because they are so clearly partisan on social issues here.

Even without the insanity of the Texas law though, it’s still a huge issue for poor women in red states.

> Who decides when the will of a state's majority is "democracy at work" and when it's "persecution of the minority violating equal protection"?

The federal government passes laws, or a constitutional convention passes amendments, and federal courts interpret them. The 14th amendment was interpreted to apply this protection before but now it is not.

>There is no way this can be upheld, right? How on earth can citizens of state 1 go after citizens of state 2 for something that's legal in state 2?

I'm pretty sure it will be seen as a violation of the constitution's interstate commerce clause, which gives that authority exclusively to the federal government. However, it is possible that a pro-life administration would institute an order that does make it illegal to cross state lines for an abortion, similar to how sex tourism is illegal.

Such a law actually being enforced, then the enforcement upheld, is (quite simply) "the end" for sane rule of law.

States have no jurisdiction outside their borders. Just like, say, Wisconsin having a law on the books that makes it illegal to leave the state (while "intending" to continue living in the state) to get married elsewhere, where the marriage wouldn't be legal in Wisconsin (https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/765.04) is ridiculous, likewise claiming that you get to apply your law somewhere else that you have no legal jurisdiction is insane.

...not that that stops the US government from doing the same thing if a US citizen travels to another country with a lower age of consent to bang some 16-year-old. It's this magic "intent" which we don't know how they can possibly know - were you over 21 and did you go to France to fuck that 15-year-old you've been playing video games with, or did you just go to France and happen to fall for that 15-year-old that you've been playing video games with hard after they showed you the tourist sights you've always wanted to see, ...then fuck them?

Does it get prosecuted often? No. Is it another bullshit law, waiting to conveniently be used to make you guilty when the powers-that-be need a reason to make you guilty? Yes. Oh-so-yes.

Particularly interstate matters are handled by federal institutions set up by Congress. Which is why Texas police cannot prosecute you for crime done in California, but they can report you to the FBI.

As such, Texas is overstepping its jurisdiction. And sidestepping the law by making it civil cases... Which they can adjudicate.

So, states can get into their mess by staying civil cases, when do we see an escalation?

Federal institutions such as the Supreme Court?

Wrong. You can be prosecuted for a drug conspiracy hatched in California where the drugs are shipped to Texas. Federally, in Texas, California or all three "separate" sovereigns.

> How on earth can citizens of state 1 go after citizens of state 2 for something that's legal in state 2?

Just like how the US federal government can go after non-US citizens for something that is legal in their non-US country? Perhaps?

> There is no way this can be upheld, right?

Interstate travel is specifically protected federally and incorporated against the states. Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion specifically says this is an easy question to answer and it would be presumably unconstitutional to prevent people from having abortions in other states. Suggesting otherwise at this point is fear-mongering in very bad faith.

> who decides

More like, what laws decide. If the majority is infringing on protections from federal or state constitutions or federal or state legislation, the majority doesn’t win. Otherwise they do. Majorities can affect the laws given enough time and sustained effort.

>Interstate travel is specifically protected federally and incorporated against the states. Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion specifically says this is an easy question to answer and it would be presumably unconstitutional to prevent people from having abortions in other states. Suggesting otherwise at this point is fear-mongering in very bad faith.

Sure, but if they throw someone seeking an abortion in jail or tie them up in the court system, it may be irrelevant whether is is legal because that person still can't travel. That of course assumes they have the money and resources to travel, and that the health care systems in those neighboring states is accessible.

I don't have the stats in front of me, but we already know there is going to be a flood of people from Idaho into WA seeking services and we have very few clinics east of the Cascades as it is.

Presumably the Mann Act would be used as a template

Only the federal goverment can regulate interstate commerce so it is doubtful.