No other developed country has approached the abortion issue by saying "pfft the rules don't matter." The EU Court of Human Rights just last year refused to recognize a universal right to elective abortions. In every European country where abortion is legal, advocates of abortion made their case to the people, and the people decided whether to allow it and under what circumstances. In some cases it took a long time--Ireland legalized it just in 2018. But that's how civilized societies operate.
Your thinking is how third world countries operate. They say "lives are at stake" (or something similarly weighty) and use that to justify ignoring the legal process. As someone from one of those countries let me tell you that you do not want to go down that road. The rules are more important than anything else. They are more important than any individual lives. Because the rules are what make civilization possible. If you disregard the rules on issues that you deem sufficiently important to you, that frees the other side to ignore the rules on issues they deem sufficiently important to them, and it goes quickly downhill from there.
For example, Colorado and other states have legalized weed. They don't need to wax poetic about separation of powers etc to defend their position, because everyone understands that this is exactly what the Federal system was designed for. To allow states to augment their economies and taxation systems as they see fit (going back to colonial era reasoning).
Throughout US history the most vocal proponents of states rights have been those who attempt to limit personal liberties. They first use the constitution as a jumping board, arguing that "it's not explicitly stated in the constitution!" because the constitution is limited and vague (The founding fathers intentionally kicked the can down the road for racial issues). Technically, the regressives are right here, but they are hiding behind legalism to protect their abhorrent viewpoints.
"If it's so popular then just vote on it then!"
Unfortunately it's not so simple. At the Federal level, a filibuster proof majority is required in the Senate (non-proportional) as well as full control of all three branches of government (president and congress are also non-proportional, although in a different way). So it's incredibly difficult to pass overwhelmingly popular legislature/amendments in the US. Which is precisely why we have seen most of our civil rights gains over the last 50 years be accomplished through the court system. At the state level, there is no filibuster (mostly) and so there is no mechanism for a minority to halt legislation at the state level.
This kind of game has been played out for the last 200 years. Yes rules are important, but the reactionaries in US history have typically "meta-gamed" the flaws in our system that were overlooked by the founding fathers in order to preserve horrendous practices. That's not to say that there is no benefit to our checks and balances, but when it comes to things like civil rights, gay marriage, and abortion, the opposing side is mostly meta-gaming and exploiting checks and balances negatively.
To sum up, corruption in the third world occurs by circumventing the laws. Corruption in the US occurs when you put someone in a position of power to interpret the laws the way you want them to. If you need sources, I can provide.
> No other developed country has approached the abortion issue by saying "pfft the rules don't matter."
The Roe decision was not made on "rules don't matter" it was an extension of the due process clause in the 14th amendment. The overturning of it was made on interpretations of common law going back to the 14th century, the main point of argument being that there was "no innate protection of abortion as a fundamental right".
We’re already there. That’s already happened. Stare decisis — remember when all the justices who just ruled to overturn Roe called it “settled law”? Remember when the Republican Senate refused to consider Obama’s Supreme Court nominee? Remember when the courts gutted the voting rights act? Remember when the courts determined the outcome of Bush v Gore? The side that “won” this argument didn’t do it by playing by the rules. Because the court doesn’t have rules. The constitution doesn’t outline any of the philosophy that you are calling “rules.” So sitting back and saying “let’s just play by the rules” is handing a victory to a side that doesn’t care for them.
If you watch this youtube video of Kavanaugh answering questions I never get the idea that he says he won't overturn Roe v Wage, or that it is a binding or super precedent.
You needn't use your real name, of course, but for HN to be a community, users need some identity for other users to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be a different kind of forum. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
The phrase is often used as if it's meant to suggest that they're fighting off federal government overreach. In fact, it's used exactly to allow them to have overreach over you, at the level that they can make it happen. When they get the opportunity to control it at the federal level, it will stop being "left to the states".
It's very much about denying individual liberties, using Orwellian language making it seem otherwise.
People in the US are able to freely travel between states, this isn't the case elsewhere in the world. Some things are crimes in some jurisdictions and not others, this is normal.
If you think it's inadequate, pass an amendment to the constitution, that's what the amendment process if for. If you think the process to too burdensome, encourage your state to secede.
Again, you ignore the actual realities of politics. Obama promised to codify Roe v Wade his first day in office. He then refused to, since it was better for democrats to keep it on as a political bargaining chip.
Now, what are US liberals supposed to do? Not vote and lose? Vote for the Republicans and see abortion criminalized federally? No, they have to vote for the Democrats again and maybe hope they finally try to pass their agenda. There is a false choice presented. It was urgent to the voters, but not to the politicians.
This is not a right that is specifically enumerated by the Constitution. The current Supreme Court has indicated that rights that are not specifically enumerated by the Constitution are subject to evaluation and curtailment.
Easier said than done, for many.
One really simple example of what the SCOTUS could do is they could rule that an unborn child - from the time of conception - is covered by the rights laid out in the 14th amendment.
Takes all choice back away from the state once more.
Do you know of countries with a federal government and where people can't travel freely between the member states? The ones I know don't have this problem so I'm not sure how that's something unique to the US.
Personal attacks are particularly not ok, so please don't post like that again.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
p.s. It looks like you've been using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. That's another line at which we ban accounts (even if they're not breaking the other guidelines) - for past explanations, see https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....
I'm not going to ban you right now because if I scroll back far enough in your commenting history I do see comments that are in line with the intention of the site, but if you'd please correct this going forward, we'd be grateful.
Note that this is in addition to what I said at the start of this comment—there are two separate issues here.
PS: I didn't post that comment.
The rule of law exists precisely because of the temptation to think with our "empathy" instead of our brains.
> The rule of law exists precisely because of the temptation to think with our "empathy" instead of our brains.
Assumptions galore are made here. First off, the rule of law exists because of power heirarchies. People create laws to protect THEMSELVES and THEIR interests. Monarchs didn't create laws for the benefit of everyone, neither do dictators. Furthermore many laws exist to augment our empathy. Speeding laws exist because many people are incapable of comprehending the danger they could pose to someone else. Animal cruelty is illegal because the majority of people understand it's wrong, and we will force that wisdom upon others who don't.
> the temptation to think with our "empathy" instead of our brains
Where do you think empathy comes from if not our brains? Empathy is a tool of reason, not orthogonal to it. Would you praise someone for only using one of their senses? Or would you think they are ridiculous for constructing a worldview based only around their sense of smell? Thinking that empathy is somehow a trait to be overcome and not a tool is the same as eating soap regardless of how it tastes, because it "smells good". Empathy allows us to consider the conditions and experiences of those outside of our immediate sphere of influence. In a democracy this is especially invaluable, since individuals make decisions that influence society at large.
The inability to see outside of your every day experience is not logical or rational, it's the exact opposite. Empirical evidence can be a great tool for analyzing macro trends, but empathy allows us to better understand the causality.
My second paragraph expands upon the reason and justice aspect.
Also the current constitutional crisis we are in demolishes the legalist justification anyways. States being able to ban travel to other states for abortion, states allowing private citizens to sue others for getting abortions in other states. States limiting access to websites that are legal in other states and limiting the first amendment.
Because repealing Roe was done on an ideological basis it has caused a cascade of problems around how much power states should have, one that has been largely settled since the Civil War.
As for the people not in South Carolina, they should work to pass an amendment or secede from the union, those are the only legal options if you believe in how the federal government is supposed to work (maybe there's a 3rd option to kick out SC?).
It's not legal to secede from the US, we fought an entire war because it was not a right of the states. Most of what you say ignores the reality of our political system, voter suppression, who draw districts, filibuster, etc. Which makes it more difficult than "just vote". Which is why the Republicans went the route of Supreme Court justice appointment, so they could legislate via the court.
Yes, and it makes me angry that so many commenters on this and other forums said, "Well, they have a point. It should be left to the states." As if women whose lives are at risk can wait for their judicial philosophy to cleanly play out; as if the raped 10 year old being forced to travel out of state to have an abortion was just how it goes while we figure out how to get the book keeping figured out; as if the woman who was forced to carry a dead fetus inside her for weeks because the hospital didn't want to risk being sued was just one of those tragic, unforeseeable, unavoidable victims of our imperfect democracy.
These are lives we're talking about here. And it's only going to get worse. Sorry to use a cliche, but wake the fuck up y'all.