USA Roe, the evangelicals and the war on choice

[faible]

"with the people", interesting phrasing there.

Wouldn't it truly be "with the people" if people who wanted were free to get one, while those who oppose abortions were free not to get one?

I do find it funny when people argue as though RvW somehow resulted in people being forced to do something against their will.

It was a ruling that permitted women the freedom to make their own choices as to what they wished to do with their bodies.

Removing that ruling has resulted in women in a number of states being unable to make such a choice.

Weirdly, those who scream the loudest about freedoms seem to be the one's supporting overturning RvW and outlawing abortion. Almost like they don't actually support freedoms for anyone but themselves.

 

[Gralin]

I do find it funny when people argue as though RvW somehow resulted in people being forced to do something against their will.

It was a ruling that permitted women the freedom to make their own choices as to what they wished to do with their bodies.

Removing that ruling has resulted in women in a number of states being unable to make such a choice.

Weirdly, those who scream the loudest about freedoms seem to be the one's supporting overturning RvW and outlawing abortion. Almost like they don't actually support freedoms for anyone but themselves.

freedom to impose their views on others

they want all the laws to match their own personal views and no one elses

 

[GreyWind]

freedom to impose their views on others

they want all the laws to match their own personal views and no one elses

Once again Texas is leading the charge on killing and controlling women.

Texas attorney general says he will sue doctor who gives abortion to Kate Cox

Ken Paxton issues threat after judge ruled this week that Cox, a pregnant woman with a lethal fetal diagnosis, can get an abortion

www.theguardian.com

 

[Gralin]

Once again Texas is leading the charge on killing and controlling women.

Texas attorney general says he will sue doctor who gives abortion to Kate Cox

Ken Paxton issues threat after judge ruled this week that Cox, a pregnant woman with a lethal fetal diagnosis, can get an abortion

www.theguardian.com

so ****ed

 

[Crankyhawk]

It was corrected, R v W got it wrong. It's now with the people, which is where it should have been all along.

“With the people” - in a system where district borders are set up on partisan lines to advantage incumbent parties, where the ability to vote is suppressed (and elections on working days), that type of “people”?

 

[1970crow]

Nah, it wasn't 'corrected', Federalist Society hand picked Justices overturned it as promised.

All three newly appointed Justices reaffirmed at their hearing that R v W was settled law.

They perjured themselves just to get their nomination over the line.

You just explained why it was wrong. Having partisan judges effectively writing law is incredibly flawed. Firstly, that profession is so far out of touch with ordinary people it's ridiculous. And second, they're appointed by politicians with axes to grind. It's not 'settled law', it never was, it was wrong when written and just hadn't been addressed. It was a ridiculous overreach implemented by the political will of the day.

These matters belong with the people, not partisan judges. And since the correction, the people have almost entirely been proving themselves to be trustworthy.

 

[1970crow]

“With the people” - in a system where district borders are set up on partisan lines to advantage incumbent parties, where the ability to vote is suppressed (and elections on working days), that type of “people”?

So you're against democracy? You prefer some other system to determine the laws that you are bound to abide by? Plenty of other countries you can emigrate to comrade.

Yours is just a pure emotional post. An exact example of why having a group of unelected individuals writing law is wrong. Great when I agree with your ideologies, but $hit when I don't, so I need to be able to vote you out. On abortion, I'd agree with your emotions, but I'd imagine there'd not be much other alignment. But if I live in a society that elects you consistently, I'd be comforted knowing that you represent the views of a of a fair proportion of society.

 

[Maggie5]

You just explained why it was wrong. Having partisan judges effectively writing law is incredibly flawed. Firstly, that profession is so far out of touch with ordinary people it's ridiculous. And second, they're appointed by politicians with axes to grind. It's not 'settled law', it never was, it was wrong when written and just hadn't been addressed. It was a ridiculous overreach implemented by the political will of the day.

These matters belong with the people, not partisan judges. And since the correction, the people have almost entirely been proving themselves to be trustworthy.

Already answered by Crankyhawk did you even read the reply?

On one hand you refer to partisan judges and then ignore partisan politicians that make the laws in their own state.

The people that preferred Row V wade are currently in the majority but depending on the state they live in have no chance that is why the Federal Law was preferred.

“With the people” - in a system where district borders are set up on partisan lines to advantage incumbent parties, where the ability to vote is suppressed (and elections on working days), that type of “people”?

 

[Crankyhawk]

You just explained why it was wrong. Having partisan judges effectively writing law is incredibly flawed. Firstly, that profession is so far out of touch with ordinary people it's ridiculous. And second, they're appointed by politicians with axes to grind. It's not 'settled law', it never was, it was wrong when written and just hadn't been addressed. It was a ridiculous overreach implemented by the political will of the day.

These matters belong with the people, not partisan judges. And since the correction, the people have almost entirely been proving themselves to be trustworthy.

except the legislators try to defy the will of the people (and likely cite election fraud when they lose too)

 

[1970crow]

Already answered by Crankyhawk did you even read the reply?

On one hand you refer to partisan judges and then ignore partisan politicians that make the laws in their own state.

The people that preferred Row V wade are currently in the majority but depending on the state they live in have no chance that is why the Federal Law was preferred.

answered incorrectly. Partisan politicians are much preferred to partisan judges, we get to vote on politicians every 3 or so years. People complaining that a right/left balance of power change resulted in law being repealed is hilarious. You loved the 'system' when it resulted in outcomes that suited your particular bent, but then there's something wrong with it when it doesn't.

In terms of states where abortion remains a criminal act, noting that it was only a year or so ago that South Australia decriminalised abortion, if the voting public demand it, it will be done. And if not, and a citizen wants the right to something not allowable under that jurisdiction's legislature, then they are free to relocate to where it is. We are all burdened by governments that, throughout our lives, make decisions we strongly disagree with. But again, I much rather an elected government than an appointed lawyer.

 

[Crankyhawk]

So you're against democracy? You prefer some other system to determine the laws that you are bound to abide by? Plenty of other countries you can emigrate to comrade.

Yours is just a pure emotional post. An exact example of why having a group of unelected individuals writing law is wrong. Great when I agree with your ideologies, but $hit when I don't, so I need to be able to vote you out. On abortion, I'd agree with your emotions, but I'd imagine there'd not be much other alignment. But if I live in a society that elects you consistently, I'd be comforted knowing that you represent the views of a of a fair proportion of society.

I'd prefer that they had an independent non partisan electoral commission that was trusted rather than the current shitshow of governors arbitrarily drawing district gerrymander lines. And had voting on a weekend. And not undermining absentee voting/ putting in barriers for this to occur. Or more recently avoiding the will of the people via claiming electoral fraud, then going to your hand picked partisan judges to support you in this.

In short I distrust the results USA democracy gives when compared to what we have here.

 

[Chief]

It's not 'settled law', it never was, it was wrong when written and just hadn't been addressed. It was a ridiculous overreach implemented by the political will of the day.

If so, why did those candidates lie about it?

 

[1970crow]

I'd prefer that they had an independent non partisan electoral commission that was trusted rather than the current shitshow of governors arbitrarily drawing district gerrymander lines. And had voting on a weekend. And not undermining absentee voting/ putting in barriers for this to occur. Or more recently avoiding the will of the people via claiming electoral fraud, then going to your hand picked partisan judges to support you in this.

In short I distrust the results USA democracy gives when compared to what we have here.

I don't follow it that closely, but the R v W thing did interest me. Only a couple of years ago, in SA, abortion was a criminal act unless 2 doctors signed off on it due to mental or physical health risks. So if you turned up to a clinic and said that having the baby wouldn't negatively impact your mental health and you were otherwise physically able to, it would be a criminal act to choose and undergo an abortive procedure. I've been involved in this farce a couple of times, once as a supportive friend and the other as the potential father. I found the outrage on the Adelaide politics thread quite amusing considering how little most understood of the existing laws within their own state.

But I thought I'd heard that a few states that had elections following R v W reversal had voted in the pro choice side of the argument. I do understand that there are wacky states that are full of religious nut jobs, but I find it perfectly normal that governments pass laws that reflect a majority of their constituents. It's similar to gun laws (ignoring the lobby system), Americans get the laws that the majority prefer. I definitely disagree with the interpretation of the constitution with respect to the right to bear arms though. But it's up to the people to change that. Lobby system does make that harder though. Still, I prefer that weakness to lifetime appointed judges making the decisions.

 

[Crankyhawk]

I don't follow it that closely, but the R v W thing did interest me. Only a couple of years ago, in SA, abortion was a criminal act unless 2 doctors signed off on it due to mental or physical health risks. So if you turned up to a clinic and said that having the baby wouldn't negatively impact your mental health and you were otherwise physically able to, it would be a criminal act to choose and undergo an abortive procedure. I've been involved in this farce a couple of times, once as a supportive friend and the other as the potential father. I found the outrage on the Adelaide politics thread quite amusing considering how little most understood of the existing laws within their own state.

But I thought I'd heard that a few states that had elections following R v W reversal had voted in the pro choice side of the argument. I do understand that there are wacky states that are full of religious nut jobs, but I find it perfectly normal that governments pass laws that reflect a majority of their constituents. It's similar to gun laws (ignoring the lobby system), Americans get the laws that the majority prefer. I definitely disagree with the interpretation of the constitution with respect to the right to bear arms though. But it's up to the people to change that. Lobby system does make that harder though. Still, I prefer that weakness to lifetime appointed judges making the decisions.

The people cannot change it (the system) due to the inherent gerrymanders that favor incumbency.

 

[1970crow]

If so, why did those candidates lie about it?

did they though? I've read what their views were when asked and only a couple stated, in what I'd call unequivocal terms, that they'd not vote to overturn if something came before them on R v W. It's not surprising that many here would misinterpret their statements, especially when presented on their FB feed. In the real world, people almost always misunderstand the requirements of something like a CoP that states 'should' as opposed to 'must'. These little words are key, but yet they're often ignored in favour of the overall message. But the writers could easily have placed 'must' in the sentence, but yet didn't. And there's a reason for that and it needs to be respected as if it wasn't done by accident.

 

[1970crow]

The people cannot change it (the system) due to the inherent gerrymanders that favor incumbency.

Are you saying that their are anti-choice states that haven't changed governing party for decades? I lived in the NT for 20 years and was there for the first ever non liberal government. I know it can happen, but don't have that depth of knowledge on US state politics. Or any knowledge really. I'd be interested to know how many governments are governing having actually lost the popular vote. I think it happened a couple of elections ago in SA and maybe federally as well. But it's rare.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Are you saying that their are anti-choice states that haven't changed governing party for decades? I lived in the NT for 20 years and was there for the first ever non liberal government. I know it can happen, but don't have that depth of knowledge on US state politics. Or any knowledge really. I'd be interested to know how many governments are governing having actually lost the popular vote. I think it happened a couple of elections ago in SA and maybe federally as well. But it's rare.

remembering that a major difficulty in the USA system is the non compulsory nature of their vote, as well as barriers to being allowed to vote, even before you get to the issue of gerrymandering

2020 United States redistricting cycle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This appears to be a relatively balanced summary of the current state of play there in terms of how they draw up districts for representatives, you can see that 44 of these are in the control of the politicians themselves with only 6 states using independent commissions. Governors can also veto changes in many of the states.

And this article (from 2014)

Mapping the history of U.S. state politics

A new study conducted by MIT political scientists Christopher Warshaw and Devin Caughey shows for the first time the modern political trajectory of all 50 U.S. states, since 1936, by examining their laws in relation to nearly 150 policy issues.

news.mit.edu

"The paper, “The Dynamics of State Policy Liberalism, 1936-2014,” is being published in the forthcoming issue of the American Journal of Political Science.

To conduct the study, Warshaw and Caughey — along with research assistants at MIT — examined 148 different state-level policy issues, evaluating each state’s position on them. To be sure, not all of those policy issues existed throughout the period studied; abortion rights, for instance, barely registered at the state level until the 1970s. Thus the political ideology that the scholars assigned to each state is derived from a set of issues — of which many, but not all, overlap at any given time.

Perhaps defying the basic intuition of some observers, Warshaw and Caughey found that state-level politics have been essentially “one-dimensional” from the 1930s onward — that is, if a state has conservative policies on economic issues, for instance, it will also have conservative policies on social issues."

 

[Maggie5]

answered incorrectly. Partisan politicians are much preferred to partisan judges, we get to vote on politicians every 3 or so years. People complaining that a right/left balance of power change resulted in law being repealed is hilarious. You loved the 'system' when it resulted in outcomes that suited your particular bent, but then there's something wrong with it when it doesn't.

In terms of states where abortion remains a criminal act, noting that it was only a year or so ago that South Australia decriminalised abortion, if the voting public demand it, it will be done. And if not, and a citizen wants the right to something not allowable under that jurisdiction's legislature, then they are free to relocate to where it is. We are all burdened by governments that, throughout our lives, make decisions we strongly disagree with. But again, I much rather an elected government than an appointed lawyer.

Partisan politicians and Presidents, nominate and vote in judges in America!
It seems to be a badge of honour as to how many judges are appointed under each President.

The total number of Trump Article III judgeship nominees to be confirmed by the United States Senate was 234, including three associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, 54 judges for the United States courts of appeals, 174 judges for the United States district courts, and three judges for the United States Court of International Trade.

Biden is on track to beat that excluded Supreme Court Judges.

did they though? I've read what their views were when asked ...

I actually watched the confirmation hearings of the latest 3 judges and all swore under oath when asked...

'Roe v Wade is settled Law'. They lied!

I watch more USA news and senate hearings than I do Australian.

Whatever partisan party is in at the time appoints these judges which a high number are lifetime appointments and can only be removed by impeachment.

 

[1970crow]

remembering that a major difficulty in the USA system is the non compulsory nature of their vote, as well as barriers to being allowed to vote, even before you get to the issue of gerrymandering

2020 United States redistricting cycle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This appears to be a relatively balanced summary of the current state of play there in terms of how they draw up districts for representatives, you can see that 44 of these are in the control of the politicians themselves with only 6 states using independent commissions. Governors can also veto changes in many of the states.

And this article (from 2014)

Mapping the history of U.S. state politics

A new study conducted by MIT political scientists Christopher Warshaw and Devin Caughey shows for the first time the modern political trajectory of all 50 U.S. states, since 1936, by examining their laws in relation to nearly 150 policy issues.

news.mit.edu

"The paper, “The Dynamics of State Policy Liberalism, 1936-2014,” is being published in the forthcoming issue of the American Journal of Political Science.

To conduct the study, Warshaw and Caughey — along with research assistants at MIT — examined 148 different state-level policy issues, evaluating each state’s position on them. To be sure, not all of those policy issues existed throughout the period studied; abortion rights, for instance, barely registered at the state level until the 1970s. Thus the political ideology that the scholars assigned to each state is derived from a set of issues — of which many, but not all, overlap at any given time.

Perhaps defying the basic intuition of some observers, Warshaw and Caughey found that state-level politics have been essentially “one-dimensional” from the 1930s onward — that is, if a state has conservative policies on economic issues, for instance, it will also have conservative policies on social issues."

That seems to be a lot of information. My question was simply with regards to the statement of gerrymandering. So I ask again, are there states that have governments which didn't win the popular vote? And are these states anti-choice? Try not to copy/paste from your FB feed. You provided a statement that implied an understanding, just avail me of the raw information that you used to arrive at your view.

 

[1970crow]

Partisan politicians and Presidents, nominate and vote in judges in America!
It seems to be a badge of honour as to how many judges are appointed under each President.

The total number of Trump Article III judgeship nominees to be confirmed by the United States Senate was 234, including three associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, 54 judges for the United States courts of appeals, 174 judges for the United States district courts, and three judges for the United States Court of International Trade.

Biden is on track to beat that excluded Supreme Court Judges.



I actually watched the confirmation hearings of the latest 3 judges and all swore under oath when asked...

'Roe v Wade is settled Law'. They lied!

I watch more USA news and senate hearings than I do Australian.

Whatever partisan party is in at the time appoints these judges which a high number are lifetime appointments and can only be removed by impeachment.

provide the quotes that arrived you at your view. I bet it's easy to prove you're wrong.

 

[1970crow]

And on queue, news shows how stupid Texas is.

 

[Maggie5]

I bet it's easy to prove you're wrong.

Go right ahead but before you do, read this.

 

[bourbons]

Once again Texas is leading the charge on killing and controlling women.

Texas attorney general says he will sue doctor who gives abortion to Kate Cox

Ken Paxton issues threat after judge ruled this week that Cox, a pregnant woman with a lethal fetal diagnosis, can get an abortion

www.theguardian.com

Jesus

In a brazen dismissal of the court’s decision, Paxton wrote that the judge’s order “will not insulate hospitals, doctors or anyone else from civil and criminal liability”.

Paxton also wrote that the hospital where Cox obtains an abortion “may be liable for negligent credentialing the physician” who performs the procedure.

The Center for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit on behalf of Cox after she learned last week that her fetus has trisomy 18, a fatal chromosomal condition, as well as other health issues, including a spinal abnormality. Continuing the pregnancy could threaten Cox’s life and future fertility. The 31-year-old mother of two has already rushed to the emergency room four times with severe cramping and fluid loss, but doctors have told her that their hands are tied by the state laws.

Risking the life of a mother of 2 coz they're so ideologically head****ed they won't allow her to terminate a non-viable pregnancy. So "pro life"

All going well eh Stokey?

 

[bourbons]

These matters belong with the people, not partisan judges. And since the correction, the people have almost entirely been proving themselves to be trustworthy.

Yes I'm sure that's of great comfort to the woman in the above article.

 

[bourbons]

So you're against democracy?

rofl

How you got that from the post you replied to is genuinely bizarre.