BlutoSays wrote:Yes. Did you read the syllabus (much shorter than the actual decision - it's the first several pages)? If you don't agree with the outcome of the ruling, you can at least realize they had many good reasons for the decision they came to. It was backed up with plenty of case law.
The dissent is also in there. Both sides aired their views. But acting like this is just a power struggle is BS. Let the states hash it out for their individual populations.
But anytime the DNC doesn't get their way, it's like the end of the fucking world. Really? Is it the end of the world because you didn't get your way for the next 50 years on abortions? Are you barred from visiting another state? Did you really NOT get your way, or was life made just a little more difficult, but not the end of the world?
@BlutoSays makes a couple of very good points. They are:
The SCOTUS did not take away any rights that anyone already had. They simply said that this was largely a states rights issue. That simply means that each state is free to craft the law as they would like for their people. The law they craft will be tested in their state courts and in the next election. If, as so many on the progressive side would like us to believe, women are outraged and want some particular reproductive right, there are absolutely enough of them in every state to force these rights in the political process.
To put this another way, it is not the men who are impinging on a woman's right to choose, it is the women themselves who are. Women must remember that the pro-life movement is largely a woman's movement and that in the states with the most restrictive abortion laws, these laws are widely supported by the women of those states.
Roe V. Wade was bad law. Every legal mind in the past 50 years has admitted it. More than the current law it was an act of judicial activism. What has been the negative effect of Roe V. Wade?
Well first of all it contained the seeds of its own defeat. By NOT asserting that a woman had an inalienable right to an abortion, it has single-handedly decided the makeup of the SCOTUS itself for 50 years. The ONLY litmus test of ANY SCOTUS candidate has been his/her stand on Roe.
Secondly it did NOT assert a woman's right to control her own body by giving her the right to an abortion. Indeed it said that she only had the prerogative to choose an abortion under some fairly narrow circumstances. Even the attempt in Casey to change the issue from one of privacy to one of liberty failed miserably.
NOW I WANT EVERYONE TO FUCKING PAY ATTENTION TO THIS:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke for 90 minutes at the Chicago Law School. All on the left raise your hand if you believe that RBG was all about gender equality and women's rights including reproductive rights. Good. 100% now lets move on.
RBG Said: “My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.
“Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”
HOLY SHIT BATMAN. Did I just hear her say that Roe was never about woman's choice? Well I think I did. But did we all just endure page after page of nonsense about 'body integrity' and other such nonsense that RBG pointed out years ago was NOT what Roe is about? And, blushing, is this not what I have been saying since my first post here. I guess I agree with RBG. And where did RGB see the answer to the issue CORRECTLY being played out? In the state legislatures? That is what she said. And wait. Didn't this decision throw it back to the states to sort out? What RBG holding back some of her cards? Nope. She went on to say:
In response to a student question about what would happen if Roe were overturned now, Ginsburg said the effect would largely be restricted to poor women in anti-choice states. Many states would never outlaw abortion, and wealthier women will always be able to travel to those states, she pointed out.
“If you have the sophistication and the money, you’re going to have someplace in the United States where your choice can be exercised in a safe manner,” she said. “It would mean poor women have no choice. That doesn’t make sense as a policy.”
POLICY? Yup. That is what she said.
But the court overturning a previous opinion is rare many here say. Is it? Well it is if you consider 230 times rare. For that is how many times the SCOTUS has reversed itself.
So Blutosays and RBG (and myself for what that is worth) all agree on this point: As Bluto said..."Let the states hash it out."
There is absolutely no doubt that RBG believed in a woman's right to choose:
“It is essential to woman’s equality with man that she be the decisionmaker, that her choice be controlling,” Ginsburg told Senators during her four days of questioning by the Senate Judiciary Committee. “If you impose restraints that impede her choice, you are disadvantaging her because of her sex.”
But look look look. There has never been a ruling by the SCOTUS nor a law passed by congress that asserts a woman's right to choose. Not one. Not ever. And THAT is where the solution lies. Well the US Congress can't do it. So what does that mean? It means exactly what the SCOTUS just ruled. In the absence of a federal law or constitutional guarantee, the decision and ultimately the solution lies with the states.
So girls. Get to work locally. Don't look for your solution on CNN or Fox. Look for it on the local 6 o'clock news.