Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

Having read the leaked opinion, it has nothing at all to do with religious ideology, but rather separation of powers. The fact is, Congress should have acted years ago (including most recently under Obama when they had a supermajority) to enshrine abortion rights in federal law since Roe was always on weak ground constitutionally.

Also, medical advancements and knowledge have grown tremendously in the last 50 years, so "the science" no longer views a 32 week old fetus as a parasite to be freely disposed of, and one doesn't need to be religious to see doing so as morally bad.

So then you're left with the logical problem of where to draw the line - 8 weeks? 24 weeks? 39 weeks? And that isn't something the Constitution covers, therefore it needs to be left to the states. Removing emotion from it, it was logically correct.

The justification is basically immaterial given that any judicial philosophy effectively defines its own axioms.

They have not said if states can impose such restrictions, nor if large companies can decide for themselves if they want to have such restrictions, and I am unsure under what paragraph the distinction between health care worker and worker of a large businesses is defined. It is possible that health care workers are defined as a "critical role" or something that allows for additional restrictions.

To be honest I believe part of the problem is self-inflicted. Many conservatives had already made their peace with the issue and some media personalities unnecessarily picked up the topic and some people made a fool of themselves in a way so that the opposition only needed to show around their behavior to garner more supporters against abortion. It is probably naive to believe that the argument is about ethics instead of partisanship at this point.

I am for legal abortions and against mandatory masking (most of the time, there are situations where wearing a mask is just sensible), but I don't see these topics intersecting very much. Abortions will happen if they are legal or not. To minimize suffering a legal and medical responsible way is required.

But it is still an ethical question to allow it or not and intrinsic to almost all ethical considerations is that there is no clear right or wrong so I don't see a solution if either a vast majority supports it or not or opposing political factions collaborate on the issue.

What we're bound to end up with are entire states of second class citizens who don't have the rights and protections of the rest of the nation. Where traveling within the country puts some of your most basic freedoms in question every time you cross a state border. Where your legal actions in one state can get you arrested or charged with a crime in another. There are very good reasons to have federal laws to keep a baseline standard of what rights and freedoms an American citizen has.

That this right has been overturned at a federal level will absolutely cause more suffering than it prevents. Even in those states where people will now be forced to live under religious law abortion will continue to take place just as it always has. The wealthy will simply fly to where it's accessible with little risk and the poor will resort to more dangerous methods just as they did before the right to seek an abortion was protected by federal law.

Good to know.

Yes, having a country that forces an 11-year-old to carry a pregnancy to term would be amazing for human dignity.

And, to editorialize: news orgs, your favorite political blogs, and even Twitter will have better commentary than HN.

Edit: for example, the joking sibling comment.

I don't actually know what the [flagged] tag adds to the story, though I think it's the right policy to let it play out so people can have their say while "burying" it so it doesn't dominate the front page and attract too much attention.

A lot of political stuff is not suitable for the front-page but some things just are by virtue of either changing precedent or evoking deep questions.

That's an egregious argument. It's like saying if you are not a Ukrainian (or Russian), you don't get to have an opinion about the conflict.

Yeah, no. The roles of men and women in reproduction are different, but that doesn't exclude either one from the conversation.

The real issue is that before being born, the would-be child is literally feeding on the mother like a parasite. No one should be forced to endure that against their will. That needs to be a voluntary act of sacrifice on the part of the mother. I don't think we'll have a real solution to any part of the abortion debate until we have artificial wombs where we can remove the burden from the unwilling mother entirely. That still won't satisfy the religious extremists who will still rage against miscarriages and birth control and 'women doing things we don't like', but it would solve the problem of fathers who want their child to live while mothers refuse to carry it.