Hacker News Reader

Comment by remarkEon | Hacker News Reader

>the US will lose a basic right that practically all the rest of western world guarantees its citizens?

This isn't true. The US is somewhat of an outlier in how liberal the abortion laws are here. What's likely is that, should SCOTUS not bow to the inevitable mob that will come after this leak, blue states keep their liberal abortion laws and red states don't. Most of the country will probably have abortion laws that look pretty similar to those of e.g. Germany.

I don't see an issue; this is Federalism and it's by design.

View on HN

Please reread both my comment and your comment. Do you not see how misleading your reply is? You completely left out a portion of my original quote so you could argue against a straw man.

I didn't say "the US will lose a basic right...".

I said "millions of people in the US will lose a basic right...".

No one thinks this will result in a federal abortion ban, but over a dozen states will immediately ban abortion upon the overturning of Roe v Wade. Those states contain millions of people who will lose the right to an abortion.

Those states voted for those laws. What interest does someone in California or New York have in trying to overturn the local will?

Abortion isn’t like civil rights, where southern states passed laws directed at a minority that had a unique historical position. States where voters choose to ban abortion have women the same as states who choose to allow abortion and those women agree with the bans. The majority of Black women in Mississippi think abortion should be illegal. Why should anyone in New York get a say?

Sure. Do you not understand how Federalism works? Voters in some states prefer more restrictive abortion laws. I'm still not following your argument. Is it that, according to you, "millions of people who want abortions" will not be able to get them because some states that are full of people (also millions, ostensibly) who want more restrictive abortion laws are now able to enact them?

Because if that's your argument it sort of gives away the game about the robustness of the Roe/Casey decision(s) in the first place.

The whole point of Federalism is not for the states to decide whatever they want. That would leave little purpose for the existence of the Federal government.

The Federal government abdicating the protection of certain rights means states will infringe on those rights. I can be upset that my fellow citizens will lose those rights even if I live in state that will continue to protect my rights.

> That would leave little purpose for the existence of the Federal government.

Yes, that's exactly the point. States run themselves like little countries and the glowies handle issues that are truly interstate or effect the entire nation.

The idea that someone in "practically Canada" Maine and someone in "practically Mexico" California and someone in "I can see russia" (lol) Alaska all have to run their businesses in some particular way because some jerk on Wall Street ruined it for everyone and got a law made after them is asinine.

But who gets to decide what those “rights” are?

Very few countries around the world think that there is a “right” to abortion until viability. It was created out of whole cloth by elite lawyers in the US.

"No one thinks this will result in a federal abortion ban"

Nope, anybody paying attention thinks this will result in a federal ban.

Conservatives are already calling for a senate majority to specifically apply a 6 week abortion ban nation wide. And that is just the start.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com