Hacker News Reader

Comment by s1artibartfast | Hacker News Reader

The connection to the constitution was a lot more clear in the case of interracial or gay marriage than that of Roe. For Roe it took the 14th amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This was intepreteted in Roe to mean abortion bans are OK in the 1st trimester, conditional in the 2nd, and prohibited in the 3rd trimester.

Loving took this and said that means interracial couples and gays get equal legal protection and treatment to everyone else.

View on HN

The recent supreme court appointments underline the idea that the constitution says what the court says. If they can reinterpret it for Roe they can reinterpret it for Loving.

Anything is "possible". My point is that there is a much more difficult case for reinterpretation of Loving.

On a practical level, I also think there is public support for gay an interracial marriage today in a way that there never was for Roe and later Casey. Most Americans cant even articulate what the abortion standards are.

> I also think there is public support for gay an interracial marriage today in a way that there never was for Roe and later Casey.

48% support abortion under certain circumstances, 32% for any circumstance. so ~80% support allowing abortion. [1]

94% support interracial marriage. [2]

70% support same-sex marriage. [3]

seems to follow the age of the legal decision. Loving was in 1967, Roe was in 1973, Obergefell in 2015.

[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

[2] https://news.gallup.com/poll/354638/approval-interracial-mar...

[3] https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same...

I think your data more or less supports my conclusion.

The idea that the conservative supreme court is about to overturn Loving is absurd. 94% of the population supports it and Clarence Thomas is in an interracial marriage himself for heavens sake.

Time since decision is a factor as you mention, but the rates of change are an order of magnitude different. Support for gay marriage has increased about 40% in 20 years. Interracial marriage increased 90%! in 70 years. For abortion, "legal under any circumstances" has seen the biggest change and increased ~10% in 50 years. The pro-live/pro-choice chart is even more telling showing stagnation for the last 20 years.

Abortion is a complex decision tree with 100s of options and 71% of people fall between the extremes of no-exception legal or illegal [1], and dissatisfaction with current laws is at an all time high [2]. I just don't see the same motivation to overturn Loving and Obergefell which are binary issues the overwhelming majority are happy with.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americans-vi...

https://news.gallup.com/poll/283916/dissatisfaction-abortion...

You don't see Roe itself as an example of "the constitution says what the court says"?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com