Hacker News Reader

Comment by cupofpython | Hacker News Reader

the supreme court did not ban abortion. It removed abortion as a legal right. It means people cannot use the power of the federal government to overrule their own state legislature on the topic of abortion.

If you understand how the US Government works, then you understand that the Supreme Court cannot establish ANYTHING by removing laws. (ie overturning previous decisions).

What the Supreme court did was allow for the POSSIBILITY of a fully Catholic US State to practice Catholic religion with respect to abortion. It ALSO allows a fully Jewish state to practice Jewish religion however they want with respect to abortion.

They actual problem caused by overturning Roe v Wade is that some states who's laws are already catholic will regain the power to stop abortions in their state. That's it. California, New York, etc, are absolutely and completely unaffected by this decision, for example.

View on HN

> They actual problem caused by overturning Roe v Wade is that some states who's laws are already catholic will regain the power to stop abortions in their state.

Quite the motte and bailey you've got there. Do you think that this court will make an about-face and suddenly recognize the constitutionality of the Establishment clause? Textualist/originalist, my ass.

this feels like semantics?

Catholic people will make catholic laws. They wont literally be catholic laws.. but common sense would allow you to see them as such. There's nothing wrong with that either. The state does not need to recognize them as catholic laws and requires the laws be articulated and produced independent of the religion.

you cannot make a law that says "You must treat the poor the way Jesus would" but you can make a law that says "You cannot refuse life saving medical treatment to someone for being poor". Under Separation of Church a State can still create their set of laws to be 1:1 with the teachings of their religion. They just have to actually do that.. make the set of laws. they cant say "follow rules in the bible". The laws supersede the bible. Make the laws match the bible if you want people to follow the bible. So that's what these states are doing.

> they cant say "follow rules in the bible".

Only, they are saying the quiet part loudly now. And Clarence Thomas has been arguing that individual states can establish religions for at least two decades less three days[1]. Law is semantics.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/00-1751

> Law is semantics.

Right, but that's also the point I was making. People think creating a law based on the beliefs of religious people violates the separation of church and state. It doesnt. the semantic nature of the law is relevant here.

I was highlighting that by saying you could make a state that effectively is a religious state using the current system. since the semantics are still there and must be accounted for, this prevents it from actually being a religious state.

By adhering to the semantics, no amount of religious belief can lead a state to violate the constitution.. even if the state bases every single one of its laws on religion. And if they try to, then the federal government has authority to enforce otherwise.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com