Hacker News Reader

Comment by mirceal | Hacker News Reader

Cute take but I'm going to ask the question: why did something that was in place for 50 years needs to be revisited? Is it maybe needed for the nutjobs that do want to ban abortion to do their thing?

Also, you need to ask yourself: is this about abortion? Or is it really about literally keeping the people poor, stupid and uneducated?

Think about it: if you're not poor this is not an issue. If you have 5 kids instead of 1, good luck getting them the proper education. But it's cool...we can use all that almost free labor to drive our corporate empires forward.

View on HN

I'm afraid your comments in this thread have been breaking the site guidelines. Can you please make your substantive points thoughtfully? That means without fulminating and without calling names.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> why did something that was in place for 50 years needs to be revisited?

Because it was poorly reasoned judicial activism and always has been. The amount of time that a decision stands should have no bearing on how good of a decision it is.

One of the dissents in Casey v Planned Parenthood in 92 also wanted to overturn Roe, for the same reasons that the current court did.

Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg thought that Roe v Wade was poorly reasoned.

But what is baffling is why they picked Roe V Wade to overturn rather than cut it at the root, such as Wickard v Filburn which would have undone a massive swath of the kind of unconstitutional expansion of the federal government.

They could have applied their logic uniformly but bizarrely singled out an abortion case.

Because it was roe v wade in question. Not the other case. I don’t believe the Supreme Court can issue judgment on any law they choose. It has to be relating to the court case in question

They get to pick which case they take cert on. There is absolutely gonna be _something_ out there that would allow them to work at the root of Wickard v Filburn. Framing it as "they have to work with this one case they got" is disingenuous.

They intentionally chose to go for the contradictory choice of singling out abortion while not attacking the root -- which suggests to me think this is more about judicial activism than upholding the constitution.

Disingenuous and/or incredibly naive as to how politics have been impacting cases coming before the courts.

If you want the cynical lawyer’s answer, it is simple. Wickard, as a ruling, allows the government more power and the ability to better project that power via the courts and legislature. Roe is a side-show for the government. The ability for someone to have a pregnancy terminated does nothing systemic to enhance the government’s ability to project power in a way which enhances the government. Which is why the parties will fight over abortion rights, but would never dream of trying to squash the government’s ability to regulate what a person does with material goods a la Wickard.

> why did something that was in place for 50 years needs to be revisited?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg made it her career to overturn precedents around women's rights that had been around far longer than 50 years.

The law in New York City was from 1905. The current court doesn’t seem to value stability so much as their own agenda for how things ought to be.

Personally I think the root cause is an alliance between people with hateful beliefs and people that want the government not to tax or regulate large companies and rich families. Fine, slut shame people because they had sex and got pregnant (no matter the circumstances) and let us keep sponsoring fake research that carbon burn is good. Be openly racist again and lower those taxes even at the cost of not educating the young.

Just my theory tho. Hard to know.

It is a good guess. This is not about right or wrong. This is about the rest of us being force the religious views of a minority by people who figure out it's a great way to divide and control us this way.

> why did something that was in place for 50 years needs to be revisited?

Please answer the same question, but for slavery.

Do I need to remind you we had this thing called the Civil War over slavery?

Setting aside political posturing: Who cannot get an abortion today? Even in deep red states, if you're wealthy the same rules do not apply to you.

> Do I need to remind you we had this thing called the Civil War over slavery?

Are you saying we're going to have a second civil war over abortion?

I'm not sure what the civil war has to do with applying logic consistently to see how it is fallacious.

The Civil War was needed to overturn slavery. Do you imagine people on the wrong side of history just going: "whoops i guess it's wrong. We're gonna stop doing it"?

The more I see, the more I believe a civil war is not off the table. In fact it's becoming more and more likely each day. We have 2 camps today and people are more and more divided. There used to be a time when you could... talk about the issue and use logic and arguments around facts. Not anymore. Abortion will not lead to a civil war - not on its own - but it does add extra pressure to a pressure cooker that's about to blow up.

Its only going to blow up because of the extreme emotional stress forced on people through the news and social media. Its a non-stop rage machine. Its not the policies that will set off a civil war, but the people who make money off causing people to become so emotionally involved in things that have no effect on them.

Spoken like a privileged man!

What makes you think that this has no effect on the millions of people capable of giving birth in the US? What makes you think that this will have no effect on their partner, or the overall well-being of the child, once birthed?

Yikes. One really need not look much farther than your only submission to this site for an effective gauge of your priorities and positions. I do hope you learn some open-mindedness and compassion. Start practicing today.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com