Interesting business decision.
The question I have, some states are going to call abortion murder and charge it as such. Is Google aiding and abetting a homicide?
What is interesting is that I guess the average google employee is in a good enough position in life to either afford birth control, get an abortion if they need one, or simply figure out how to make an unwanted pregnancy a good situation for their family. So I’m not really sure how this helps their employees other than making them look like they care about the most recent dramatic thing.
https://www.prri.org/spotlight/most-oppose-overturning-roe-v...
Those numbers are far closer to 50/50 than one would imagine in the bubble, but that's also reference to specifically overturning Roe v. Wade, not whether or not abortion should be legal, which is closer to 50/50.
Have a look at the second chart[1]
It's been 'mostly, roughly, steadily ~50/50 'ish' for about 20 years.
I think most self described progressives would be surprised by those numbers, and even the 64/36, as you brought up.
This is a 'big win' for 35% of the country, and another 15% are maybe ok with it, and a few others ambivalent.
That sentiment I think is at odds with the moral outrage felt by ~55% of the country, and it's hard to ingest.
Which makes this a big more difficult to navigate than I think we might normally assume.
I think Google's response is rational, but it's not as 'Black and White' an issue as our 'tech culture instincts' might have us believe.
No, most self described progressives would not be surprised that the numbers are where they say they are.
Literally all throughout this thread people are using these same numbers. I'm curious how far off your perception of progressives is from reality. What numbers do you think we believe are accurate?
Further, _you_ should reference the first chart you linked. It should clearly indicate to you that many who identify as pro-life do indeed support at least partial abortion rights.
85% believe abortions should be allowed in all or some circumstances. 13% believe illegal in all circumstances. Many states under conservative control will go to illegal in all circumstances, so that's the opinion of 13% controlling the freedoms of the other 85%. Not so close to 50/50, huh?
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
There are a lot of numbers here. In short, while it has been 50/50-ish for a while, it wasn't in the 90s, and it's not right now. More people, when asked for an opinion, think abortion should be legal than not. And by about a 5-3 or 2-1 margin, more people think and have thought that Roe should be left alone, not overturned.
So I see this as a broadly unpopular decision.
Even on the pro-choice side there is a lot of variance on when abortion should be restricted (similar to how Europe restricts abortions the closer to full gestation). Same on the pro-life side, views aren’t binary.
Considering most people don’t understand why Roe v Wade was overturned, I’m not sure opinions on whether it should have been mean much, since belief of what that means is all over the place.
If you asked “would you get an abortion?” The numbers are likely more skewed.
It’s not 50/50 at Google or any of the big tech companies.
Justice Thomas's concurring opinion literally calls for reconsidering (ie, overturning) Griswold (contraception), Lawrence (same sex relationships), and Obergefell (same sex marriage).
It's perfectly clear that this is exactly what a not insignificant number of conservatives want to do. How is this scaremongering ?
So if you admit he's willing to overthrow the precedent, and you agree that some states would then make those behaviors illegal, then how can you square that circle in your brain to claim it's scaremongering?
I don't think there's a state that would outlaw regular birth control. Maybe 40 years ago, but today, probably not.
And really, why is it that we can vote at the federal government based on the policies we want, but saying that you should do that for certain issues in your state is undemocratic all of a sudden? What's wrong with states, constituted by their citizens, deciding how to govern themselves?
Several states have already had debates in their state houses about outlawing some forms of birth control (Louisiana and Missouri off the top of my head). This was prior to the decision, now they will be more emboldened.
The Texas governor when asked if he could go further and outlaw birth control simply responded “I don’t know.” You wildly underestimate how extreme these people are and how little they care about what the majority want.
To answer your final paragraph, there is a very long history of _certain_ particular states in a _certain_ region in America with a _certain_ evangelical Christian makeup who has been trampling rights for centuries. These people argued states should decide slavery and Jim Crow laws as well. Being blunt, history has proven over and over you’re on the wrong side of this.
And, for what it’s worth, until gerrymandering is fixed there is a tremendous problem with letting the minority political party in the state govern.
For instance, in Wisconsin over the last 3 elections, Democrats have been +4%, +8%, -3%. One would expect their state house to slightly favor Democrats. Republicans have held a +29%, +27%, and +23% edge.
Almost every red state is like this. This is how you have relatively purple states like North Carolina, Texas, and Florida take absurdly hard right positions that in no way represents their populations.
The Texas GOP just days ago released their platform calling for a state-level electoral college for all state-wide positions so they can maintain control of governor, secretary of state, attorney general, etc. without coming remotely close to winning the popular vote.
Hope that helps explain how it is very much the DEFINITION of undemocratic and what’s wrong with it.
If you do not have bodily autonomy due to the enforcement of religious stupidity by the state, you are not considered a full human being by the state.
Acting like women, and men who care about women should just accept this shit because it's "the will of the people" is not logical, and I might add is not going to happen.
The states that banned this medical procedure are gerrymandered and at least in Texas I have witnessed first hand the extreme measures they are taking to prevent people from voting out the unpopular and corrupt leaders who are endorsing these measures no one wants, except the religious minority. So please tell me more about how this democratic process is what's happening. They rigged the game and now women are going to die and suffer because of it, and nothing is going to change. They will still pay for their mistresses abortions in "free" states and the poors get ground into the dirt even further. Same song different day.
After privacy rights, Affordable Care Act, Social Security, and Medicare are all next.
I’ve searched and I cannot find data that say half of America wants abortion made completely illegal (as it is in several states right now and will be in more shortly due to trigger laws).
Can you please share where you get your 50/50 split from?
> Roe v Wade only prevented legislation from finding a solution.
Roe only? Roe made safe abortions available to millions — it reshaped society.
If the argument against Roe is that fertilized embryos are killed, then we need to make sure in-vitro fertilization is stopped where abortion is as well.
As one anti-abortion politician said “The egg in the lab doesn’t apply. It’s not in a woman.”
I don’t believe you and I think you’re the one in the bubble.
Your turn.
Also; did you even read my comment before replying to it? Come on, brother. It is obvious that I am talking about Google employees.
Depends what you mean really, as much as 60% are against abortion after a fetus can feel pain (debated: 7-28 weeks), with another 20% undecided and only 20% support abortion.
Most people just don’t know how to have an informed discussion.
What overturning Roe really does is allow states to set the threshold. Roe prescribed a method of determining whether an abortion was legal — “viability”.
Now you can have Colorado having after birth abortions (seriously legislated) and Texas banning abortions after heart beat and Alabama banning all abortions.
But, you realize it's largely a question of axioms, right? Two sides are talking past each other because they take their axioms for granted as self-evident.
It's simply a question of a woman's reproductive rights if you take it as axiomatic that a fetus isn't a person.
I don't take it as axiomatic that personhood begins at conception, but if I did, it would all of a sudden be a question of balancing the rights of two people instead of just the woman's reproductive rights. We don't have a clean scientific definition of personhood. The fetus is genetically distinct and is essentially a parasitic larval human. Scientifically, it's just tissue, but so am I. The real question is if it's a person, and that's a legal and moral question that is largely axiomatic.
The reality is that very few of us have a problem with aborting an unviable fetus or early abortion in cases of rape, very few of us support aborting a perfectly healthy fetus minutes before birth, and hard science doesn't provide us many clear lines somewhere in the middle.
Maybe it's purely a legal question, but that's a problem given the current makeup of the Supreme Court.
If it's not scientific, not legal, and not axiomatic, then what is it?
I also believe it has scientific and legal and axiomatic components, just feel quite confident it has to do more with the fear, anger, guilt, shame, and other emotions we feel and attach to things.
Obama in 2009 (the same year he had a supermajority in the legislature): eh, that’s not so important
I have zero faith in Democrats in Congress to actually do this and all of the Republicans in Congress are vocally (or tacitly) opposed to it.
Clinton’s VP pick was an anti-choice Democrat.
I doubt there will be a federal law allowing for first trimester abortions on demand for at least a decade.
So acting like there was some all-powerful supermajority is ignorant at best, misinformation at worst.
> Second, as I see it, some of the other abortion-related legal questions raised by today’s decision are not especially difficult as a constitutional matter. For example, may a State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel. May a State retroactively impose liability or punishment for an abortion that occurred before today’s decision takes effect? In my view, the answer is no based on the Due Process Clause or the Ex Post Facto Clause.
that would have an indirect effect on interstate commerce, but I could imagine the Court upholding Mississippi's ban, since it only concerns businesses that operate there.
of course, this would run straight into the Heart of Atlanta Motel decision that ended racial discrimination in hotels.
Also, it could be that better argumentation is needed to seat something as a right. Take gay marriage as an example. If we solely describe it as a contract (not a religious rite), then you can probably lay access to gay marriage within the Commerce clause. Married couples move around. We can't have their marriages suddenly annulled by moving within the US. We don't allow that to happen to other contracts. Yes it might require a destination wedding, but the couple will comeback with all the rights an privileges thereof.
Currently civil marriage is bundled up with other legal issues like immigration, child custody, income taxes, and medical care decisions. But there's no fundamental reason other than tradition why those things need to be coupled. They could all be handled through separate contracts or elective registries.
What American government should do and what American government does are fundamentally different things and that ship has sailed. No different than what priests, teachers and actors should do.
That doesn't make much sense. So in order to get basic rights that come out of marriage/civil union like hospital visits, power of attorney, inheritance, child support, alimony, splitting assets and children in case of divorce etc. one would need to involve lawyers and sign one-off contracts that cover everything? Sounds like a collosal waste of time and money.
Do you have any examples or possibilities for a constitutional gotcha under these circumstances?
I'm genuinely asking as I'm not an attorney.
My guess would be something like give each citizens in __ state the power to sue __ for assisting someone to commit a "murder" or "crime of life," whatever insane definition they put into law.
Making "civil suits by private citizens the exclusive avenue of enforcement."
And grants a bounty to encourage this.
Further placing 100% of the burden on the person being sued to prove their innocence (and pay legal fees); doesn't matter the uber driver was just dropping someone off at the airport. Whereas the state would have to prove the crime.
it's the threat, the time, the money, and the inconvenience which creates the deterrence & fear that they want.
No matter how baseless it might be, this whole 'gotcha' is that the Supreme Court won't intervene because - and this is where legal understanding could have nuances - each victim is unique (person being sued civily), and that the relief would be from unique individuals and not the state. SCOTUS "ruling that the providers could not bring suit against the classes of state judges and clerks or the state Attorney General"
(Note: i'm for abortion rules based on sentience level - i think that sentience level of cats/dogs/pigs is where we shouldn't be able to end the life at will while say fish level is ok, chicken is still ok though feels a bit uneasy, and that means as far as i understand about 3, may be 4 months cut-off for abortion in my view (incest and serious genetic defects a bit more complicated, and i think it warrants somewhat later cut-off))
do you have an actual reason for thinking this will happen? this is detached from reality, both of these procedures are meant to create babies which are carried to term, which is the fundamental goal of pro-life policies
At the deep biological level - the fundamental goal of pro-life policies is to enforce r-selection, ie. more random based, whereis pro-choice is K-selection, ie. more managed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory), and like the abortion the IVF, egg freezing, contraception, etc. are all enemies of r-selection while they are tools of K-selection.
>darwinian strategy fantasies
are effects emerging at biological species [sub]population levels, not at an individual level.
For example, you may have noticed that statistically speaking prochoice people and their children are more educated while having less children than the prolifers. That is a typical manifestation of K- vs r-selection differences. The opening of "Idiocracy" is a nice funny commentary on that.
that event is just a wrinkle in the history of our and other species. The natural selection laws didn't start with humans and hopefully wouldn't end with us.
>you are mistaking the result for the agent
in evolution there is no difference between the result and the agent - every agent is a result of previous evolution, and every result of evolution, ie. an individual with specific traits, strategies, preferences, is an agent of shaping of the further evolution. For example the tendency of elephants to have one baby at a time is a result of their evolution and it shapes their future evolution.
>the direct corollary of your argument is that free will doesn't exist
classic anti-Darwinian argument. It is a fallacious argument in its nature as free will is a trait of an individual while Darwinian laws are of large group level.