Hacker News Reader

Comment by porknaut | Hacker News Reader

Roe vs Wade upended precedent before it, so precedent alone is a bad argument. The majority ruling specifically rebutted what it thought were nonsensical arguments in the Roe decision for tying the right to privacy to some inherent right in the constitution. Neither right should be viewed as constitutional and even if the right to privacy were, tying abortion to it is a fantastical leap of logic.

View on HN

Yes, Roe did create a new right. But in creating that right it didn't take anything from anyone else, at least any living person. It took away the government's right to interfere with one aspect of an individuals life. This new ruling strips an existing right from the individual and returns it to the government. Only law students would see symmetry such a thing. People are allowed to be mad that today they are less in control of their lives than they were yesterday. They are allowed to be mad at government finding yet method to regulate their lives.

(I'm also a little shocked that the anti-big-government crowd isn't also screaming mad about this. All those rights they think they still have are also now on the table.)

> the anti-big-government crowd isn't also screaming mad

We anti-big-government crowd types are hopeful that the right to privacy that was invented by the supreme court in 1973 and revoked by the supreme court in 2022 will be added via the correct, non-reversible legislative process it ought to have been back then.

So you're expecting the government to solve a problem created by the government? That seems rather unwise, especially since in the interim you are losing rights as time goes on.

Especially when people are cheering on the side that's removing said rights because people would ban abortion, same-sex marriage etc no matter the cost.

> the government to solve a problem created by the government

The supreme court is the government too...

A constitutional amendment to enshrine a right to privacy/abortion is about as likely as Texas leaving the union to become part of Canada.

Not sure if you're right or wrong, but either way - far from destroying democracy, that is democracy in action. If the majority wants abortion, we get abortion. If the majority doesn't, we don't.

But the United States can hardly be called a democracy with gerrymandering, unelected federal judges, unequal representation for populous states in congress, and the electoral college.

The majority does want abortion rights, but those rights aren't coming. That's not democracy in action.

It isn't a democracy. It is a republic. It is rule by the people via a very specific system, one that isn't about simple majority rule.

Also known as not something that actually works

> If the majority wants abortion, we get abortion. If the majority doesn't, we don't.

The majority does want abortion, and yet we just lost it.

> far from destroying democracy, that is democracy in action

Do you still believe this, given that your next sentence is patently false?

> But in creating that right it didn't take anything from anyone else, at least any living person

The fetus is a "living person" according to many biologists

> Only law students would see symmetry such a thing

Have you been in any law classroom?

> The fetus is a "living person" according to many biologists

It's also not a "living person" according to "many" biologists.

I'm very confused about how people can square the two ideological positions of 'small government' and 'anti-abortion'. Roe v Wade explicitly barred the government and the states from interfering with a private individuals decision. The overturning of said decision empowers the government and increases their power.

People should be very afraid of decisions like these which take away rights from people.

What about the right to vote on abortion laws?

1. Roe was based on the precedent set by griswold.

2. What legal precedent did roe upend? I can’t think of any.

Every case where a woman/doctor was charged for actions in relation to illegal abortion. And every time those convictions were affirmed by lower courts.

That’s not what legal precedent is.

Otherwise anytime a law is passed, we’d consider it “overturning precedent”.

Precedent means that there is a long string of legal jurisprudence on a subject. Obviously roe/griswold created a new one, but it didn’t overturn/upend an existing one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com