Obviously, Ginsburg's comments on Roe being a "faulty decision" does not mean that she supported ending abortion rights or striking down Roe. That's just a twist of what her opinion actually was. Roe has been effective for 50 years. That is a clear establishment of this precedent. The current court had EVERY REASON to leave Roe alone, simply on the basis of stare decisis. If this decision is final, it pushes women's rights over their own bodies back more than 50 years.
No, you can have zero insurance. The affordable care act was written in a special committee with the full complement of Republican and Democratic senators and representatives. They were free to report all progress and issues to the public as they designed that healthcare bill. They chose to reject what Obama wanted, by the way. Would it be an improvement to move OTHER rights to the state level? How about employment rights, public accommodation rights, voting rights, gun rights, etc.? This is America. There are certain rights that we have as citizens. Deleting rights over our own bodies is NOT AN IMPROVEMENT.
You asked one question. It has been answered directly repeatedly. Focus on The Inconvenient Truth: “Nearly one-in-five U.S. adults (19%) say that abortion should be legal in all cases, with no exceptions. ***Fewer (8%) say abortion should be illegal in every case***, without exception. By contrast, 71% either say it should be mostly legal or mostly illegal, or say there are exceptions to their blanket support for, or opposition to, legal abortion.” PEW RESEARCH, America’s Abortion Quandary, A majority of Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, but many are open to restrictions; many opponents of legal abortion say it should be legal in some circumstances, MAY 6, 2022. (*** mine) https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/ Your premise is wrong, virtually no one (8%) want abortions banned. It does not matter why such a tiny irrelevant minority want anything. Surely you know that.
More absurd ineffective political hyperbole. In fact, as Justice Ginsburg pointed out, the irrational Roe opinion undermined the power of women to terminate their pregnancies. Now women will have to rely on the democratic process to protect their special status.
What you are suggesting is not what is happening. The stats you present is NOT causing abortion to be available. So, using those stats is a FALSE argument. We're seeing the antiabortion movement make serious progress on many fronts. The courts is one front, where we're watching victory, regardless of percent of America and regardless of 50 years of precedent. We're seeing state movements to end abortion rights precipitously. We're seeing states fail to protect abortion clinics, with public violence driving them into extinction - there is one clinic in all of Kentucky, 2 clinics in all of Missouri, etc. We're seeing the addition of medical requirements added to abortion procedures by LAW when there is ZERO medical justification. And, let's remember that while those wealthy enough to travel could go to another state, that option is not open to those who have no funds. This feeds into the problem of who is actually represented. Today, it's clear that the Republican war on democracy has made serious headway. So, the polling numbers on the abortion question are not skewed like the numbers at the polls.
Having rights to your own healthcare is NOT "special status". And, you're still twisting Ginsburg's opinion to something that it was not.
Exactly right. But I wouldn't want that politically inconvenient fact to stop our LW friends from bouncing off the walls for a few more months.
Your tying yourself into a knot over nothing. A statistically and politically irrelevant minority of 8% who want a total ban cannot influence legislation. They did point out that Roe was an irrational opinion, but savvy legal minds like Ginsburg did the heavy lifting when it came to actually rejecting the absurd precedent.
Well, Ginsburg felt that equal protection would justify legislation protecting choice. But a woman's right to choose is based on their special ability to become pregnant and give birth. That is being challenged now, so I expect the legislative debate to be very uncomfortable for what passes as the 'woke' left very soon.
Read again: “My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights. “Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”” The University of Chicago The Law School, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Offers Critique of Roe v. Wade During Law School Visit, Meredith Heagney, May 15, 2013. https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/j...s-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit Ginsburg is clear: Roe stopped the democratic legislative process that could have provided firmed up women's special legal power to abort their pregnancies.
I pointed out what is happening. Your theories do not represent reality. And, you have NO excuse for misrepresenting Ginsberg.
There isn't anything "special" here. The right to ones own body is not limited to pregnancy. For example, there is similar discord on the issue of the right to die. Remember, YOU claim there is nothing to worry about regarding abortion, due to stats. And, I have shown you clearly that your stats do NOT bear out your claims. You need to get your story straight - including ending your misrepresentation of Ginsberg.
Exactly what did I get wrong about Ginsburgs statements? “My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights. “Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”” The University of Chicago The Law School, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Offers Critique of Roe v. Wade During Law School Visit, Meredith Heagney, May 15, 2013. https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/j...s-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit
Her critique of Roe does not represent her views on abortion. The legal weakness of Roe has been known since the beginning. It's quite likely that the Catholic right wing court we have will strike down Roe. But, the reason for that has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the nonsense you present.
The right to be born is pretty central. Without that, the rest of the rights don't do you any good. And I'm by no means an absolutist. Pretty open on the first tri, not really for anything in the 3rd tri that isn't a life/death issue for the mom and then split between those two positions in the middle tri. To me that's a very sensible balanced pro-life/pro-choice position that most of the country is fine with. I have a feeling that as country that we are getting closer to sensible resolution that most folks can live with.
The government has given women that special power. Government, through the democratic process, may soon limit that special power.
only since the individual mandate was struck down. Employers still must offer insurance of a particular type, to not exceed a specific percentage of the lowest paid employees pay, or they can be penalized. Special committee? All three of them? And how many Congress members read the PPACA before it was passed? Business are steal dealing with the impacts of a poorly planned, poorly written and unnecessary piece of legislation. A number of aspects that would have been positive, could have been addressed individual and quite easily with a simple 2-5 page bill. But, Obama et al wanted the whole wienerschnitzel, and so presented something badly drafted. You do know that each State already has those laws, as well as the Federals, right? This is America. There are certain rights that we have as citizens. Deleting rights over our own bodies is NOT AN IMPROVEMENT.[/QUOTE]What rights are being 'deleted'? They are being moved.... '...and powers not specifically granted to the federal government.... *Edited to add, an INSURANCE mandate is not healthcare. It is a front loaded payment mechanism and nothing more.
Abortions are harder to get today than they have been for 50 years. And, the focus of the religious right today is showing great success in making it essentially impossible. The religious right doesn't even show interest for the life of the woman, for rape, for incest, etc. It's just plain sick to consider that "sensible".
You conflate Ginsburg's critique of Roe and her view of abortion rights. For 50 years its been known that Roe was poorly written, but was the law of our land as supported throughout that period by our highest courts. What we're seeing today has nothing to do with how well Roe was written. It's purely a matter of the religious right wing political court we have today.
This is just plain silly. Abortion has been limited by government for a LONG time. I pointed out how that limitation has come from the courts, from legislatures and from the failure to protect clinics from the violence of religious assault.
Dobbs provides 15 weeks of unrestricted abortion, which is more permissive than most of Europe and all of France. Yes, it's a perfectly reasonable pro-choice standard.
