|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6386
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Emotive issues and dangerous moments
|
A bit too controversial of me to suggest this, I dare say : is the outrage over alleged repudiation of the Roe vs Wade judgement going to resemble that following the Dred Scott decision ?
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13378
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
Emotive issues and dangerous moments
|
There is already considerable outrage, Phil. US news outlets are full of interviews with both those who oppose the leaked decision of the Supreme Court and those who support it.
Some people have said that if the decision is accurate then control reverts to the states and they believe that this is as it should be.
And the politicians are making bipartisan noise. Some Democrats have suggested that it is time to codify, "pro choice" legislation. But there are procedural restrictions on the process. The 60 Senate requirement could be made a 50 vote requirement but that would demand a "carve-out" of the filibuster. And that would be a whole fight in itself.
Others have said that two of the most recent Trump appointments to the SC were less than honest in their comments during interviews with the Senate. They have been accused of misleading the politicians with respect to their attitudes toward abortion. I think that everyone knew the views of the conservative justices and have anticipated that Roe v Wade could be overturned.
[Read More]
So far, there have been protests in front of state and federal buildings but I am not aware of any violence.
And up here in the great white north, a representative of the Canadian government has said that US women are welcome to come to Canada to purchase abortion services.
Quote:Social Development and Families Minister Karina Gould tells Power & Politics American women will be able to access abortion services in Canada if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade . source: CBC, Power and Politics, last night
That's nice but if you are a woman living in poverty in a southern state like Alabama where are you going to get the money to travel to Canada or the northern pro-choice states, to obtain an abortion.
Lastly, I listened to an interview with a representative of the last abortion clinic in Mississippi and she said that should Roe v Wade be overturned, then they will have to pivot and find ways to send their clients to places that will provide services.
The only problem with that is that some states will pass legislation that makes it a criminal act to leave the state for an abortion.
It's a bit of a mess right now. Many people are up in arms and are speculating because the ruling has not actually been released.
There is also a just concern that the deliberations of the SC have been leaked to the public. That is a great concern. It should not have happened.
Will there be violence? Hard to say. There will be protests and counter-protests. These can become nasty.
Cheers,
George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Grafton
Victoria
BC Canada
|
Posts: 4720
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Emotive issues and dangerous moments
|
|
Phil, you say: Quote: A bit too controversial of me to suggest this, I dare say : is the outrage over alleged repudiation of the Roe vs Wade judgement going to resemble that following the Dred Scott decision ?
First, Phil, It needn’t be controversial to raise the issue, but probably crosses lines Brian W has sketched out for himself. More to the question is whether it is a “General History” issue, or whether it could have been raised on – perhaps – Yoder’s Pub or even Community.
I can’t argue too much with George’s general commentary, to be honest, though I feel his focus on Trump-appointed judges perhaps ill-advised. And I’m too ill-informed about the Dred Scott decision to draw comparisons or risk assuming there may be any similarities in response to such decisions.
What little I do understand is based on media reports I rely on, but which may be rejected out-of-hand because they are largely MSM. If their arguments are accurate, only 28% of US citizens actively seek to remove abortion as an option available to women, whether as a procedure covered by medical policies or as a pay-for-service private procedure. IMHO, the elimination of choice under law, and the means by which that elimination might be enforced, will create clear and present difficulties not just for those George mentions in his post but in other ways as well.
As a Canadian, I’m happy to leave this to the good citizens of the USA. I remember the days of Dr Henry Morganthaller and his clinics in Canada. From a social point-of-view, I believe abortion as an option is a step forward. But I don’t live in the US, with their values. Personally, I’m going to be happy to let them fight it out however figurative or literal that might become. But I must say I see the interim leaked ruling as a potential step back in the fight for gender equality How would the court have found if the question concerned making sperm-ejecting males record each of their sexual congresses, so they would be forced to bear the financial burden of their partners’ pregnancies?
Legally, I’m saddened by the leaked document. It undermines the authority of the court, and places unwarranted pressure on both the power of the court and its judiciary. But I sense that this is just one more instance where US flagship democratic concepts are proving to be all too human and weak.
Cheers,
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly.
"The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Grafton
Victoria
BC Canada
|
Posts: 4720
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Emotive issues and dangerous moments
|
So. Today, Canada’s PM Trudeau has made promises about protecting abortion standards in Canada. I’m not the best Constitutional lawyer in Canada, I admit. But I think his promise steps far beyond any mandate he has as leader of a federal party or even as PM of Canada. IMHO, the current announcement is yet another comment by a PM who thinks with his eye on the latest polls. But then I’m not a fan of our current Prime Minister.
I argued earlier that this was a US issue. I still believe that to be the case. But attached to Mr Trudeau’s comments are suggestions that Canada may be prepared to provide means by which US females can obtain an abortion. This concerns me on a number of levels. Our medical system in Canada is under some duress right now, and most abortions – IIUC – take place within our broad medical coverage. I’m not at all convinced that our medical system can deal with potential US patients receiving treatment. Sure, we can set up a fee schedule that may provide a modicum of income for the system. But, increasingly, we have x-number of beds for procedures, so adding US folks requiring medical procedure in a time-sensitive way might create an even greater constraint on the Canadian healthcare system.
This could become a political issue in Canada, simply because of the impact those who choose to come to Canada for an abortion might have on our system.
Cheers,
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly.
"The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13378
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
Emotive issues and dangerous moments
|
I doubt that we will see that many US women coming to Canada. I believe that the eastern border states have reasonable abortion laws and US women should be able to find the reproductive health services that they need in the US.
There are however, many women living in poverty and who may need an abortion but cannot afford a bus ticket to travel or the service fees if they are uninsured.
I think that Justin Trudeau was affirming that anyone seeking medical services in Canada may do so. I trust that he was not suggesting that free abortions would be available to foreign nationals.
Cheers,
George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vpatrick
MA
MA USA
|
Posts: 2474
Joined: 2020
|
|
|
|
Emotive issues and dangerous moments
|
I doubt Canadians have much to worry about pregnant American women overloading the Canadian health care system. What I see is just another example of the extremes that exist in the US, One side wants abortions into the third trimester the other side reacts by banning them completely and then passes laws in their respective state's that will arrest the mother for murder. Two sides overreacting to each other and not talking the subject through both sides demonizing the other just another day in the US. I dont know whats going to happen Id like to think the states overreacting will face lawsuits that will stop draconian laws concerning abortion and Id like to see the folks explain more why they think its ok to abort a baby in the third trimester or even the second and why and how they think they know when a life is a life, from what observed these last 52 years is that humans as a whole are fucking stupid?. It is especially difficult for some in these mandated vaccination times to hear its "my body my choice". Very charged issue and Im not smart enough to say who is right and who is wrong but I do know common sense is needed.
vpatrick
----------------------------------
nuts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian W
Atlanta
GA USA
|
Posts: 1225
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Emotive issues and dangerous moments
|
The Supreme Court decision did not outlaw abortion. They left the decision up to the states to determine and left it to the state legislators. I agree with that. People vote and people elect their legislators. You can easily drive to another state where it's legal. If you're in a state and disagree with it, vote them out and change the law. That's what the Supreme Court said. I agree with that. Here in Georgia, it's no abortion after 6 weeks (the "heartbeat bill"). If we disagree we it, we vote on it and change it.
----------------------------------
"Take it easy. But take it" - Tom Morello's mom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OpanaPointer
St. Louis
MO USA
|
Posts: 1892
Joined: 2010
|
|
|
|
Emotive issues and dangerous moments
|
I consider it extremism when a minority can force their opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian W
Atlanta
GA USA
|
Posts: 1225
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Emotive issues and dangerous moments
|
It’s not the minority when they’re giving the right to determine the laws to the people themselves.
----------------------------------
"Take it easy. But take it" - Tom Morello's mom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13378
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
Emotive issues and dangerous moments
|
|
Quote: The Supreme Court decision did not outlaw abortion. They left the decision up to the states to determine and left it to the state legislators. That's the opposite of extremism. I agree with that. People vote and people elect their legislators. You can easily drive to another state where it's legal. If you're in a state and disagree with it, vote them out and change the law. That's what the Supreme Court said. I agree with that. Here in Georgia, it's no abortion after 6 weeks (the "heartbeat bill"). If we disagree we it, we vote on it and change it.
Brian, that is not the view of the operation of a federation that I have but then our national histories are quite different. And so I note that the US does not have a criminal code that is consistent across the country. And so a woman seeking an abortion in a state that outlaws it may be treated as a criminal in one state but not in another. Very strange that a citizen could be a criminal in one part of the country for seeking a type of health care but not in another.
As well, in your development it was determined that in the separation of powers between the federal and state governments, that if a power could not be determined to be exclusively a federal power, then it would devolve to the state. Is that the basis of the SCOTUS argument or is their decision the result of the religious and ideological bent of the justices?
And so states seem to guard their powers religiously and object to federal control or interference. (EDIT: provincial governments in Canada are the same). When the US was founded and the constitution written, why was this policy to extend most powers to the states adopted? Is it because there would have been no agreement to amalgamate had the powers of the former colonies been diminished? Did the new states insist that the federal government should have a narrowly defined role?
Brian, does your constitution address health care as a responsibility and consign it to either the state or the federal government? Is there any reference to the issue of health care in your constitution?
Last point. I have trouble accepting that the voters shall determine the extent to which an individual shall receive health care. This is a matter between the patient and his or her doctor. Effectively, the SCOTUS decision is a direct support of the states that have anti-abortion laws on the books or laws that were ready to be triggered with a favourable decision.
Cheers,
George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
morris crumley
Dunwoody
GA USA
|
Posts: 3293
Joined: 2007
|
|
|
|
Emotive issues and dangerous moments
|
|
Quote: I consider it extremism when a minority can force their opinion.
Yes. And in 1973, 7 progressives on the Supreme Court threw out the tenth amendment to the US Constitution ( a document that they were all duty-sworn to uphold and defend) and those 7 decided for all 200 million in the country. They determined that they alone had the power to 'settle" the argument once and for all. And for 50 years the argument grew worse, did more harm to all of us and changed forever the very nature of the nomination process to the court itself.
This court did not "support only the pro-life states" with this decision, but supported the right for the people of ALL the states to make their own determinations.
Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg, a strong pro-abortion advocate, said that Roe V Wade was a weak decision, not supported foundation-ally.
A lot has changed since Roe. We now see ultra sounds that bring home the fact that it is about a baby, not just a clump of rapidly dividing cells. The viability has increased to younger and younger infants in the womb, and we approach a time when nearly half of all abortions no longer are procedures in a clinic, but are done with medication and pills early on.
And finally, just as an aside, people should inform themselves about "Jane Roe" the person who wanted, but could not abort her baby in Texas. "Baby Roe" is now 51 years old, and the mother of three of her own children, and her mother did change her opinion on abortion in her later years before her death in 2017.
And now the people and the states will decide.
Respects, Morris
----------------------------------
"You are a $70, red-wool, pure quill military genius, or the biggest damn fool in northern Mexico."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Grafton
Victoria
BC Canada
|
Posts: 4720
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Emotive issues and dangerous moments
|
Morris, good to see a post from you, particularly on such a controversial topic. I have been tempted to stay out of the discussion. Your country; your rules; your turmoil. And, of course, a bit of a cop-out on my part!
I wish I had a simple position to defend. I don’t. In part, that’s because however closely I may be involved, it will never be my body carrying the fetus or facing birth trauma. I have therefore always been pro-choice, and believe the choice should be the woman’s to make. Being pro-choice does not mean anything more than that, IMHO. It means providing the means by which a woman may choose to terminate a pregnancy for reasons she determines vital to her well-being.
My difficulty, I guess, is that while the recent SCOTUS decision is a decision of law, it is a decision which honestly only has human consequences.
I lost a neighbourhood friend to a back-room abortion when she was 14. She bled to death from internal damage. This was long before Row v Wade, and long before “Morgenthaler”, a Canadian semi-equivalent. Three years later, another friend received parental and medical support for an abortion, though ironically she had to travel to the US to undergo the procedure. She lived. I’ve felt the human consequence of bad or absent means of dealing with the issue.
Two of my three children were born very early – something short of 29 weeks. They weighed 3 lb and 2 lb at birth, and remained in a neonatal clinic for 3 full months. They lived – one with a relatively severe handicap – but the odds of a fetus surviving outside the womb at 24 weeks remains as low as 42%. So while I support pro-choice, I believe there should be limits on when abortions should be allowed – the third trimester seems a sane cutoff point – except in cases of extreme danger to the woman or clear indication of fetal failure.
Finally, there is the continuing hostility and divisiveness in the US, which takes this decision into discussions far afield from abortion itself. Did certain Justices purger themselves? Is the separation of church and state at risk?
Is SCOTUS still viable as a court? Does the structure of SCOTUS need to be addressed?
Like many, Im worried (concerned is too soft a word) about the impact of the decision.
Cheers,
Brian G
PS: In my email today, I found a list containing the purported home addresses of “the six” SCOTUS. No comment. No suggestions. No flags. Were these provided so I could send them Christmas cards? If so, there were no zip codes included. 
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly.
"The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
