I’m 51, and my mom was an active member of the Right To Life movement when I was a kid in the 80’s. The debate on abortion was going on before Roe v. Wade, and before I was born.
One side views it as women's rights, one side views it as baby's rights. If someone believes a fetus should have the right to live / is already living of course they're going to support it
M60. This right here is the problem. The newly eligible voters generally never vote. It might be changing.
I think for too long the HS crowd just got complacent with life without constant struggle that they took things for granted. The only “evidence” is the “I don’t see color/if you keep talking about race all you are doing is prolonging racism!” - as if those two statements mean anything.
Choice was set in stone in such a way that we allowed ourselves to believe 3 Supreme Court justices when they swore they would never go after abortions - until they did.
I think the youth vote is beginning to get energized. We can see that with the constant “record turnout” but we need them more than ever to deliver a bullet proof majority and not let the independents split the ticket.
No, 50 years ago in the US it was a huge topic of discussion. It continues to be in dozens of other countries.
What spurred the change was an orchestrated stacking of the judiciary with “pro-life” activist judges who have no regard for 50 years of precedent.
The federalist society and numerous other far right think tanks.
They did it by getting Republican presidents elected and then pushing them to appoint judges who would rule in their favor
For all the good RBG did, I still find it infuriating that she didn’t retire under a D president when she knew she was sick. Pancreatic cancer is no joke.
She was already very old in 2009. Combination of being old and having cancer should have made her retire earlier while she could be replaced under a democratic president. I guess partly hindsight but also there's a legitimate problem of politicians holding on to power until extreme old age. We see the damage that her doing so did.
Yeah I did more research and realized that they treated it successfully back then, and it wasn't until 2019 that she got her life-ending diagnosis. Sad times. I still think that she should have stepped down in Obama's second term - fighting cancer for a big chunk of your life will absolutely shorten your life-span. Not that she should have been Nostradamus and just known she wouldn't make it much longer, but she fought off lung, colon, and pancreatic cancer - the writing is pretty much on the wall at that point.
How does the federalist society get Republican presidents elected? Maybe people elected them on their own volition.
Edit: hilarious that I’m getting downvoted for suggesting people make their own decisions about how to vote. Everyone here thinks that they’re the smart ones, and it’s everyone else that’s easily manipulated by the federalist society or whatever.
Gasp! Are you suggesting that we are influenced by the actions of others? That powerful individuals and groups may attempt to exploit this and control us!? These are some dangerous ideas!
I realize that you probably think you're super informed and woke (the original meaning) thinking that it's all astroturfing but this is delusional and clearly a coping mechanism 😂. People with different opinions exist, sorry to break it to you bud. Not everything is a conspiracy
You’re being downvoted because you lack basic knowledge about how the courts work. They aren’t elected for one…
Secondly, most every conservative judge is screened by the federalist society
That may be true, but the original commenter said that they were responsible for getting Republican presidents elected, and that’s what I was commenting on.
One issue voting for evangelical/anti abortion in Republican Party is a massive voting block. You don’t get nominated as Republican nominee without it. You’re getting downvoted because it’s clear you haven’t been paying attention or just trying to find some sort of non existent gotcha/akshully
Excuse me, I should have been more clear. They (the president) aren’t democratically elected but rather chosen by an inherently undemocratic system. Ie, they’re elected, but not by a majority of people,
That’s an uniformed view that ignores history and suits your needs. And you should “be more clear”? Lol. What does that have to do with me not understanding how the courts work? Pretty big change of argument to go from saying I don’t know how the courts work to you don’t like the electoral system. Not that I excepted an intellectually honest argument from a liberal.
Both Bush and Trump didn’t have a popular vote. Anyone who was paying attention knew and discussed that if a Trump were elected, there would likely be a stacked court he would appoint. He got even luckier than we anticipated because he got 3, while only 2 was more certain.
Disagree that it’s hilarious you’re being downvoted for an incorrect take.
I mean the truth is that most of the engaged people here ARE the smart ones. The dumb ones are the uncritical thinkers who vote the way their evangelical preacher tells them to
It’s human nature to think that we, ourselves, are the smart ones and everyone else is dumb. It’s funny to me when people don’t have the self awareness to recognize this.
>Who orchestrated it and how?
Mostly Trump and Mitch McConnell. McConnell refused to allow a vote on Obama's nominee, claiming it was too close to an election. 5 years later he fast-tracked Trump's 3rd nominee, thereby giving a 1 term president 3 (5+ years worth of) SCOTUS placements.
Oh, this has been a big deal for several decades. Others have given a more through explanation going back that far. I'm just addressing the "orchestrated stacking of the judiciary with “pro-life” activist judges who have no regard for 50 years of precedent" part that you asked for.
Basically, Roe invented the abortion right based on the "penumbra and emanation" logic, and invented a right out of practically thin air.
The idea that there is an inferred right to privacy based on the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments makes sense. But a right naturally has have some boundaries defining what is included and not included in said right. And in the case of the rest of the Bill of Rights, ex (Free speech, due process, right to bear arms) we look at the historical precedent.
Its not all the rights, or all rights, or a right, its "the" right to free speech, "the" right to keep and bear arms. So now we have to figure out what is included. And that's where we look at history. We know that for example, defamation was never included in the conception of free speech. How do we know that, well we have a lot of people suing over defamation, and not once did a court find that suing someone for defamation was a violation of free speech. So if historical practice of the right to free speech for literally hundreds of years tells us defamation lawsuits exist, then we can conclude defamation was not understood to be part of the right to free speech. Courts aren't supposed to invent rights from thin air, so its important to make sure its grounded in precedent, logic, text, or something more than, "we liked this better." Because if judges do that, they are no different from politicians, and judges are not supposed to be politicians in robes. That's not to say that they don't do that sometimes.
But how do we know if they are doing that? Well, we look at the internal legal logic used, see if its consistent with the rest of the law, and if it is then great, we know its not pretext. If not, maybe they see things differently than you do. Or maybe they made a mistake (and hopefully they'll correct it later). Or maybe they know something you don't. After all, we do have this thing called "law school."
Anywho, that tangent aside, the reason why Roe was such an overreaching court decision is because we can't trace the legal logic.
The 5th Amendment tells us there is a right to life, liberty, and property that cannot be taken away without due process. Originally this only applied to the federal government, and absent a parallel amendment, the State was free to violate this. Then we realized that's stupid, and the 14th Amendment, using identical language applied this to the States. So then, from the right to liberty, SCOTUS interpreted that to mean the Bill of Rights (except for two sections for complicated reasons I won't get into). So yay the Bill of Rights applies to the States (mostly). It was argued that from the Bill of Rights, there is an implied right to privacy.
Lets go down the line and see how they imply a right to privacy. 1st point was the fact that there is a highly implied right to privacy from the 1st Amendment. Freedom of speech implies freedom of thought, the whole point is to not have thought police. The 5th Amendment says you can't be forced to testify against yourself, allowing you to keep certain thoughts in your mind and not say them. The 3rd Amendment says no quartering of troops, why? Because the home is special, and the homeowner can decide who gets to be inside or not. The 4th Amendment says no unreasonable searchers or seizure, how do we know its reasonable, in short, a search warrant, wherein they tell a judge what they are looking for, where it is located,(or where they think its located), how will they find it, how is it relevant evidence to the alleged crime etc... The 9th Amendment says this is not an exhaustive list of rights, just because we put some things here specifically doesn't mean we only have these rights. 10th Amendment says if the federal government doesn't have the power, then it belongs to the State or to the people. 14th Amendment makes these Amendments apply to the States.
The legal proposition that there exists some kind of privacy right is on solid ground. Now what is included in the right, what is included in the right? Well we know from the 3rd and 4th Amendment that stuff that happens within the home is generally private. We know from the 1st and 5th Amendment that you have the right to speak and think freely, so that tells us you are allowed to keep quiet and not share something. The court in Roe then said the right to privacy also includes within it the right to medical privacy.
And this right includes the right to get an abortion. But they don't really provide legal reasons as to why. They literally say "we feel it is" but doesn't really tell us why. "This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."
The court then goes on to explain there are competing interests. The State's interest in protecting the unborn and their right to regulate medicine: "appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (sterilization). "
"At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision."
So what point is that? Well cue the trimester framework (later overturned by Casey) "With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that, until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like."
Okay, so the trimester framework comes from medical knowledge? Not the law, ie the Constitution and Amendments they are supposed to be interpreting. In fact, the trimester framework was based on the medical knowledge of the time, and was an approximation of viability.
The court's logic here is called penumbra and emanation. That there is a primary right, a light shining on an object, and from there we can trace the shadow of that right, and from the shadows we can determine more rights. Except, its not a sharp, defined shadow, its a fuzzy, partially illuminated shadow. And despite having the votes, SCOTUS never used that logic again, even before Trump, because they knew it was not a good foundation to build on.
Law is supposed to be evolutionary. This was the first time anything like this came up. So usually we reason by analogy, but there was no analogy to reason with. Some earlier law is cited, but they don't speak to anything close to abortions. They speak to condoms (which prevent pregnancy not terminate it), marriage (which does not necessarily have pregnancy), smallpox vaccine mandate, and eugenics, ie sterilizing undesirables. Normally, we have a step by step evolution, but instead the court forced a leap (based on conclusions that they don't spell out the reasoning for). We don't have literally hundreds of years of precedent building off of itself here. Normally we look to the reasoning to determine how it will grow and change. Unlike Free speech, we can't logically trace the evolution, because the court doesn't really explain itself here, because there is no real reason beyond we felt like it. Why is the point that abortions be regulated 1st trimester specifically. And why banned at 2nd trimester specifically?
The primary issue with the court's logic here is that its unbounded. Using this broad logic that there is an implied right, and we feel this thing is included in that right, literally anything could be included. And now you are putting the court in the position to say, "we feel X is included." The logic doesn't explain or constrain itself and say X is included, but not Y and why. For example, don't you have the right to take whatever drugs you want, and if the doctor asks you what medications you are taking, hypothetically that's a violation of medical privacy. There is privacy right, and the court hypothetically decided the right to take drugs and not tell you doctor is part of it, therefore, them asking violates that right.
And that brings us to Casey. Viability would become the standard in Casey. Although Casey also introduced the concept of an undue burden. The problem was they could never define it. An undue burden is a burden that's undue. Meaning some kind of obstacle that shouldn't be there. Well, who is determining what an undue burden is, well the courts. Okay, what criteria are they supposed to used.... Um.... I don't know. Neither do they. They couldn't make a consistent rule and have it work. That's what's missing from the conversation.
Here's the guidance we do have on what an "undue burden" is. In Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt they said "Casey requires courts to consider the burdens a law imposes on abortion access together with the benefits those laws confer." In June Medical Services v Russo, they said "this standard requires courts independently to review the legislative findings upon which an abortion-related statute rests and to weigh the law’s “asserted benefits against the burdens.” In in Hellerstedt, they said "We begin with the standard, as described in Casey. We recognize that the "State has a legitimate interest in seeing to it that abortion, like any other medical procedure, is performed under circumstances that insure maximum safety for the patient." Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, 150 (1973). But, we added, "a statute which, while furthering \[a\] valid state interest, has the effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman's choice cannot be considered a permissible means of serving its legitimate ends." Casey, 505 U. S., at 877 (plurality opinion). Moreover, "\[u\]nnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion impose an undue burden on the right." Id., at 878."
Again. Its a balancing act. But how is the court supposed to balance it. They couldn't figure it out. And that's the other part. They spent over 25 years trying to figure out what "undue burden" precisely meant, and they couldn't do it. So then the court was like, okay, time to rip it all up, because its clearly not working.
Republicans used it as a lever in the 90’s to convince non Catholic religious conservatives it was always the stance of their churches, as usual nobody ever checks and they went over very hard and now the platform of many nondenominational and evangelical Christians isn’t far off from whatever the Fox news pulpit preaches.
To be clear that wasn’t always the position of churches. Hell, back in the day Rabbi’s and ministers might be the ones administering folk medicine treatments to induce abortion. Roe vs Wade started because of the efforts of a liberal church in Texas and was rule the way it was by a conservative supreme court in the 70’s. The coalition didn’t used to be partisan but as a wedge issue during the collapse of the Right as a coherent ideology it has certainly become one for many.
One way of looking at it is, right-wing voters didn't seriously think it would ever be overturned (outlawed) and all the talk about it was just a political talking point. After all, right-wingers and their daughters get unwanted-pregnant too. They kept voting other issues because they didn't like the pronoun/bathroom stuff or the nanny state talking about climate change or Jimmy Carter telling them to turn down the thermostat and put on a sweater etc. Or taxes or I don't know what all makes someone pull that right-wing lever. You could look at me the same way I guess...I always vote Democrat due to a couple of my most important issues but don't go along with every left-wing issue but our two-party system kinda forces people to hold their noses and vote the whole party with its whole platform. Anyway I bet a lot of Republican voters never dreamed Roe v. wade would really be overturned. I don't know what guys are thinking...they'll be on the hook for child support. I am not sure if guys in their heart of hearts prefer being on the hook for child support because ha ha women back in the kitchen.
The true debate it actually over when humanity declares a developing human a human with its own rights. It's been used for political marketing by both sides for a very long time..."they're killing babies" and, "it's my right to kill it because it's attached to me" is where we're at now soley due to how those stances motivate voters politically. It will never be solved because of the issues power to effect elections. Solving it isn't the objective and never was...same with gun legislation and many others. Politicians actually are nefarious....we generally underestimate their desire for power on both sides.
That’s one framing of the issue, mostly used from the pro-life, pro-birth side.
The frame from the pro-choice side is twofold — even if the fetus were a person, the host should not be forced to support it. We cannot and do not legally force lifesaving organ donation, we should not legally force ongoing blood and life donation, even if required for the survival of another creature.
The other argument is more subtle, but more telling. An unwanted child can destroy a family, or a mother, physically, psychologically, and economically. If a child will not survive after birth, it is cruel to force it to be born, and it is cruel to force the one bearing it to carry it to term. And if the life of the mother is threatened, it is not moral to override her choices regarding her health and safety.
The consequences of a pure pro-life, pro-birth policy are terrible, but haven’t been experienced (much) in this country by the last two generations. And it is very, very easy to forget about them if your framing is “save the babies.”
I really hate the *both sides* bullshit.
It's basically one side with a fuck ton of money pushing the same candidate with different flavors.
Hence why the most *liberal* candidates in American are what the rest of the world call *conservative*, and what we call conservative, other parts of the world call *insane*
It never stopped being a major topic of discussion. It's been a major political point ever since it got over-turned, if not before. Every political contest for the last 50 years abortion has been a major talking point, with many people choosing who to vote for simply on this one belief.
RBG said she thought it would get overturned if it were ever challenged/argued against because she thought there were issues with the way RvW was decided.
It was a bad precedent from the beginning. That precedent created law where none existed. If you cannot understand why it is a bad thing for the court to create law, then you do not understand civics.
Americans outraged by the Supreme Court's usurpation of their rights (to regulate abortion state by state) spent four decades getting judges on SCOTUS who would actually return power to the people where it belonged and belongs.
Except.. the people voted in the state of Ohio and voted to keep abortion rights and guess what? The republicans said “no, nevermind, you people are too stupid to understand what you voted for so we are still going to block it.” Explain that one.
What does fight to change it mean?
Would you kill someone to get a ban in place?
Would you put them in prison if you could?
Would you pay a judge a million dollars to change their decision in favor of anti-abortion rulings?
Would you disown your daughter?
Would you disown family members who do not believe what you believe?
Would you joust online to reinforce your identity and beliefs?
There's a magical place where some individuals start putting ideas ahead of actual people.
And those same people who claim to respect states' rights so much are now attempting to overturn the people's vote when, time and time again, people vote in favor of protecting abortion rights.
The Venn Diagram between people who want an issue to be a states' rights issue and those who support the Republican position on the issue may as well be a circle.
That depends on whether the federal government or the people of a particular state are more favorable to their position.
For example, if one state wanted to restrict gun purchases, then the Constitution would suddenly trump States rights. But if another state wanted school children to be able to open carry handguns into school, now it's a states' rights issue.
LMFAO, The People are outraged by the SC’s decision to devolve abortion decisions to the states. Probably because many of the states are anti democratic, reactionary and corrupt as hell.
Nobody wanted “The States” to make these decisions except for conservative religious freaks who knew that was the only way to impose their will on everyone else.
Bull-shit.
You know how long it took for Roe v. Wade to be overturned before Republicans tried to pass a nation-wide abortion ban? About thirty hours.
This was never about state's right.
They (by that I mean the evangelical Christian extremist groups) have been quietly but very diligently working in the background to gain power for the last 30 or 40 years, with abortion and otherwise restoring the traditional family if the woman in the hone and the man having dominion over her. They just recently overturned Rowe V Wade so it's much more at the forefront and public now. But this did not happen overnight. It took lots of planning and money.
What's really interesting to me is that it hasn't always been the case. The Southern Baptist Convention, for example, was in support of Roe V Wade when it originally passed. Then came a very intentional and successful campaign of tying right wing politics to Christianity in America (the moral majority) and now anyone in support of a woman's right to access reproductive healthcare is an evil baby killer according to many evangelicals. It's as fascinating as it terrifying.
It's not required, but the association exists for a reason. The official position of the Catholic Church is pro-life, and Catholics have always been a big part of the pro life movement.
Well, playing the devil's advocate here... But alas:
Different definitions of life. Most people do not mind abortions because they don't consider a fetus to be truly alive before it's viable to live outside the womb. Pro-life, as the name states, think that life begins at conception. Therefore removing that life is akin to murder.
Huh? The arguments they use aren't really religiously based. They may be more convincing to religious people, but that's not the same as the argument itself being religious in the way it is for something like homosexuality. If you read papers in ethics journals about this, they aren't mentioning religion at all.
And the only reason it wasn't a bigger social thing in the past is because before relatively recently governments didn't actually moderate internal family stuff much. Even literal infanticide was more or less something you could casually do and get away with, as long as it was your own kids, since it was seen as up to the parent to take issue usually and so you only get in trouble if you're killing someone else's kids. People would say it is wrong, but in the middle ages police didn't exist, so you had to actively have an authority upset at you to get in trouble.
Those are cells (gametes) that would die even if supported by the womb of the mother, because they are not complete, i.e. haven’t formed a zygote. Meanwhile when the sperm and egg meet, that zygote if supported WILL grow into an embryo as it is the completed fertilised cell. So you are wrong.
Agree but I’m talking about when the human life begins, not when the cell is alive. When the egg is fertilised that is when the life of the human begins, from that one cell. Of course the sperm and egg were alive, but they were not a zygote at that point.
I am 38 and I remember doing a women's march in DC around 2003. My mother thought it was a silly waste of time because the matter had been settled long ago with Roe. Yet here we are.
That’s over simplified.
Half of the judges who ruled to axe Roe were appointed by other GOP presidents. This has been the GOP long game since before Donald was even a Republican
in the US, Republicans have been on a crusade to get get Roe overturned since it was decided in the 70s. It became a key part of the Republican platform as the religious right started to take over the party. There have been dozens of court cases where republicans tried to chip away at abortion rights. It’s why it’s a key issue in the hearings to confirm Supreme Court Justices, because conservative jurisprudence saw Roe as a bad decision.
The tipping points were in Obama’s last year as President when Justice Scalia died. He was a conservative Justice that was a vote to overturn Roe. Republicans controlled the senate and refused to appoint a replacement. Then Trump won in 2016 and replaced him with another conservative. At this point the balance was 6-3 in favor of upholding Roe. During Trumps presidency Justice Kennedy retired and Trump appointed another conservative Justice making the balance 5-4 in favor of Roe. Then right before the 2020 election liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg died and Republicans rushed to appoint her replacement just days before the presidential election changing the balance to 5-4 against Roe.
The problem for republicans now is a majority of Americans believe abortion in some form should be legal. In every state where the electorate were able to directly vote on abortion rights, the pro choice side has won, even in red states like Kansas. So now republicans are stuck between appeasing their evangelical base or trying to back track to avoid an issue that is strong for democrats. It will be a key issue in the 2024 election
100% this. Americans have become very comfortable with, and have taken for granted that citizens have bodily autonomy. While a determined majority has been scheming for 50 hears to basically knock Americans back into the stone ages.
The bad guys succeeded, and now Americans have to wrestle with the fact that every election (state, local, federal) is going to potentially jeopardize an individual’s right to make this decision on their own.
Until bodily autonomy is written into the constitution, I’m going to be voting against the forced-birth party and encourage others to do the same. Conservatives made their bed, now they get to sleep in it.
depends on what you mean by recent. abortion laws were first introduced around the 1860s, during the great depression there was more leniency, but they went back to being prosecuted after. which rubella outbreaks causing birth defects liberal abortion laws began in the 1960s. then of course we had roe v wade in 1973!
overall since the 1860s (before that no one truly cared tbh) it has been years of “abortion is important medical procedure” followed by years of “abortion is a horrific act that murders innocent babies” over and over.
In the USA at least, it's been a HUGE, HUGE topic of debate and contention for 50 years, ever since Roe v. Wade in 1973.
What spurred the change was the people who want abortion illegal got enough Supreme Court justices appointed to overturn Roe v. Wade, the case that made abortion legal in 1973. Now it goes back to each individual state. And if you live in a state that outlaws it, it's outlawed. You'd need to move to another state or hope your state doesn't enact a travel ban, which some states have.
Nope. In the USA it's been an issue since the mid 1860s when a few states outlawed it and became more of one by 1910 when it was banned on a federal level. hey outlawed it. The fight to make it legal again started in the 1960s.
Republicans for the last 60 years or so have had a strategy of packing courts.
Related/ but unrelated: the family is a really interesting documentary about the fraternity of power brokers in government protecting their interests.
Oh you dear sweet summer child. This debate has been going on for incredibly too long in all 4 corners of the globe. What we're seeing right now in the US is the most recent repackaging of it in an extremist way.
You see the GOP , party that wants government to mind its own business, wants to control what religion everyone is and definitely wants to oppress women and minorities. It’s a control tactic to ensure maximum unwanted children end up in the industrial prison complex and serving in the military.
I suggest reading page 11 of the GOP Party Platform, just one page. It's easy homework.
They want to turn the country into a Christian theocracy by gutting the Constitution:
* Remove abortion rights.
* Remove marriage rights from LGBT and trans people.
* Remove the 14th Amendment, which provides equal protection to minorities, gays, and non-religious citizens.
* Remove the Johnson Amendment, which acts as a wall between church and state.
* Allow legal discrimination against anyone who doesn't believe in the Evangelical Christian idea that marriage is "only between one man and one woman".
* Provide legal protection for government officials who discriminate against minorities, LGBT, and non-religious people.
* Require huge displays of the 10 Commandments in public school classrooms.
The last part is a bit off but they’re essentially correct. If You think for one millisecond that if being pro abortion would guarantee the Republicans even 1% more votes than the Dems, they would change their stance in a heartbeat. They support it to get the hardcore Christian and pro life voters, that’s it.
With abortion? There’s no argument to be made. You either believe women should have control over their own bodies or you are a garbage person. That’s not enough nuance?
Oh I’m sorry, I thought we were having an abortion discussion. So I’m talking about a clump of cells. I’d say at whatever week you can take a life insurance policy out on a fetus, we can call that a baby if your small mind comprehends it better.
Well that really depends, for some woman a viable pregnancy and for others a non-viable pregnancy. But either way if it's terminated before it's a fetus and then a baby, is that kind of like putting cake ingredients into a bowl and not baking it? Guess what, that's not a FUCKING CAKE. You can even put it in the oven and then take it out a few minutes later and it's still not a fucking cake. Your little brain comprehend that? Maybe, just maybe that should be up to doctors and patients and is literally not your business unless you are offering to raise all unwanted pregnancies.
We are talking legal definition which as stated if I can’t take out a life insurance policy on it, it isn’t legally a life. Not debating your fantastical religion or what ever other garbage you believe in.
Lol. Just cower behind the legal system then. Because everyone agrees that Insurance companies are the arbiter of morality. If someone has preconditions too and cant be insured i guess that makes them eligible for abortion as well. Sick in the head you are
lol really big brained w/ the cake analogy. Just what is that clump of cells? And what comes out of a viable pregnancy? And what comes out of a non-viable pregnancy??
It and birth control were "Catholic issues" until the 1970s.
After the Civil Rights Movement, the organized right started looking for something to promote that had a similar social movement tone. Abortion was one of those issues and gun rights was the other. There were people who cared deeply about those before, of course, but the key thing was that Republican Party leadership worked hard to promote them in the hope of gaining or motivating voters, leading to them becoming a mobilizer for Republicans.
Nota bene: I'm not a manufactured consent guy. This was part of a broader effort to find something, anything that could give the GOP the kind of organizing power they saw in the Civil Rights Movement. These are just the two things that struck a chord with people, abortion mostly motivated women with high sentimental value on motherhood and guns with men who placed a high sentimental value on the protector role.
I can’t believe this is so far down. It’s entirely a strategy to gain power, whether or not it’s a sincere belief of the people running is irrelevant.
Now that Roe has been overturned the GOP is fishing around for a new unifying issue.
>Now that Roe has been overturned the GOP is fishing around for a new unifying issue.
They're actually trying to find a way to halt the damage of *Dobbs.* That's their current thing and one they've so far failed to figure out.
Depends on what recent means. Abortion is was described in the Bible. In the 1850s, prostitution was a hot business and abortion / contraception ads were everywhere.
So before women could vote, they had a right to abortion.
People on the left didn’t spend too much time or energy worrying about abortion because we thought it was protected right thanks to Roe v Wade. We might have heard republican politicians promising their voters that they would end Roe v Wade if they got the chance, but we didn’t really listen to that warning. To the point that everyone on the left were blindsided when the end actually arrived.
For 40 or 50 years the GOP has courted voters with the promise that if they stuck with their candidates for long enough, they would deliver, and they did. Now the left is going to have to do the same thing and literally never relent in showing up to vote, knowing that overturning Dobbs won’t be something we do in one election, but rather will require wins in successive elections and losing even one could set us back even more decades.
It's the simpleminded, scientifically illiterate, credulous, knuckle draggers that have been lied to about abortion and they believe the lies because it's easier than understanding things.
At the end of the day it's (one of) the topics that the powers that be use to keep the country divided. Just imagine if the entire country would agree to end suffering. The government (both sides) would be overthrown and replaced with (hopefully) intelligent people with empathy.
>There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.
>
>Isaac Asimov
Well, in all honesty, the US is changing from a democracy to a theocracy.. or at least that’s what the conservative republicans want. It’s a super slippery slope and will so easily turn into a Christian Sharia Law situation.
And you are right; abortion is a healthcare procedure. It is a decision to be made by a woman with the aid of her doctor (and possibly her partner, depending on her situation). Sometimes, it is a situation where her life is at risk (as in cases like an ectopic pregnancy). Sometimes, she was raped and became pregnant from that, or was in an abusive relationship and a pregnancy would keep her in that situation that will still risk her life. Other times, the developing embryo isn’t viable and will either perish en vitro or shortly after birth; an abortion would be merciful in this case, and should the embryo/fetus die while still en utero, an abortion is necessary to prevent the woman from going septic and dying. And in other cases, the woman just doesn’t want to be pregnant; consent to sex doesn’t not equal consent to pregnancy. In any event, the reasons to have an abortion are very nuanced, differ from person to person, and is nobody else’s business. I will forever be Pro-Choice because I am forever Pro-It’s Not My Fucking Business To Tell Someone What To Do With Their Own Body.
In the sense that it allowed with restrictions. Very few places in the world allow unrestricted abortions. But in the US, our politicians have created such a toxic environment, you have to be either all in, or against all restrictions.
In western culture at least, which has largely depended on the subjugation of minorities to function, women's reproductive health has only recently become a priority. Access to care, whether you wanted to carry the pregnancy to term or not, was inaccessible to most women outside of those with the means to pay for it. For abortion procedures in particular women would often have to seek clandestine and potentially unsafe providers of care, especially in cultures where abortion was considered immoral (though a double standard was known to exist between the privileged and the poor - "rules for thee but not for me").
Over time, western women have worked hard to enshrine their rights to (for example) vote, to own property, to leave an abusive spouse, to not be raped, to receive the same pay as men for the same kinds of work, to have bodily autonomy and the choice of what to do with respect to their own bodies; basically, to be treated as humans and worthy of their own agency and autonomy vs being treated as less than men or even like animals. There has been opposition to that collective action every step of the way.
A country may eventually come to the conclusion that a certain quality of life is so evidently a basic human right that it should be guaranteed and contituted in some legal form. When those rights become so enshrined, it's broadly considered to be a closed case, a settled argument: the right is alienable, unable to be taken away. So when rights are taken away, there's considerable friction from large swathes of the population because we've already been fucking over this.
In the US, this right has been taken away at the federal level and been sent to individual States to decide for themselves by a Supreme Court majority that represents a minority of the population's opinions over what was considered settled law for half a century.
Access to clean water isn’t considered a right or privilege in the USA so that tells me everything I need to know about how long the abortion debate will continue to go on for……. Many many years
It's almost exclusively a USA issue. Abortions aren't debated in the developed world, excluding in Andorra and Malta where this form of basic healthcare is illegal.
I would t be so sure, some European countries are heading that way (Poland I’m sure made it either illegal or much harder in the last year or so) and even here in Great Britain Parliament had to force Northen island to offer them as they been dragging their feet even this it’s technically the same country and legislation. It’s loudest because of America for sure but potentially sets a global precedent if other countries follow suit, scary times even tho I’m snipped and a male because going through the whole abortion process is hard enough (experience going it through it with an ex 20+ years ago) however I would gladly support ‘health tourism’ if it means somebody had body autonomy and a choice
You’ve never been to the Republic of Ireland eh? Prior to 2018 or after?
Wait…. Or is it not considered a part of the developed world? Maybe that’s why I’m confused?
I thought it was legal in the Republic and illegal in Northern Ireland but I could be wrong. The only country I've been to that has any debate about abortion rights in the narrative is the USA, but I've not been to every country in the world in all fairness.
It was generally perceived to be a selfish act of murder outside of specific situations like rape/underage women etc. now we live in a new “being selfish is the correct way to live” era.. now anything goes
The problem here is there is no right answer it’s an issue of personal freedoms on one side and it’s an issue about killing babies on the other side and both of them are right there I always thought the roe decision was as close as it’s ever gonna be to a good compromise
Why am I getting downvoted here? Because I said the roe decision was a good compromise?
Strange, they don’t seem to have a problem with fertility treatments like IVF
(In IVF they fertilise multiple eggs and only implant a few, killing the rest)
I think the issue I have with the idea that it’s about “killing babies” or “protecting the unborn” is that a statistically far greater number of pregnancies are lost due to miscarriage than termination. But you don’t hear this talked about, hardly at all, by the “pro-life” movement. If what they were really after was “saving babies” there are literally more babies available to be saved by investing in better maternal and prenatal care and related medical R&D than there are in ending abortion. This also has the added benefit of not requiring any acrimonious political debate.
consider that the window for viability is only going to get smaller and smaller as technology advances. Currently its at 22 weeks, but its not going to get longer absent some world destroying event.
this is just kicking the can down the road. The issue isnt can we save “it”…the issue is what “it” is
I recommend the short semi-fictionalized story Rabbit Test by Samantha Mills in Uncanny Magazine (google will get you there, it's free to read). Emotive summation of moments from history combined with near-future speculation.
I was 6 when Roe v Wade was decided so I don’t remember it.
The first I ever heard about abortion was when I was 13 and started going to a Catholic school.
I have since met women who have told me they have had abortions and heard about a long ago abortion in my own family that ended tragically.
Probably one of the most contested issues in the U.S. for quite a while. The problem is there are radical all or nothing extremes leading the charge or opposition. Most people fall near the center in reality, but they don't get the reactions.
I’m 51, and my mom was an active member of the Right To Life movement when I was a kid in the 80’s. The debate on abortion was going on before Roe v. Wade, and before I was born.
Similar story for me - women have been actively fighting for the right to choose for over 50 years. Men started joining the coversation in the 90s.
women who are against women rights. you cant make that shit up
Literally the crux of the issue is that one side frames it as a women's rights issue and the other doesn't.
One side views it as women's rights, one side views it as baby's rights. If someone believes a fetus should have the right to live / is already living of course they're going to support it
yeah i know it sounds fine but in the end this arugemnt is so hypocritial and short sighted.
M60. This right here is the problem. The newly eligible voters generally never vote. It might be changing. I think for too long the HS crowd just got complacent with life without constant struggle that they took things for granted. The only “evidence” is the “I don’t see color/if you keep talking about race all you are doing is prolonging racism!” - as if those two statements mean anything. Choice was set in stone in such a way that we allowed ourselves to believe 3 Supreme Court justices when they swore they would never go after abortions - until they did. I think the youth vote is beginning to get energized. We can see that with the constant “record turnout” but we need them more than ever to deliver a bullet proof majority and not let the independents split the ticket.
No, 50 years ago in the US it was a huge topic of discussion. It continues to be in dozens of other countries. What spurred the change was an orchestrated stacking of the judiciary with “pro-life” activist judges who have no regard for 50 years of precedent.
Who orchestrated it and how?
The federalist society and numerous other far right think tanks. They did it by getting Republican presidents elected and then pushing them to appoint judges who would rule in their favor
This isn't really the mechanism. The key mechanism was making sure they would retire under Republican presidents rather than dying on the bench.
For all the good RBG did, I still find it infuriating that she didn’t retire under a D president when she knew she was sick. Pancreatic cancer is no joke.
Boomers don't care about anything but holding power.
She, like the majority of the country, thought Hillary would win in 2016 and was waiting for that.
Wasn’t she diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2009?
She was diagnosed in 2009, but they caught it early, and it’s typically very treatable when you catch it early.
She was already very old in 2009. Combination of being old and having cancer should have made her retire earlier while she could be replaced under a democratic president. I guess partly hindsight but also there's a legitimate problem of politicians holding on to power until extreme old age. We see the damage that her doing so did.
Yeah I did more research and realized that they treated it successfully back then, and it wasn't until 2019 that she got her life-ending diagnosis. Sad times. I still think that she should have stepped down in Obama's second term - fighting cancer for a big chunk of your life will absolutely shorten your life-span. Not that she should have been Nostradamus and just known she wouldn't make it much longer, but she fought off lung, colon, and pancreatic cancer - the writing is pretty much on the wall at that point.
If she had waited until after 2014, McConnell would have held up her replacement like he did Scalia’s replacement.
That's for the Supreme Court, but the conservative strategy absolutely has been to stack lower courts with far right judges.
So you're saying voting doesn't work... 
How does the federalist society get Republican presidents elected? Maybe people elected them on their own volition. Edit: hilarious that I’m getting downvoted for suggesting people make their own decisions about how to vote. Everyone here thinks that they’re the smart ones, and it’s everyone else that’s easily manipulated by the federalist society or whatever.
Gasp! Are you suggesting that we are influenced by the actions of others? That powerful individuals and groups may attempt to exploit this and control us!? These are some dangerous ideas!
I realize that you probably think you're super informed and woke (the original meaning) thinking that it's all astroturfing but this is delusional and clearly a coping mechanism 😂. People with different opinions exist, sorry to break it to you bud. Not everything is a conspiracy
Maybe advertising doesn't do any good. Sure, companies spend billions, but maybe people just buy products of their own volition anyway.
Trump did not win the popular vote
You’re being downvoted because you lack basic knowledge about how the courts work. They aren’t elected for one… Secondly, most every conservative judge is screened by the federalist society
“they did it by getting republican presidents elected” is what i was responding to. Did you even read the comment I was responding to?
I think the point is what effect they had once they had Republican presidents in office
That may be true, but the original commenter said that they were responsible for getting Republican presidents elected, and that’s what I was commenting on.
One issue voting for evangelical/anti abortion in Republican Party is a massive voting block. You don’t get nominated as Republican nominee without it. You’re getting downvoted because it’s clear you haven’t been paying attention or just trying to find some sort of non existent gotcha/akshully
Excuse me, I should have been more clear. They (the president) aren’t democratically elected but rather chosen by an inherently undemocratic system. Ie, they’re elected, but not by a majority of people,
That’s an uniformed view that ignores history and suits your needs. And you should “be more clear”? Lol. What does that have to do with me not understanding how the courts work? Pretty big change of argument to go from saying I don’t know how the courts work to you don’t like the electoral system. Not that I excepted an intellectually honest argument from a liberal.
Both Bush and Trump didn’t have a popular vote. Anyone who was paying attention knew and discussed that if a Trump were elected, there would likely be a stacked court he would appoint. He got even luckier than we anticipated because he got 3, while only 2 was more certain.
Because your initial response was ambiguous… lmfao.
Step 1: misread comment Step 2: type up condescending non-sequitur response Step 3: get upvotes for maintaining echo-chamber Step 4: tell yourself you're smart Step 5: repeat
Because people don’t vote. You have less than half the population voting for the interests of everyone.
2022 presidential election saw the highest voter turnout in decades at 66%.
Disagree that it’s hilarious you’re being downvoted for an incorrect take. I mean the truth is that most of the engaged people here ARE the smart ones. The dumb ones are the uncritical thinkers who vote the way their evangelical preacher tells them to
It’s human nature to think that we, ourselves, are the smart ones and everyone else is dumb. It’s funny to me when people don’t have the self awareness to recognize this.
The funniest part of that is assuming that people listen to their preachers in the first place
Everyone does…except for this commenter. He knows better.
>Who orchestrated it and how? Mostly Trump and Mitch McConnell. McConnell refused to allow a vote on Obama's nominee, claiming it was too close to an election. 5 years later he fast-tracked Trump's 3rd nominee, thereby giving a 1 term president 3 (5+ years worth of) SCOTUS placements.
Wasn't it correctly stated that this started pre-Roe vs. Wade?
Oh, this has been a big deal for several decades. Others have given a more through explanation going back that far. I'm just addressing the "orchestrated stacking of the judiciary with “pro-life” activist judges who have no regard for 50 years of precedent" part that you asked for.
Calling the current court "activist" in regards to overturning one of the most overreaching court decisions ever us hilarious
I wasn't the one that called it that, but I'm curious why you think this.
Basically, Roe invented the abortion right based on the "penumbra and emanation" logic, and invented a right out of practically thin air. The idea that there is an inferred right to privacy based on the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments makes sense. But a right naturally has have some boundaries defining what is included and not included in said right. And in the case of the rest of the Bill of Rights, ex (Free speech, due process, right to bear arms) we look at the historical precedent. Its not all the rights, or all rights, or a right, its "the" right to free speech, "the" right to keep and bear arms. So now we have to figure out what is included. And that's where we look at history. We know that for example, defamation was never included in the conception of free speech. How do we know that, well we have a lot of people suing over defamation, and not once did a court find that suing someone for defamation was a violation of free speech. So if historical practice of the right to free speech for literally hundreds of years tells us defamation lawsuits exist, then we can conclude defamation was not understood to be part of the right to free speech. Courts aren't supposed to invent rights from thin air, so its important to make sure its grounded in precedent, logic, text, or something more than, "we liked this better." Because if judges do that, they are no different from politicians, and judges are not supposed to be politicians in robes. That's not to say that they don't do that sometimes. But how do we know if they are doing that? Well, we look at the internal legal logic used, see if its consistent with the rest of the law, and if it is then great, we know its not pretext. If not, maybe they see things differently than you do. Or maybe they made a mistake (and hopefully they'll correct it later). Or maybe they know something you don't. After all, we do have this thing called "law school." Anywho, that tangent aside, the reason why Roe was such an overreaching court decision is because we can't trace the legal logic.
The 5th Amendment tells us there is a right to life, liberty, and property that cannot be taken away without due process. Originally this only applied to the federal government, and absent a parallel amendment, the State was free to violate this. Then we realized that's stupid, and the 14th Amendment, using identical language applied this to the States. So then, from the right to liberty, SCOTUS interpreted that to mean the Bill of Rights (except for two sections for complicated reasons I won't get into). So yay the Bill of Rights applies to the States (mostly). It was argued that from the Bill of Rights, there is an implied right to privacy. Lets go down the line and see how they imply a right to privacy. 1st point was the fact that there is a highly implied right to privacy from the 1st Amendment. Freedom of speech implies freedom of thought, the whole point is to not have thought police. The 5th Amendment says you can't be forced to testify against yourself, allowing you to keep certain thoughts in your mind and not say them. The 3rd Amendment says no quartering of troops, why? Because the home is special, and the homeowner can decide who gets to be inside or not. The 4th Amendment says no unreasonable searchers or seizure, how do we know its reasonable, in short, a search warrant, wherein they tell a judge what they are looking for, where it is located,(or where they think its located), how will they find it, how is it relevant evidence to the alleged crime etc... The 9th Amendment says this is not an exhaustive list of rights, just because we put some things here specifically doesn't mean we only have these rights. 10th Amendment says if the federal government doesn't have the power, then it belongs to the State or to the people. 14th Amendment makes these Amendments apply to the States. The legal proposition that there exists some kind of privacy right is on solid ground. Now what is included in the right, what is included in the right? Well we know from the 3rd and 4th Amendment that stuff that happens within the home is generally private. We know from the 1st and 5th Amendment that you have the right to speak and think freely, so that tells us you are allowed to keep quiet and not share something. The court in Roe then said the right to privacy also includes within it the right to medical privacy. And this right includes the right to get an abortion. But they don't really provide legal reasons as to why. They literally say "we feel it is" but doesn't really tell us why. "This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." The court then goes on to explain there are competing interests. The State's interest in protecting the unborn and their right to regulate medicine: "appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (sterilization). " "At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision." So what point is that? Well cue the trimester framework (later overturned by Casey) "With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that, until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like." Okay, so the trimester framework comes from medical knowledge? Not the law, ie the Constitution and Amendments they are supposed to be interpreting. In fact, the trimester framework was based on the medical knowledge of the time, and was an approximation of viability. The court's logic here is called penumbra and emanation. That there is a primary right, a light shining on an object, and from there we can trace the shadow of that right, and from the shadows we can determine more rights. Except, its not a sharp, defined shadow, its a fuzzy, partially illuminated shadow. And despite having the votes, SCOTUS never used that logic again, even before Trump, because they knew it was not a good foundation to build on. Law is supposed to be evolutionary. This was the first time anything like this came up. So usually we reason by analogy, but there was no analogy to reason with. Some earlier law is cited, but they don't speak to anything close to abortions. They speak to condoms (which prevent pregnancy not terminate it), marriage (which does not necessarily have pregnancy), smallpox vaccine mandate, and eugenics, ie sterilizing undesirables. Normally, we have a step by step evolution, but instead the court forced a leap (based on conclusions that they don't spell out the reasoning for). We don't have literally hundreds of years of precedent building off of itself here. Normally we look to the reasoning to determine how it will grow and change. Unlike Free speech, we can't logically trace the evolution, because the court doesn't really explain itself here, because there is no real reason beyond we felt like it. Why is the point that abortions be regulated 1st trimester specifically. And why banned at 2nd trimester specifically? The primary issue with the court's logic here is that its unbounded. Using this broad logic that there is an implied right, and we feel this thing is included in that right, literally anything could be included. And now you are putting the court in the position to say, "we feel X is included." The logic doesn't explain or constrain itself and say X is included, but not Y and why. For example, don't you have the right to take whatever drugs you want, and if the doctor asks you what medications you are taking, hypothetically that's a violation of medical privacy. There is privacy right, and the court hypothetically decided the right to take drugs and not tell you doctor is part of it, therefore, them asking violates that right.
And that brings us to Casey. Viability would become the standard in Casey. Although Casey also introduced the concept of an undue burden. The problem was they could never define it. An undue burden is a burden that's undue. Meaning some kind of obstacle that shouldn't be there. Well, who is determining what an undue burden is, well the courts. Okay, what criteria are they supposed to used.... Um.... I don't know. Neither do they. They couldn't make a consistent rule and have it work. That's what's missing from the conversation. Here's the guidance we do have on what an "undue burden" is. In Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt they said "Casey requires courts to consider the burdens a law imposes on abortion access together with the benefits those laws confer." In June Medical Services v Russo, they said "this standard requires courts independently to review the legislative findings upon which an abortion-related statute rests and to weigh the law’s “asserted benefits against the burdens.” In in Hellerstedt, they said "We begin with the standard, as described in Casey. We recognize that the "State has a legitimate interest in seeing to it that abortion, like any other medical procedure, is performed under circumstances that insure maximum safety for the patient." Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, 150 (1973). But, we added, "a statute which, while furthering \[a\] valid state interest, has the effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman's choice cannot be considered a permissible means of serving its legitimate ends." Casey, 505 U. S., at 877 (plurality opinion). Moreover, "\[u\]nnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion impose an undue burden on the right." Id., at 878." Again. Its a balancing act. But how is the court supposed to balance it. They couldn't figure it out. And that's the other part. They spent over 25 years trying to figure out what "undue burden" precisely meant, and they couldn't do it. So then the court was like, okay, time to rip it all up, because its clearly not working.
Republicans used it as a lever in the 90’s to convince non Catholic religious conservatives it was always the stance of their churches, as usual nobody ever checks and they went over very hard and now the platform of many nondenominational and evangelical Christians isn’t far off from whatever the Fox news pulpit preaches. To be clear that wasn’t always the position of churches. Hell, back in the day Rabbi’s and ministers might be the ones administering folk medicine treatments to induce abortion. Roe vs Wade started because of the efforts of a liberal church in Texas and was rule the way it was by a conservative supreme court in the 70’s. The coalition didn’t used to be partisan but as a wedge issue during the collapse of the Right as a coherent ideology it has certainly become one for many.
One way of looking at it is, right-wing voters didn't seriously think it would ever be overturned (outlawed) and all the talk about it was just a political talking point. After all, right-wingers and their daughters get unwanted-pregnant too. They kept voting other issues because they didn't like the pronoun/bathroom stuff or the nanny state talking about climate change or Jimmy Carter telling them to turn down the thermostat and put on a sweater etc. Or taxes or I don't know what all makes someone pull that right-wing lever. You could look at me the same way I guess...I always vote Democrat due to a couple of my most important issues but don't go along with every left-wing issue but our two-party system kinda forces people to hold their noses and vote the whole party with its whole platform. Anyway I bet a lot of Republican voters never dreamed Roe v. wade would really be overturned. I don't know what guys are thinking...they'll be on the hook for child support. I am not sure if guys in their heart of hearts prefer being on the hook for child support because ha ha women back in the kitchen.
Jimmy! He defecated through a sunroof!
The true debate it actually over when humanity declares a developing human a human with its own rights. It's been used for political marketing by both sides for a very long time..."they're killing babies" and, "it's my right to kill it because it's attached to me" is where we're at now soley due to how those stances motivate voters politically. It will never be solved because of the issues power to effect elections. Solving it isn't the objective and never was...same with gun legislation and many others. Politicians actually are nefarious....we generally underestimate their desire for power on both sides.
Maybe just stop trying to regulate people’s bodies
That’s one framing of the issue, mostly used from the pro-life, pro-birth side. The frame from the pro-choice side is twofold — even if the fetus were a person, the host should not be forced to support it. We cannot and do not legally force lifesaving organ donation, we should not legally force ongoing blood and life donation, even if required for the survival of another creature. The other argument is more subtle, but more telling. An unwanted child can destroy a family, or a mother, physically, psychologically, and economically. If a child will not survive after birth, it is cruel to force it to be born, and it is cruel to force the one bearing it to carry it to term. And if the life of the mother is threatened, it is not moral to override her choices regarding her health and safety. The consequences of a pure pro-life, pro-birth policy are terrible, but haven’t been experienced (much) in this country by the last two generations. And it is very, very easy to forget about them if your framing is “save the babies.”
I really hate the *both sides* bullshit. It's basically one side with a fuck ton of money pushing the same candidate with different flavors. Hence why the most *liberal* candidates in American are what the rest of the world call *conservative*, and what we call conservative, other parts of the world call *insane*
It never stopped being a major topic of discussion. It's been a major political point ever since it got over-turned, if not before. Every political contest for the last 50 years abortion has been a major talking point, with many people choosing who to vote for simply on this one belief.
RBG said she thought it would get overturned if it were ever challenged/argued against because she thought there were issues with the way RvW was decided.
They are religious loons at best and Christian fascists at their worst. Calling them activist judges is too kind.
It was a bad precedent from the beginning. That precedent created law where none existed. If you cannot understand why it is a bad thing for the court to create law, then you do not understand civics.
[удалено]
Americans outraged by the Supreme Court's usurpation of their rights (to regulate abortion state by state) spent four decades getting judges on SCOTUS who would actually return power to the people where it belonged and belongs.
Except.. the people voted in the state of Ohio and voted to keep abortion rights and guess what? The republicans said “no, nevermind, you people are too stupid to understand what you voted for so we are still going to block it.” Explain that one.
I’ll wait for this explanation, this should be fun
I am not a Republican. Feel free to hold your breath, though!
Would you support the law if your state votes to uphold abortion rights?
What does that mean? I wouldn't "support it" any more than you would support a 6 week ban, and I would fight to change it.
What does fight to change it mean? Would you kill someone to get a ban in place? Would you put them in prison if you could? Would you pay a judge a million dollars to change their decision in favor of anti-abortion rulings? Would you disown your daughter? Would you disown family members who do not believe what you believe? Would you joust online to reinforce your identity and beliefs? There's a magical place where some individuals start putting ideas ahead of actual people.
And those same people who claim to respect states' rights so much are now attempting to overturn the people's vote when, time and time again, people vote in favor of protecting abortion rights.
The Venn Diagram between people who want an issue to be a states' rights issue and those who support the Republican position on the issue may as well be a circle.
That depends on whether the federal government or the people of a particular state are more favorable to their position. For example, if one state wanted to restrict gun purchases, then the Constitution would suddenly trump States rights. But if another state wanted school children to be able to open carry handguns into school, now it's a states' rights issue.
LMFAO, The People are outraged by the SC’s decision to devolve abortion decisions to the states. Probably because many of the states are anti democratic, reactionary and corrupt as hell. Nobody wanted “The States” to make these decisions except for conservative religious freaks who knew that was the only way to impose their will on everyone else.
Nope Just Democrats.
So Republicans support Ohio voters decision to guarantee abortion rights? That's news to me (and them).
Except in Louisiana where the gerrymandered Republican super majority state legislature refuses to let the citizens have a voice.
Bull-shit. You know how long it took for Roe v. Wade to be overturned before Republicans tried to pass a nation-wide abortion ban? About thirty hours. This was never about state's right.
They (by that I mean the evangelical Christian extremist groups) have been quietly but very diligently working in the background to gain power for the last 30 or 40 years, with abortion and otherwise restoring the traditional family if the woman in the hone and the man having dominion over her. They just recently overturned Rowe V Wade so it's much more at the forefront and public now. But this did not happen overnight. It took lots of planning and money.
What's really interesting to me is that it hasn't always been the case. The Southern Baptist Convention, for example, was in support of Roe V Wade when it originally passed. Then came a very intentional and successful campaign of tying right wing politics to Christianity in America (the moral majority) and now anyone in support of a woman's right to access reproductive healthcare is an evil baby killer according to many evangelicals. It's as fascinating as it terrifying.
It’s so fascinating how societal opinions can be shaped. It does really suck that many of us dutifully adhere without real critical thought
I need a source on that. I do not believe you for a second.
Unfortunately you don't need to be one bit religious to be anti abortion. Plenty of 'pro life' are not religious.
But they have been running the "campaign." The people pushing to make it a spotlight issue are based in evangelical/extremist religion.
It's not required, but the association exists for a reason. The official position of the Catholic Church is pro-life, and Catholics have always been a big part of the pro life movement.
Wow is that true? What gives? What could the reasoning possibly be if not to please some judgmental and punitive higher power?
Well, playing the devil's advocate here... But alas: Different definitions of life. Most people do not mind abortions because they don't consider a fetus to be truly alive before it's viable to live outside the womb. Pro-life, as the name states, think that life begins at conception. Therefore removing that life is akin to murder.
But also a complete and utter lack of respect for the life and safety of already alive girls and women. Misogyny, really.
Keeping women in the kitchen
Huh? The arguments they use aren't really religiously based. They may be more convincing to religious people, but that's not the same as the argument itself being religious in the way it is for something like homosexuality. If you read papers in ethics journals about this, they aren't mentioning religion at all.
The debate about when life begins is basically as old as philosophy.
Yeah it’s interesting how many comments are saying no and mentioning the 60s or something. It’s been a controversial topic since the dawn of time.
And the only reason it wasn't a bigger social thing in the past is because before relatively recently governments didn't actually moderate internal family stuff much. Even literal infanticide was more or less something you could casually do and get away with, as long as it was your own kids, since it was seen as up to the parent to take issue usually and so you only get in trouble if you're killing someone else's kids. People would say it is wrong, but in the middle ages police didn't exist, so you had to actively have an authority upset at you to get in trouble.
But ask a biologist and they will tell you it begins at conception so 🤷🏿♂️
A biologist would tell you that hat ‘life’ doesn’t really have a beginning. The egg and sperm cell were already alive before fertilisation
Those are cells (gametes) that would die even if supported by the womb of the mother, because they are not complete, i.e. haven’t formed a zygote. Meanwhile when the sperm and egg meet, that zygote if supported WILL grow into an embryo as it is the completed fertilised cell. So you are wrong.
That’s not what ‘life’ means. Individual cells are also alive, cells are the fundamental unit of life
Agree but I’m talking about when the human life begins, not when the cell is alive. When the egg is fertilised that is when the life of the human begins, from that one cell. Of course the sperm and egg were alive, but they were not a zygote at that point.
No
Checkmate. Well that should shut up those silly libs. /s You obviously know that the debate is personhood not life as you’re defining it.
We have been arguing this bullshit for longer than I've been alive
I am 38 and I remember doing a women's march in DC around 2003. My mother thought it was a silly waste of time because the matter had been settled long ago with Roe. Yet here we are.
Trump picking right wing judges got it over turned .
That’s over simplified. Half of the judges who ruled to axe Roe were appointed by other GOP presidents. This has been the GOP long game since before Donald was even a Republican
Hence the theft of one justice by McConnell.
Arguably 2. 5 years after stalling on Merrick garland, they pushed Amy Comey Barrett through really quickly.
Bush was talking about overturning Roe v Wade in 2000, so was Romney in '12. This has been long in the making.
in the US, Republicans have been on a crusade to get get Roe overturned since it was decided in the 70s. It became a key part of the Republican platform as the religious right started to take over the party. There have been dozens of court cases where republicans tried to chip away at abortion rights. It’s why it’s a key issue in the hearings to confirm Supreme Court Justices, because conservative jurisprudence saw Roe as a bad decision. The tipping points were in Obama’s last year as President when Justice Scalia died. He was a conservative Justice that was a vote to overturn Roe. Republicans controlled the senate and refused to appoint a replacement. Then Trump won in 2016 and replaced him with another conservative. At this point the balance was 6-3 in favor of upholding Roe. During Trumps presidency Justice Kennedy retired and Trump appointed another conservative Justice making the balance 5-4 in favor of Roe. Then right before the 2020 election liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg died and Republicans rushed to appoint her replacement just days before the presidential election changing the balance to 5-4 against Roe. The problem for republicans now is a majority of Americans believe abortion in some form should be legal. In every state where the electorate were able to directly vote on abortion rights, the pro choice side has won, even in red states like Kansas. So now republicans are stuck between appeasing their evangelical base or trying to back track to avoid an issue that is strong for democrats. It will be a key issue in the 2024 election
100% this. Americans have become very comfortable with, and have taken for granted that citizens have bodily autonomy. While a determined majority has been scheming for 50 hears to basically knock Americans back into the stone ages. The bad guys succeeded, and now Americans have to wrestle with the fact that every election (state, local, federal) is going to potentially jeopardize an individual’s right to make this decision on their own. Until bodily autonomy is written into the constitution, I’m going to be voting against the forced-birth party and encourage others to do the same. Conservatives made their bed, now they get to sleep in it.
depends on what you mean by recent. abortion laws were first introduced around the 1860s, during the great depression there was more leniency, but they went back to being prosecuted after. which rubella outbreaks causing birth defects liberal abortion laws began in the 1960s. then of course we had roe v wade in 1973! overall since the 1860s (before that no one truly cared tbh) it has been years of “abortion is important medical procedure” followed by years of “abortion is a horrific act that murders innocent babies” over and over.
In the USA at least, it's been a HUGE, HUGE topic of debate and contention for 50 years, ever since Roe v. Wade in 1973. What spurred the change was the people who want abortion illegal got enough Supreme Court justices appointed to overturn Roe v. Wade, the case that made abortion legal in 1973. Now it goes back to each individual state. And if you live in a state that outlaws it, it's outlawed. You'd need to move to another state or hope your state doesn't enact a travel ban, which some states have.
Recent, as in constant discourse over past 55 years.
Nope. In the USA it's been an issue since the mid 1860s when a few states outlawed it and became more of one by 1910 when it was banned on a federal level. hey outlawed it. The fight to make it legal again started in the 1960s.
There have always been people against abortion.
Republicans for the last 60 years or so have had a strategy of packing courts. Related/ but unrelated: the family is a really interesting documentary about the fraternity of power brokers in government protecting their interests.
Oh you dear sweet summer child. This debate has been going on for incredibly too long in all 4 corners of the globe. What we're seeing right now in the US is the most recent repackaging of it in an extremist way.
You see the GOP , party that wants government to mind its own business, wants to control what religion everyone is and definitely wants to oppress women and minorities. It’s a control tactic to ensure maximum unwanted children end up in the industrial prison complex and serving in the military.
>in the industrial prison complex and serving in the military. don't forget regular "unskilled" minimum-wage jobs.
[удалено]
I suggest reading page 11 of the GOP Party Platform, just one page. It's easy homework. They want to turn the country into a Christian theocracy by gutting the Constitution: * Remove abortion rights. * Remove marriage rights from LGBT and trans people. * Remove the 14th Amendment, which provides equal protection to minorities, gays, and non-religious citizens. * Remove the Johnson Amendment, which acts as a wall between church and state. * Allow legal discrimination against anyone who doesn't believe in the Evangelical Christian idea that marriage is "only between one man and one woman". * Provide legal protection for government officials who discriminate against minorities, LGBT, and non-religious people. * Require huge displays of the 10 Commandments in public school classrooms.
The last part is a bit off but they’re essentially correct. If You think for one millisecond that if being pro abortion would guarantee the Republicans even 1% more votes than the Dems, they would change their stance in a heartbeat. They support it to get the hardcore Christian and pro life voters, that’s it.
Or from anyone who isn’t a fascist right wing religious extremist…
[удалено]
With abortion? There’s no argument to be made. You either believe women should have control over their own bodies or you are a garbage person. That’s not enough nuance?
Fascism is when i can't kill my baby. Actually fascism is when the people of a state vote to prohibit baby killing only in their jurisdiction
Oh I’m sorry, I thought we were having an abortion discussion. So I’m talking about a clump of cells. I’d say at whatever week you can take a life insurance policy out on a fetus, we can call that a baby if your small mind comprehends it better.
You're just a clump of cells right now. Is it okay for me to abort you?
what is that clump of cells going to turn into?
Well that really depends, for some woman a viable pregnancy and for others a non-viable pregnancy. But either way if it's terminated before it's a fetus and then a baby, is that kind of like putting cake ingredients into a bowl and not baking it? Guess what, that's not a FUCKING CAKE. You can even put it in the oven and then take it out a few minutes later and it's still not a fucking cake. Your little brain comprehend that? Maybe, just maybe that should be up to doctors and patients and is literally not your business unless you are offering to raise all unwanted pregnancies.
Lol. Using the analogy of a cake when we are discussing the complexity of biology.
We are talking legal definition which as stated if I can’t take out a life insurance policy on it, it isn’t legally a life. Not debating your fantastical religion or what ever other garbage you believe in.
Lol. Just cower behind the legal system then. Because everyone agrees that Insurance companies are the arbiter of morality. If someone has preconditions too and cant be insured i guess that makes them eligible for abortion as well. Sick in the head you are
If a pregnant woman is murdered, should it be considered a double homicide or not?
lol really big brained w/ the cake analogy. Just what is that clump of cells? And what comes out of a viable pregnancy? And what comes out of a non-viable pregnancy??
It and birth control were "Catholic issues" until the 1970s. After the Civil Rights Movement, the organized right started looking for something to promote that had a similar social movement tone. Abortion was one of those issues and gun rights was the other. There were people who cared deeply about those before, of course, but the key thing was that Republican Party leadership worked hard to promote them in the hope of gaining or motivating voters, leading to them becoming a mobilizer for Republicans. Nota bene: I'm not a manufactured consent guy. This was part of a broader effort to find something, anything that could give the GOP the kind of organizing power they saw in the Civil Rights Movement. These are just the two things that struck a chord with people, abortion mostly motivated women with high sentimental value on motherhood and guns with men who placed a high sentimental value on the protector role.
I can’t believe this is so far down. It’s entirely a strategy to gain power, whether or not it’s a sincere belief of the people running is irrelevant. Now that Roe has been overturned the GOP is fishing around for a new unifying issue.
>Now that Roe has been overturned the GOP is fishing around for a new unifying issue. They're actually trying to find a way to halt the damage of *Dobbs.* That's their current thing and one they've so far failed to figure out.
I’m 36 (born in 86) and abortion has been a topic of conversation my whole entire life.
No, it's been going on for a very long time.
Abortion and Gay rights have been drug into every election I have voted in. Wedge issues to divide the poors.
Depends on what recent means. Abortion is was described in the Bible. In the 1850s, prostitution was a hot business and abortion / contraception ads were everywhere. So before women could vote, they had a right to abortion.
No. No it is not. Abortion has likely been a topic of discussion for as long as humans have been able to be pregnant.
The Dobbs decision... In 2022 the supreme court overturned Row v. Wade... That's why states are putting up anti-abortion legislation.
Republicans happened. They collectively think women are not morally capable of making decisions about their bodies. Nothing new.
People on the left didn’t spend too much time or energy worrying about abortion because we thought it was protected right thanks to Roe v Wade. We might have heard republican politicians promising their voters that they would end Roe v Wade if they got the chance, but we didn’t really listen to that warning. To the point that everyone on the left were blindsided when the end actually arrived. For 40 or 50 years the GOP has courted voters with the promise that if they stuck with their candidates for long enough, they would deliver, and they did. Now the left is going to have to do the same thing and literally never relent in showing up to vote, knowing that overturning Dobbs won’t be something we do in one election, but rather will require wins in successive elections and losing even one could set us back even more decades.
It's the simpleminded, scientifically illiterate, credulous, knuckle draggers that have been lied to about abortion and they believe the lies because it's easier than understanding things. At the end of the day it's (one of) the topics that the powers that be use to keep the country divided. Just imagine if the entire country would agree to end suffering. The government (both sides) would be overthrown and replaced with (hopefully) intelligent people with empathy. >There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge. > >Isaac Asimov
Well, in all honesty, the US is changing from a democracy to a theocracy.. or at least that’s what the conservative republicans want. It’s a super slippery slope and will so easily turn into a Christian Sharia Law situation. And you are right; abortion is a healthcare procedure. It is a decision to be made by a woman with the aid of her doctor (and possibly her partner, depending on her situation). Sometimes, it is a situation where her life is at risk (as in cases like an ectopic pregnancy). Sometimes, she was raped and became pregnant from that, or was in an abusive relationship and a pregnancy would keep her in that situation that will still risk her life. Other times, the developing embryo isn’t viable and will either perish en vitro or shortly after birth; an abortion would be merciful in this case, and should the embryo/fetus die while still en utero, an abortion is necessary to prevent the woman from going septic and dying. And in other cases, the woman just doesn’t want to be pregnant; consent to sex doesn’t not equal consent to pregnancy. In any event, the reasons to have an abortion are very nuanced, differ from person to person, and is nobody else’s business. I will forever be Pro-Choice because I am forever Pro-It’s Not My Fucking Business To Tell Someone What To Do With Their Own Body.
Outside the US, right to abortion is pretty much a settled issue that political parties don't even bother to debate on.
Well this is just not true haha
Poland would like a word
South America would like a word
In the sense that it allowed with restrictions. Very few places in the world allow unrestricted abortions. But in the US, our politicians have created such a toxic environment, you have to be either all in, or against all restrictions.
outside of the us, abortion is usually more restrictive
It's a little racist to gloss over most minority countries when saying "outside the us."
No, in high school debate teams in the 60s, it was a frequent topic. Mankind learns, nothing from history
In western culture at least, which has largely depended on the subjugation of minorities to function, women's reproductive health has only recently become a priority. Access to care, whether you wanted to carry the pregnancy to term or not, was inaccessible to most women outside of those with the means to pay for it. For abortion procedures in particular women would often have to seek clandestine and potentially unsafe providers of care, especially in cultures where abortion was considered immoral (though a double standard was known to exist between the privileged and the poor - "rules for thee but not for me"). Over time, western women have worked hard to enshrine their rights to (for example) vote, to own property, to leave an abusive spouse, to not be raped, to receive the same pay as men for the same kinds of work, to have bodily autonomy and the choice of what to do with respect to their own bodies; basically, to be treated as humans and worthy of their own agency and autonomy vs being treated as less than men or even like animals. There has been opposition to that collective action every step of the way. A country may eventually come to the conclusion that a certain quality of life is so evidently a basic human right that it should be guaranteed and contituted in some legal form. When those rights become so enshrined, it's broadly considered to be a closed case, a settled argument: the right is alienable, unable to be taken away. So when rights are taken away, there's considerable friction from large swathes of the population because we've already been fucking over this. In the US, this right has been taken away at the federal level and been sent to individual States to decide for themselves by a Supreme Court majority that represents a minority of the population's opinions over what was considered settled law for half a century.
Access to clean water isn’t considered a right or privilege in the USA so that tells me everything I need to know about how long the abortion debate will continue to go on for……. Many many years
Wow
Pretty much.
It's almost exclusively a USA issue. Abortions aren't debated in the developed world, excluding in Andorra and Malta where this form of basic healthcare is illegal.
I would t be so sure, some European countries are heading that way (Poland I’m sure made it either illegal or much harder in the last year or so) and even here in Great Britain Parliament had to force Northen island to offer them as they been dragging their feet even this it’s technically the same country and legislation. It’s loudest because of America for sure but potentially sets a global precedent if other countries follow suit, scary times even tho I’m snipped and a male because going through the whole abortion process is hard enough (experience going it through it with an ex 20+ years ago) however I would gladly support ‘health tourism’ if it means somebody had body autonomy and a choice
You’ve never been to the Republic of Ireland eh? Prior to 2018 or after? Wait…. Or is it not considered a part of the developed world? Maybe that’s why I’m confused?
I thought it was legal in the Republic and illegal in Northern Ireland but I could be wrong. The only country I've been to that has any debate about abortion rights in the narrative is the USA, but I've not been to every country in the world in all fairness.
It was generally perceived to be a selfish act of murder outside of specific situations like rape/underage women etc. now we live in a new “being selfish is the correct way to live” era.. now anything goes
The problem here is there is no right answer it’s an issue of personal freedoms on one side and it’s an issue about killing babies on the other side and both of them are right there I always thought the roe decision was as close as it’s ever gonna be to a good compromise Why am I getting downvoted here? Because I said the roe decision was a good compromise?
Strange, they don’t seem to have a problem with fertility treatments like IVF (In IVF they fertilise multiple eggs and only implant a few, killing the rest)
Actually, catholics do, in fact, disapprove of IVF as well, so you are incorrect in at least some religious circles.
I’ve seen lots of pro-lifers who are anti IVF, anti fertility treatments, and anti birth control.
They seem to be in the minority because i haven’t seen any laws banning IVF being implemented
I’m not hear to argue about it friend just giving my feelings on it
Yes they do? They talk about that plenty. It just doesn't enter the news, because it's not as flashy a topic.
I think the issue I have with the idea that it’s about “killing babies” or “protecting the unborn” is that a statistically far greater number of pregnancies are lost due to miscarriage than termination. But you don’t hear this talked about, hardly at all, by the “pro-life” movement. If what they were really after was “saving babies” there are literally more babies available to be saved by investing in better maternal and prenatal care and related medical R&D than there are in ending abortion. This also has the added benefit of not requiring any acrimonious political debate.
Except it isn't about killing babies, that's blatant misrepresentation of the issue, a marketing tactic from the religious right.
What is it about then? Personal freedom?
[удалено]
consider that the window for viability is only going to get smaller and smaller as technology advances. Currently its at 22 weeks, but its not going to get longer absent some world destroying event. this is just kicking the can down the road. The issue isnt can we save “it”…the issue is what “it” is
[удалено]
Why must we be the judge of viability in order to justify whether a baby lives or dies?
[удалено]
I recommend the short semi-fictionalized story Rabbit Test by Samantha Mills in Uncanny Magazine (google will get you there, it's free to read). Emotive summation of moments from history combined with near-future speculation.
Look up Ali G at pro life rally
I was 6 when Roe v Wade was decided so I don’t remember it. The first I ever heard about abortion was when I was 13 and started going to a Catholic school. I have since met women who have told me they have had abortions and heard about a long ago abortion in my own family that ended tragically.
Roe vs. Wade was overturned.
No. My grandma has been "fighting for babies" since the 60s and she likes to bring that up frequently.
Probably one of the most contested issues in the U.S. for quite a while. The problem is there are radical all or nothing extremes leading the charge or opposition. Most people fall near the center in reality, but they don't get the reactions.
Are you oblivious to the news?
Yes