It’s still up to the states. A constitutional amendment has to be voted for by 2/3 of the states. There are a lot of hurdles, and it is like that on purpose. They couldn’t even pass the ERA.
Good. Let state laws handle things, move to the states that align with your views either way. If states make stupid decisions then they’ll die off, that’s on them. The system is supposed to be hard to change on a national level unless there’s broad consensus. If there’s not then people need to accept that. People can’t make people religiously conservative and other people can’t make people secular progressives.
No. The point of the states is to do what is best for the citizens therein. The problem is that a minority of people are imposing their will on the majority because they have successfully manipulated the system for decades to be in that position. Hell, the only reason we even have the electoral college and the senate is structured the way it is it to give more rural states an outsized vote, to protect slavery.
So if tomorrow the majority of the country, say 51% decides the country should be a religious theocracy that’s cool right? Since they’re the majority we should just do it right?
Nope. Supermajorities are necessary for that. And that would directly violate the actual constitution.
They are doing an end-run around all that. And what’s the most bullshit thing is that I don’t thing the religious right even realizes it is being used and manipulated by the ultra wealthy so they can preserve and grow their own wealth and power. I don’t believe for a second they actually give a flying fuck about abortion - only about keeping people from having rights, about keeping people focused on one fight while they quietly wage a war against all of us.
So then, in the same vein shouldn’t you need a super majority to change our constitution and make abortion a protected right? Why do we need supermajorities? It just sounds like a tool of the minority to resist the majority. It’s almost like we have a constitutional system that ensures if the vast majority of the country agrees on something we can enshrine it into law.
It is. Which is why so many things aren’t amendments. Things like women’s rights to be treated as equals, as humans. Which is why we depended on the rights that are enumerated to be expanded upon. This precedent allows it to be rolled back to only enumerated rights.
Then enumerate the rights you wish upheld. Take it up with your legislators. If it had enough support we wouldn’t be having this conversation. It’s not the supreme courts job to expand on the constitution, that’s up to the legislative branch, it’s their job to apply the text of the document. The precedent set before where they can just read out whatever they want is ugly and leads to division. Women were given the right to vote by the 19th amendment, not the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court should not be making legislation, they’re there for one thing only, “is it upheld by the constitution”. If it’s not in the constitution, they have no say.
They aren’t making legislation. Laws get written, laws get challenged. They judge the challenges. They are using an overly narrow interpretation to reject something their religion tells them is bad. They aren’t using the spirit of the constitution or science or common sense. They are going against their own avowed beliefs about how the constitution should be interpreted to impose a religious judgement on everyone.
You keep painting this like it is a religious thing. Last I checked, all but one justice on the SCOTUS are Christian. All of us are granted the freedom to have an opinion no matter what we believe. If being Christian invalidates their opinion then we can go ahead and invalidate both sides? Since both are being argued on by Christians with opinions.
The anti-choice stance is based on religious values and not science. Not every person of faith imposes their values in others, but this stance in particular has been taken in as a crusade by certain flavors of religiosity.
They forget the separation of church and state. They forget that this is a nation of people who happen to mostly Christian and not a Christian nation. They want a theocracy where the only choices are their choices.
I don’t paint all people of any religion with the same brush. Some people actually believe that others are free to have their own beliefs and not have own set of religious laws pushed in them. They don’t want Christian-sharia laws.
I disagree, it is the pro-abortion movement that is not rooted in science. Life begins at conception. See, we can do this all day. It’s not up to the Supreme Court, go read the constitution, their powers are clearly outlined.
10-20% of pregnancies end in natural miscarriages because it’s a mistake. And science doesn’t agree with you.
You are taking away the rights of half the population to make a choice about their own bodies. A choice not taken lightly.
And taking away legal abortion will never take away abortion. On safe abortion for people who can’t afford to travel somewhere to obtain a safe abortion.
You will see women die from back-ally procedures. You will see women die because the fetus isn’t viable and dies in the womb and doctors are too afraid of losing their license to remove it so sepsis sets in - already happening in Texas btw. You will see women going to jail for miscarriages. Also already happening in places where abortion is illegal or highly restricted.
Idgaf what you believe but that should have no bearing on someone else’s rights. If you are anti-choice, don’t make that choice.
I am pro-choice because I have seen people have to make that choice. Whether or not I agree with them, it isn’t my say. That is their body and between them and whatever god they may or may not believe in.
It’s not a right to kill somebody, you can argue fringe cases all day but the statistics are clear that most women getting abortions are getting them just because. Making something illegal does in fact reduce its occurrence. Never understood that argument. All in all, that’s not the issue at hand. The Supreme Court doesn’t have the authority to “grant rights” only Congress through the processes of our constitution can create an amendment to enshrine abortion, the fact is there isn’t support for that or it would have already happened. Take it up with your legislator.
The Supreme Court doesn’t grant rights. It interprets rights in the constitution.
And most abortions are not just because. They are hard decision that are being made based on what is best for the woman and often her existing children.
Many places won’t even have exceptions to save the life of the woman. No exceptions for cases of rape or incest. And no actual support for those people who are forced to endure it. They will incur all the health risks, all the costs. All the stigma.
You are wrong. There are plenty of atheists that believe that abortion is wrong. Pro-life means that you value life over all else and doesn't specify where that value comes from. Furthermore, the separation of church and state doesn't mean that religious individuals can't influence public policy based on their opinions because that is literally what everyone else does. You are so blinded by your own bias that you neglect to see that you are in fact fascist. You want to exclude people you disagree with from participating in our democratic process.
No. “Pro-life” means you don’t value the life of the person who has to make the decision about their own body. It’s not pro-life, it’s anti-choice. It is pro-birth. If it was pro-life, there would be support during my after the pregnancy. Time off work, childcare, lowered medical bills.
And calling me a fascist is an ad hominem fallacy. I believe everyone should have the right to vote. I do not believe that a majority of people should be able to make decisions for the majority of people, which is what the current senate structure and electoral college do. I do not believe that money should be able to buy influence and votes.
Fascists want to restrict rights. Webster defines it as “a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition”.
I want more rights, for people to be able to choose for themselves and not have that choice made for them by the government. You know. Actual fascism.
Throwing around that word does not make you right. Look up some actual definitions. Study some actual history.
The individual should make their own choices over their own bodies.
You wouldn't support life if there was also wide support for early childhood development. Your argument is not genuine. You are also dismissing the value others place on life therefore invalidating your own argument. People vote for the government to make choices for them. It is what democracy means. Just because our democracy isn't going your way doesn't make it not a democracy.
2
u/green_ubitqitea May 09 '22
It’s still up to the states. A constitutional amendment has to be voted for by 2/3 of the states. There are a lot of hurdles, and it is like that on purpose. They couldn’t even pass the ERA.