Hacker News Reader

> The Supreme Court is and always has been a political institution. All of the talk about constitutionality is just moralizing and window dressing in expressing a political view as law.

I agree that many Supreme Court decisions do do this. And I think that two of those are Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. So I think the Court overturning those decisions would be a good thing, as it would send a signal that the Court is willing to back off from expressing political views as law and try to return to its proper function.

> People focusing on the leak rather than what was actually leaked is testament to

...the fact that standard politics tends to be off-topic here, but the meta about how the very unusual leak might impact the system is the sort of thing that's interesting to hackers.

> that person is a hero.

I don't think you have fully thought through your position. See below.

> People have consciences whether you agree with them or not.

Yes, exactly. And many people's consciences in this country tell them that abortion is murder. Particularly abortion of a fetus after 15 weeks (which is when the Mississippi law under review here bans abortion), when the fetus, as the brief for petitioners in this case describes in some detail, already is recognizably human. You might not agree with those people's consciences, but they have them, and they're not going to go away.

And on an issue like this, where different people's consciences are telling them very different things, the Federal Government--any branch of it, whether it's the Supreme Court, Congress, or the Executive--should not be dictating one policy. It should be left to the states, who will enact varying policies according to what the consciences of the majority of their citizens tell them. Some states will be more liberal about abortion, some will be more conservative--because the consciences of their citizens tell them so. That's how the US system is supposed to work.

> a massive regression for bodily autonomy and social rights.

This is nonsense. You talk about right-wing propaganda about the sanctity of the Supreme Court; this claim is left-wing propaganda trying to push a concept of "autonomy" that completely denies personal responsibility, without which no republic like ours can endure.

As noted above, the Mississippi law under review in this case only bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. 15 weeks is more than enough time for a woman to make a decision about her "bodily autonomy and social rights" if she has an unexpected pregnancy. "Bodily autonomy and social rights" does not mean the right to dawdle over an important, life-altering decision indefinitely. The deadline this Mississippi law sets is perfectly reasonable.

So how is someone who leaked a draft Supreme Court decision that will undermine our trust in a valuable institution, in the name of a policy goal that doesn't even make sense, and which goes against the consciences of many Americans, a hero, again?

> It should be left to the states

Ah, yes. The same “states’ rights” used to subjugate black people with chattel slavery should now be repurposed to subjugate women by robbing them of bodily autonomy.

Your 15 weeks bit is actually where I expected this to go. Robert’s, who I genuinely believe is aware of and concerned with the perceived legitimacy of the Court, I expected him to broker a compromise that looked like that. But that’s not what this draft looks like.

You may believe abortion is murder but that’s a completely arbitrary and, more importantly, a religious doctrine. As an aside, even that view is a modern reinterpretation that has its roots in segregation. In the early 1970s, Baptists said the Bible was silent on the issue.

Your religion is your business. I draw the line at you imposing it on others.

> The same “states’ rights” used to subjugate black people with chattel slavery

States' rights is in the Constitution: the Tenth Amendment. And there is another amendment that abolished slavery, so we fixed the issue that you are talking about here. But that fix did not abolish states' rights. It still leaves things to the states that should be left to the states.

> should now be repurposed to subjugate women by robbing them of bodily autonomy.

I already explained why this is nonsense.

> You may believe abortion is murder but that’s a completely arbitrary and, more importantly, a religious doctrine.

Not everyone who believes abortion is murder believes that on religious grounds. There are valid non-religious grounds for considering a fetus, or at least a fetus after 15 weeks, which is the deadline in the law under review, to be a person, at least to a sufficient extent that aborting it would be murder. (The brief for petitioners in this case describes some of them.) You might not agree with them, but that doesn't make them "arbitrary".

> Your 15 weeks bit

It's not mine, it's what the law under review says.

> I expected him to broker a compromise that looked like that.

Upholding the law under review would "look like that" no matter what. 15 weeks is what the law already says. The Court wouldn't have to rule that every state law has to use the 15 weeks deadline; indeed, I don't think it should. It would just have to rule that the 15 weeks deadline is within the power of the state's legislature to enact.

> It's not mine, it's what the law under review says.

The opinion goes beyond just saying “this one law is fine”.

> It should be left to the states, who will enact varying policies according to what the consciences of the majority of their citizens tell them.

That went well for Texas' abortion law, didn't it..?

Majority is also not always right, not when it's used to tyrannise the minority.

> That went well for Texas' abortion law, didn't it..?

That would depend on what your conscience says, wouldn't it?

> Majority is also not always right, not when it's used to tyrannise the minority.

If a person's conscience tells them that abortion is murder, how would enacting a law against it, for that person, be any different than enacting a law against murder? Nobody argues that laws against murder are "tyrannizing the minority" who want to commit murder.

Or, to look at it the other way, if a person's conscience tells them that abortion is murder, but the majority in the state they live in think it isn't, and the laws of the state they live in, which are in accord with the wishes of the majority, permit abortions liberally, is that majority "tyrannizing" that person?

Why isn't then the anti-abortion laws similar to laws for murder? Can you sue strangers for murdering some other strangers?

I don't buy the "my point is that it's murder"-arguments, as the behaviors from those people don't really align with that. Why not instead focus on stuff that science and experience tell will reduce the amount of abortions and human suffering? My guess: Because it's mostly about control of others, right?

Isn't this whole thread about those people getting rid of an impediment to changing the laws (in some places) to make it be treated more like murder? You seem to be condemning the pro-life contingent for doing the very thing they're now being also condemned for.

> Why not instead focus on stuff that science and experience tell will reduce the amount of abortions and human suffering?

That kind of argument would not support the Roe and Casey viability standard for when states can ban abortions, since our current science and experience says that an abortion will cause suffering to the fetus well before viability.

> Because it's mostly about control of others, right?

A woman getting an abortion is controlling another: the fetus. She is determining the fate of that fetus without the fetus being able to defend itself.

A big part of the problem with the "bodily autonomy" side of the abortion issue is that they only talk about the woman, never about the fetus. The hard truth is that once a woman is pregnant, it's no longer just about her. Any reasonable concept of personal responsibility will require the woman to take the fetus's interests into account and will not support a claim that a woman has a right to an abortion just because she has a right to "autonomy".

My point was really that if you want to reduce the amount of abortions, do stuff that actually helps: promote sexual education, support free and available contraceptive, support government programs that help families so that having a kid is less of a financial burden, support longer maternity leave.

Etc etc etc. All stuff that will reduce abortions. Isn't that the goal? So why are mist people against abortion also against most of this stuff?

And we all know that outlawing abortions doesn't stop them. It just makes them more dangerous and lead to more suffering for everyone involved.

So what is really your goal here? Tell me.

> if you want to reduce the amount of abortions, do stuff that actually helps: promote sexual education, support free and available contraceptive, support government programs that help families so that having a kid is less of a financial burden, support longer maternity leave.

Our society already does most of these things. One I would add is adoption.

> All stuff that will reduce abortions. Isn't that the goal?

I don't think reducing the number of abortions is the goal of many pro-abortion people, no. I think they just want a convenient way to not have to deal with a child they don't want by making it just go away.

> why are mist people against abortion also against most of this stuff?

Many people who are for abortion are also against much of this stuff.

> we all know that outlawing abortions doesn't stop them. It just makes them more dangerous and lead to more suffering for everyone involved.

This argument assumes that abortion is not inherently wrong. Many people who oppose abortion do believe that it is inherently wrong. If abortion is inherently wrong, it should not be legal even if some people will choose to do it knowing it is illegal, and having to do it by more dangerous means. If they choose to do it knowing it's illegal, that's their choice and they will have to bear the consequences.

> what is really your goal here?

As far as I my personal policy preference? I think the fact that there is such profound disagreement about whether abortion is wrong means that there should not be one single policy dictated to everyone. Different states should be able to have different policies.

You managed to weasel out of most of my points, which doesn't make for very fruitful discussion. But I have one more thing to add:

> This argument assumes that abortion is not inherently wrong. Many people who oppose abortion do believe that it is inherently wrong.

No. If they believed it, they wouldn't themselves get an abortion when having a child would be bad. Soooo many stories of pro-lifers preaching one thing, and doing something else when they themselves face a situation wanting to abort. They are "excused" because of the circumstances, but when others have the same problems, they are "immoral" for getting into the situation.

That's hypocritical, and shows it's more about imposing moral values onto others and controlling them, not a belief about it being inherently wrong.

> You managed to weasel out of most of my points, which doesn't make for very fruitful discussion.

It seems to me that you are the one weaseling, since the points you are responding to bear no resemblance to any points I've actually made.

> Soooo many stories of pro-lifers preaching one thing, and doing something else when they themselves face a situation wanting to abort.

I am not any such "pro-lifer" (I'm not a "pro-lifer" at all, that's a buzzword, just like "pro-choice" or "bodily autonomy"). So whoever you think you are responding to here, it isn't me. Nor are all people who believe abortion is wrong "pro-lifers".

"People focusing on the leak rather than what was actually leaked"

Have you taken the time to read it? It is the majority opinion. They vote first, then go to write opinions and dissents. It is not a dissent..

I have read it. My understanding from reading elsewhere is these situations can be fluid. At the time it was written it may well have been a draft majority opinion. Votes can change. Also, if you accept that the court voted to overturn Roe, the reasoning for doing so can still change. There may be other competing draft majority opinions that are, say, more limited in scope (eg 15 weeks instead of 20).

Nothing is really final until it's published so I am cautious of taking it at face value as established fact. That's all.

> People focusing on the leak rather than what was actually leaked is testament to just how effective conservatives are at propaganda and messaging..

HN is focusing on the leak, but I do not think the larger point here can possibly be missed. I think the male/female ratio here has something to do with the framing of the issue. Women tonight are not thinking about how the leak affects workplace relations between supreme court justices. I mean... my God, what are they going to talk about around the watercooler?