Thank God that kind of thing is currently limited to English-speaking countries.
This is a good point. I hold passports to the USA and Canada. I have considered moving to Canada over the last five-seven years and I don’t feel like it would be much of an improvement. Taxes, housing and COL are significantly higher and the political climate seems to similarly polarized. And these people seeking greener political pastures are probably taking some political dysfunction with them.
^The states really delegate a small number of powers to the federal government, things like murder and abortion aren't among those. This is really the way it was supposed to be and Roe vs Wade was a mistake that undermined the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. So delegation is really the wrong word for this but a surprising number of people here seem to have almost no understanding of American civics.
EDIT, I'm out of quota, here's my reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31304544 :
> How do you know it won't be made illegal?
This ruling says the federal government has no say in abortion rights. That prevents the federal government from legislating on it. It actually protects your rights from populist right wing mobs on the other side of the continent.
> Why do you assert that it was never under the mandate of the federal government? Obviously it's a contended issue.
All of the powers the federal government has are delegated to it in the Constitution. Show me where this one is.
>- why do you assert anyone who disagree with you is ignorant? Perhaps they listen to the very loud lobby of anti abortion goals, and view this milestone as part of a trend and extrapolate?
Regardless of how they got confused it's not an accurate view of how American government works and thinking that way is harmful to both sides
EDIT 2, my reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31304674:
>Here are 13 states that have "trigger laws"
Right, the population there wants it banned, the population in California does not. Now both groups get what they want. It won't be banned in California and, in fact, this ruling makes it harder for republicans to ban it in states like California. This protects your rights if you live in a liberal state.
EDIT: I'm out of quota, here's my reply: I don't care if it's free'd up legislative time. Because of this precedent the federal legislatures can legislate all they want but it won't be meaningful. What I do care about is that it means people can hold federal politicians more accountable for other things since they don't have to care about their stance on abortion one way or the other since nothing can be changed from the federal level.
https://thehill.com/news/senate/3480725-mcconnell-says-natio...
It sure doesn’t seem like opponents of abortion have any issues talking about it at the federal level.
I'm totally shocked at the degree to which people are upset by this since it helps both sides. The only explanation I have is that no one really understands what's going on and they're just "fighting for their tribe."
EDIT: I'm out of quota, here's my reply: This isn't politicization, they're literally interpreting the constitution. Anything other than this would be politicization that would allow populist mobs to run over the states. They're not banning anything, they're giving the power back to you where it belongs.
With the way that the Supreme Court not just got politicized, but effectively taken over over the last six years, it is IMO foolish to the extreme to rely on the SC defending anything in the future.
That’s the bit I think you’re missing and why it may not just be about reserved rights for the states or about congressional legislation. I believe this is also the stated goal of some of these orgs and it’s a moral belief they hold.
Besides all the other reasons, there’s thing called empathy which means I want people in states where I don’t live to have nice lives.
Do you think that “pro-choice” means someone will come to your house and abort your pregnancy whether you want to or not?
Have you read the politico article (which links to the full document)?
The problem is, a lot of freedoms the US people take for granted are not backed by a constitutional amendment but by court decisions or executive orders and so they can be revoked pretty easily.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/mitch-mcconnell-national-abo...
[2] https://www.rawstory.com/blake-masters-2657279833/
[3] https://www.newsweek.com/blackburn-says-scotus-ruling-protec...
This ruling actually prevents that.
- Why do you assert that it was never under the mandate of the federal government? Obviously it's a contended issue.
- why do you assert anyone who disagree with you is ignorant? Perhaps they listen to the very loud lobby of anti abortion goals, and view this milestone as part of a trend and extrapolate?
Here are 13 states that have "trigger laws" that get enacted the instant upon Roe being overruled.
> Idaho’s trigger law, for example, would make performing an abortion a felony 30 days after the “issuance of the judgment in any decision of the United States supreme court that restores to the states their authority to prohibit abortion.” The law states that the offense would be punishable by a prison sentence of 2 to 5 years in prison.
https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/map-trigger-law-states...
Your view that the Republicans will follow the constitution is flawed. They follow power.
> Right, the population there wants it banned, the population in California does not.
This is an incorrect statement. Gerrymandering ensures those populations do not get what they want. They do not have real representation.
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/05/1096732347/roe-v-wade-implica...
They're rolling back a raft of rights that we, as a society, decided follow from the constitution fifty years ago. A large majority of the population supports having those rights, but the justices were mostly appointed by minority elected presidents.
Given demographic trends, the senate will represent a narrowing minority of the population over time. The supreme court has also rolled back many voters rights and election integrity rules in the last few years.
Given that, it's likely we won't have a Democrat controlled senate for the forseeable future. If the Republicans control the house and presidency for a hot second, they'll be able to pass a national abortion (and gay rights, civil rights, and probably privacy) ban, and that will be the end of the US as a Democratic nation.
Because of the elctoral college math and existing court corruption, they'll be able to do this with under 40% of the vote.
I'm tired of the excuses. We're facing multiple existential crises, and a small, antidemocratic, minority is blocking action that has broad popular support.
All citizens over 18 should have a vote, and all votes should have equal weight.
Source on the 12%: https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/2jnmbe/i_did_the_...
Which I misread. It takes 12% of the vote to create a filibuster proof majority from small red states, and 5% for those states to sustain a fillibuster.
No, they are not.
Roe v Wade aside, we've been doing those things pretty consistently since the 1900s.