• eylligator [undecided,any]
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 years ago

    we're fucked lmao

    women, you've had a nice run, and it was nice knowing you.

    • gayhobbes [he/him]
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 years ago

      Oh please, women haven't been able to get an abortion in most states in the US to begin with.

      • cracksmoke2020 [none/use name]
        ·
        4 years ago

        The repeal of roe v wade has implications far beyond abortion. It would enable the government to politicize every single medical treatment out there. Transgender related healthcare would become totally illegal.

        • gayhobbes [he/him]
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          4 years ago

          Roe v. Wade simply covered the right to an abortion in all 50 states. If it were repealed, it would become an idiot states' rights issue again. It doesn't mean that trans-related healthcare would become illegal. It would again be a state by state quagmire.

          • cracksmoke2020 [none/use name]
            ·
            4 years ago

            No Roe v Wade wasnt actually about abortion technically speaking. It was about the right to medical privacy, which enables that any thing that's considered safe to do medically related is legal.

            The removal of medical privacy enables the government to legislate what happens between a patient and a doctor whereas before that was considered private.

            • NonWonderDog [he/him]
              ·
              4 years ago

              That’s not how this works. Roe v Wade isn’t a law that’s either valid or not, and if its "overturned" that doesn’t mean nobody could cite it. The right to medical privacy would still be there unless the supremes wrote a decision literally saying that the concept of medical privacy was incorrectly inferred from the constitution. And if they’re willing to do that, and states are willing to ban HRT, then it doesn’t matter if they ban abortion or HRT first.

              A court decision only has power as precedent in other court cases. And all that means is if a court ignores it you might be able to convince a higher court that they shouldn’t have and that they should grant an appeal. It prevents the government from making laws only to the extent that a legislator doesn’t want to start a court case.

              Really the argument is that a court system willing to ban abortion would also be willing to restrict other rights. But abortion doesn’t really function as much of a foot in the door here, it’s just the thing they’re loudest about. If they win they’d have time to do other things, I guess.

            • gayhobbes [he/him]
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              4 years ago

              Who told you that? It's literally about abortion. They just used "right to privacy" as the legal mechanism for it. It was explicitly about abortion.

              • KoeRhee [he/him]
                ·
                4 years ago

                If that legal mechanism becomes no longer valid with regard to abortion then its validity with numerous other procedures and acts can be brought into question, no?

          • star_wraith [he/him]
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 years ago

            Exactly. So blue states allow abortion and red states ban it, which does not create enough pressure in the system to start a meltdown and eventual balkanization like I think a national ban would. And because republicans are ruthlessly smart, they'll never actually push to ban it nationally.

          • KoeRhee [he/him]
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 years ago

            No. If they make an argument based on the life and rights of the fetus and win, then its no longer a state by state issue. Any abortion anywhere would be a violation of that fetus's right to life, so with a stacked court, conservatives could just full send it and ban abortions in all 50 states regardless of circumstances. This is the reason why red states have been passing bans on abortion even in cases of rape or incest (which most Republicans think is too harsh), because you can't make the right to life argument they while also making exceptions. They're trying to agitate the courts and see if they can get a Supreme Court ruling in their favor.

      • eylligator [undecided,any]
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 years ago

        of course. fem-aligned health concerns have always been a disaster because the patriarchy hates us but now, my main fear (in addition to the climate collapsing and the slaughtering immigrants) is biden gets elected, lasts 4 years, and then someone tucker carlson-esque gets elected and we all get returned to the kitchen. repubs have been chomping away at the voting rights act for so long and democrats have just sorta fucking let them

          • eylligator [undecided,any]
            ·
            4 years ago

            This is an important point that i wasnt thinking about when i was having my initial freakout. Thank you for reminding me

        • PorkrollPosadist [he/him, they/them]
          ·
          4 years ago

          I think this will happen on a much more accelerated timespan at the state level, while the feds will struggle to force liberal states to abandon the protections they have. The chuds aren't going to wait four years once the door is opened.

        • gayhobbes [he/him]
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          4 years ago

          I mean I think it's a liberal fantasy to live in the Handmaid's Tale, and I doubt that kind of shit is going to happen.

          • eylligator [undecided,any]
            ·
            4 years ago

            i wasnt thinking of the handmaid's tale? but there are plenty of real life examples of theocratic repression in this country, and it will get worse.

            • gayhobbes [he/him]
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 years ago

              I don't know why you'd assume women are getting returned to the kitchen. We have a lot of stupid fucking regressive laws but the Supreme Court has had very little impact on that.

              • eylligator [undecided,any]
                ·
                4 years ago

                the "returned to the kitchen" remark was kinda tongue in cheek, but anyway (maybe im not wording this right) but this is another step towards fascism. we're not there yet, but letting right wing psychos more access to controlling the shape of the law will be very bad. this will influence culture and strengthen the already incredible grip of the right.

                • gayhobbes [he/him]
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  This isn't good news but the Supreme Court can be countered in a number of ways. There are bellwethers of fascism in this country, but this is not one. It's not great but there's a lot of ways it can be fought entirely within the system.

                  • eylligator [undecided,any]
                    ·
                    4 years ago

                    okay, i will keep that in mind, but these becoming states rights issues again will make things demonstrably worse. on the other hand, returning them to states rights issues might actually motivate people to do something to change them. we'll see i guess.

                    • gayhobbes [he/him]
                      ·
                      4 years ago

                      I tend to have faith in people, if not Americans, so I think the other hand is what's likeliest.

      • gayhobbes [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        Oh sure as a woman living in Mississippi I'm sure one would already have such free and easy access.