• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Social progress rollbacks

Babbylonian

Penultimate Amazing
Babbylonian
Joined
Feb 22, 2007
Messages
14,103
In Ohio, the state legislature has passed a law banning abortions of any fetus that has a detectable heartbeat, and they've got another on the way banning abortions after 20 weeks (the latter presumably continuing as a backup to the first). The former law would pretty much completely ban abortion given that a fetal heart rate is detectable at 6-7 weeks, which is early enough that many women might not even know they're pregnant.

So, what's next? How many more states will follow Ohio's lead in the hopes that any challenge won't reach the Supreme Court before one or more new judges have been appointed by the Rapist-in-Chief? Will states also attempt to reinstate laws against same-sex marriage? Maybe bring back anti-sodomy laws?
 
TDS has arrived, however, I am disappointed to see the reactionary move there.
 
Darth Rotor said:
TDS has arrived, here at ISF? .
Click to expand...

FTFY, though I think we are stating the obvious.

But relevant to the OP, has the Scotus set early limits? Seems to me the current line is "viable outside the womb", so ummm 27 weeks?
 
Babbylonian said:
In Ohio, the state legislature has passed a law banning abortions of any fetus that has a detectable heartbeat, and they've got another on the way banning abortions after 20 weeks (the latter presumably continuing as a backup to the first). The former law would pretty much completely ban abortion given that a fetal heart rate is detectable at 6-7 weeks, which is early enough that many women might not even know they're pregnant.

So, what's next? How many more states will follow Ohio's lead in the hopes that any challenge won't reach the Supreme Court before one or more new judges have been appointed by the Rapist-in-Chief? Will states also attempt to reinstate laws against same-sex marriage? Maybe bring back anti-sodomy laws?
Click to expand...


Aren't supreme court decisions very hard to overturn? The abortion issue should be relatively safe.
 
qayak said:
Aren't supreme court decisions very hard to overturn? The abortion issue should be relatively safe.
Click to expand...
By the Supreme Court? No, they can pretty much overturn any previous Supreme Court decision. Do you think that the pro-choice majority in this country has just been worried over nothing for the past 40+ years when it comes to the configuration of the court? It would take only one more death/retirement to shift the balance on this issue when it comes to restrictive laws (like the ridiculous requirements on abortion clinics that Texas instituted a few years ago), and a second could bring it all tumbling down.
 
Last edited:
Hey, this looks like an interesting thread to discuss skeptically

Babbylonian said:
So, what's next? How many more states will follow Ohio's lead in the hopes that any challenge won't reach the Supreme Court before one or more new judges have been appointed by the Rapist-in-Chief? Will states also attempt to reinstate laws against same-sex marriage? Maybe bring back anti-sodomy laws?
Click to expand...

Ooops, I was wrong
 
Things like this are the reason Democrats still get my votes and donations despite being disappointments in so many ways. Thing is, I know loads of Rebublican voters who don't much like this sort of thing either.
 
Babbylonian said:
In Ohio, the state legislature has passed a law banning abortions of any fetus that has a detectable heartbeat, and they've got another on the way banning abortions after 20 weeks (the latter presumably continuing as a backup to the first). The former law would pretty much completely ban abortion given that a fetal heart rate is detectable at 6-7 weeks, which is early enough that many women might not even know they're pregnant.
Click to expand...

Reading your post, I was wondering why they only pushed to "heartbeat" when they consider life to begin sacred at conception, right until I read the highlighted part and discovered that it's essentially the same thing in a lot of cases.
 
qayak said:
Aren't supreme court decisions very hard to overturn? The abortion issue should be relatively safe.
Click to expand...

The answer is tied to the concerns about cabinet appointments. If a state chooses to violate the constitution, the federal government can also choose to ignore complaints about it.

Enforcement is at the discretion of the Attorney General. If Sessions becomes AG, it's highly probable that he will not enforce unconstitutional laws at the state level.

I would include seeing the creation/reenactment/enforcement of unconstitutional state level antiabortion, segregationist, theocratic, and anti miscegenation laws as possible at this point.
 
Babbylonian said:
By the Supreme Court? No, they can pretty much overturn any previous Supreme Court decision. Do you think that the pro-choice majority in this country has just been worried over nothing for the past 40+ years when it comes to the configuration of the court? It would take only one more death/retirement to shift the balance on this issue when it comes to restrictive laws (like the ridiculous requirements on abortion clinics that Texas instituted a few years ago), and a second could bring it all tumbling down.
Click to expand...

I would bet real money that this is exactly what will happen over the next 4 years. Trump will likely be able to appoint 3 supreme court judges, which will hear a challenge to RvW and issue a new ruling that would at least remove federal oversight and leave it as a state issue. Activists can then focus their attention at the state level to pitch for criminal code changes to make abortion illegal.

It's even possible Congress will pass a federal ban, if they feel not enough states make abortion illegal. ie: if ban initiatives repeatedly fail in California.
 
Babbylonian said:
By the Supreme Court? No, they can pretty much overturn any previous Supreme Court decision. Do you think that the pro-choice majority in this country has just been worried over nothing for the past 40+ years when it comes to the configuration of the court? It would take only one more death/retirement to shift the balance on this issue when it comes to restrictive laws (like the ridiculous requirements on abortion clinics that Texas instituted a few years ago), and a second could bring it all tumbling down.
Click to expand...

Only if the court has a case in front of them that would allow them to issue a decision counter to R. v. W.

The battle grounds are in the individual states, in exactly the same way that the 2 Amendment is post - Heller and Mcdonald.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom