Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

[Josquius]

India is a weird example on selective abortion as there it is very logical to have a boy on a personal level with the whole culture of dowrys et al. It isn't just a case of basic preference.
But of course for society as a whole this is not a good decision, so the ban comes in.

[Jacob]

So how would this work in practice?

You can have an abortion as long as there are no signs the foetus is likely to have a disability? But if there are signs the foetus if carried to term will result in a child with a disability, then you may not have an abortion?

[alfred russel]

At what point does selective abortion become eugenics?  What if in the future you can do a prenatal test that with high confidence could predict your child's IQ, personality, predisposition to mental problems, predisposition to certain illnesses, and keep aborting until you hit bingo?

That is an interesting ethical question, but I think the much more likely scenario to discuss this is selective IVF instead of repeated abortions.

I don't think so. IVF is very expensive and the technology limited. Gender ID before birth and genetic screens are very common currently. I think the evidence from China is that people have been getting abortions based on gender on a significant scale already.

[garbon]

 

[Zoupa]

13 states have a trigger ban in effect.

One might qualify those as cesspools.

[garbon]

I saw the BBC and CNN trying to be 'balanced' to give anti abortionists screen time to talk about how they've always responded with love. Fuck that noise.

[The Minsky Moment]

This is what result oriented jurisprudence looks like - same court, same majority, same 24-hour period:

Ordered liberty sets limits and defines the boundary be␂tween competing interests. Roe and Casey each struck a  particular balance between the interests of a woman who wants an abortion and the interests of what they termed "potential life."  But the people of the various States may evaluate those interests differently. In some  States, voters may believe that the abortion right should be  even more extensive than the right that Roe and Casey rec␂ognized. Voters in other States may wish to impose tight  restrictions based on their belief that abortion destroys an  "unborn human being." Miss. Code Ann. §41–41–191(4)(b). Our Nation's historical understanding of ordered liberty does not prevent the people's elected representatives from deciding how abortion should be regulated.

If the last decade of Second Amendment litigation has taught this Court anything, it is that federal courts tasked  with making such difficult empirical judgments regarding firearm regulations under the banner of "intermediate scru␂tiny" often defer to the determinations of legislatures. But while that judicial deference to legislative interest balancing is understandable—and, elsewhere, appropriate—it is  not deference that the Constitution demands here. The Second Amendment "is the very product of an interest balanc␂ing by the people" and it "surely elevates above all other  interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to
use arms" for self-defense. Heller, 554 U. S., at 635. It is this balance—struck by the traditions of the American peo␂ple—that demands our unqualified deference

Threats to "pontential life" - requires interest balancing.  Threats to actual life - nothing to see here, move along.

A woman's right to autonomy and control over her body - must yield to legislative judgments about other interests.
 A man's right to conceal carry on a crowded NYC street - absolute and cannot be overcome by even the most compelling state interest in public safety.

[HVC]

Insurrections, crackpot leaders, weekly and sometimes daily mass shootings, Banning abortions. Throw in inequality and povwrty and the US is giving south American countries a run for their money as far as crappy  countries go.

[Jacob]

I continue to be concerned.

[HVC]

It's fucked up that Americans are going to have to escape to Mexico for abortions.

[Syt]

Threats to "pontential life" - requires interest balancing.  Threats to actual life - nothing to see here, move along.

A woman's right to autonomy and control over her body - must yield to legislative judgments about other interests.
 A man's right to conceal carry on a crowded NYC street - absolute and cannot be overcome by even the most compelling state interest in public safety.

[crazy canuck]

I saw the BBC and CNN trying to be 'balanced' to give anti abortionists screen time to talk about how they've always responded with love. Fuck that noise.

the misguided policy of giving equal time has lead us into a number of disasters - including inaction on climate change. At least on climate change, news outlets have stopped giving platforms to nonsense.

[FunkMonk]

Fairly sure a national ban in abortion will get passed by a GOP Congress and Presidency in the not too far future 

[Zoupa]

Where's Susan Collins? She'll straighten this all out in no time.

[crazy canuck]

Incoming boom in construction of clinics along the Canada/US border to provide medical services to American women fleeing the US for proper medical care.  A modern underground railroad may also need to be developed to get them across unfriendly states.