kensalriser
pfm Member
Your rights are fully protected as long as you don’t exist yet. Once you do, you’re fair game.
Roe V Wade overturned?
- Thread starter Tony L
- Start date
Mike & Van
Banned troll
From Reason magazine - What the Leaked Abortion Opinion Gets Wrong About the Founding Era (reason.com)
"A survey of founding-era legal authorities confirms this view. For example, William Blackstone's widely read Commentaries on the Laws of England, first published in 1765, notes that life "begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb." Under the common law, Blackstone explained, legal penalties for abortion only occurred "if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb." Put differently, abortion was legal in the early stages of pregnancy under the common law."
"A survey of founding-era legal authorities confirms this view. For example, William Blackstone's widely read Commentaries on the Laws of England, first published in 1765, notes that life "begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb." Under the common law, Blackstone explained, legal penalties for abortion only occurred "if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb." Put differently, abortion was legal in the early stages of pregnancy under the common law."
TheDecameron
Unicorns fart glitter.
That’s an interesting way of framing it too. Once you come out, we get to decide.
DonQuixote99
pfm Member
Another way is "We use claimed rights for people that don't exist to take power over people who do."
Yank
Bulbous Also Tapered
Nope, it would not take a Constitutional amendment to change the number of SC Justices. The number is not specified in the Constitution. The change would just need to get through Congress.
Mike & Van
Banned troll
This very long article from The Atlantic is rather worrying. How Donald Trump Could Subvert the 2024 Election - The Atlantic
"Technically, the next attempt to overthrow a national election may not qualify as a coup. It will rely on subversion more than violence, although each will have its place. If the plot succeeds, the ballots cast by American voters will not decide the presidency in 2024".
"Technically, the next attempt to overthrow a national election may not qualify as a coup. It will rely on subversion more than violence, although each will have its place. If the plot succeeds, the ballots cast by American voters will not decide the presidency in 2024".
Tony L
Administrator
Yank
Bulbous Also Tapered
Do you already have a grassroots anti-abortion movement? We've had one for fifty years.
kensalriser
pfm Member
Anti-abortionists tend to be fundamentalist/evangelical Christians and Catholics, and I'm not sure we have enough of them in the UK to foment a serious anti-abortion movement.
ciderglider
pfm Member
I think you're right, but I seem to remember reading that evangelicals are growing in number in the UK, so who knows what will happen in the future.
sean99
pfm Member
The Tories don't have a christian fundamentalist base. A much bigger danger for the UK is the gradual suffocation of the NHS with folks being forced into private medicine / insurance - following the US for-profit medicine model. Now that's something to be truly afraid of. The Tories will continue to boil that frog until there are poll-tax scale demonstrations / riots.
Tony L
Administrator
Not to anything like the same extent outside of Northern Ireland, but religious bigotry can be found everywhere if you dig down just a little. We are actually very lucky in some respects as whilst our state is linked to the dual absurdity of church and monarchy the Church Of England is about as moderate and restrained as religion gets. The Archbishop of Canterbury has recently slammed the Conservative Party on its horrendously ugly, racist and cruel Rwanda deportation policy for (non-white) refugees and the CofE isn’t even hating LGBT+ folk these days. NI is the base for this stuff, and the Tories did align with the DUP who are religious extremists, anti-abortionists and homophobes. There seems to be a real divide in NI with Sinn Fein being vastly more liberal and tolerant than the DUP and even standing up for trans-rights etc of late.
Paul R
pfm Member
The problem in the US is that the framework around abortion was magicked into being by judges and has been modified since. No political or medical consensus. In contrast to the rest of the western world.
I think a majority of US citizens are broadly in favour of abortion provision along similar lines to that in most of Europe. There's a small possibility that sense will eventually prevail.
It's worth remembering that abortion is illegal in the UK unless the mother's health is at risk. This is either a very British compromise or it's a ticking time bomb. The change made in 1968 was to include mental health as a justification and require the concurrence of two doctors before going ahead.
It's also worth noting that the Mississippi law which ended up in the US Supreme Court leading to this leaked decision is rather more generous in terms of time than the provisions currently in place in Ireland, Italy and probably elsewhere in the civilised world.
I think a majority of US citizens are broadly in favour of abortion provision along similar lines to that in most of Europe. There's a small possibility that sense will eventually prevail.
It's worth remembering that abortion is illegal in the UK unless the mother's health is at risk. This is either a very British compromise or it's a ticking time bomb. The change made in 1968 was to include mental health as a justification and require the concurrence of two doctors before going ahead.
It's also worth noting that the Mississippi law which ended up in the US Supreme Court leading to this leaked decision is rather more generous in terms of time than the provisions currently in place in Ireland, Italy and probably elsewhere in the civilised world.
matthewr
spɹɐʍʞɔɐq spɹoɔǝɹ ɹnoʎ sʎɐld
Not sure where you are getting that from and you seem to be confusing 1938 (Rex vs Bourne) with the 1967 (Abortion Act).
Broadly the history is:
-- Abortion was illegal under an act from 1861 unless the woman's life was in danger.
-- In 1938 it was extended this to allow abortion on the grounds of the woman's mental health.
-- The 1967 act made abortion legal within certain rules (24 weeks, doctor's opinion, etc) but with a broad enough scope that it effectively made abortion fully legal and widely available in the UK.
https://www.bpas.org/get-involved/campaigns/briefings/abortion-law/
I'm not sure how you deduce this. I know a few UK women who have had an abortion, none have had to play the mental health card.
Paul R
pfm Member
I read the act, Abortion Act 1967 (legislation.gov.uk)
The key is that it is only effectively on demand. The legal status is unsatisfactory. A woman wanting a termination should not have to have the agreement of others that it is in the interest of her health.