[sophacles]

The 9th amendment certainly covers it. It says:

> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The upcoming court ruling, denies and disparages a right that was retained by the people for the last 50 years. In fact, it leads me to believe that the very reasoning used by the SC according to the memo is unconstitutional (they argue that since the word abortion doesn't appear in the constitution that it can't be considered by the court, a position that goes against the text and spirit of the 9th amendment)

[tick_tock_tick]

Abortion is absolutely not covered in the Constitution and Roe v Wade was a one of the most twisted bits of logic I've ever seen out of the court. We need real legislation rather then trying to stretch amendments to cover things that they clearly don't.

[mindslight]

I was tempted to see it that way, but the general right to be left alone by the government is most certainly in the founding character of the country. That right to be left alone most certainly applies to medical care. The only thing novel about Roe v Wade was applying the newer standard of gender equality to extend the right to be left alone to women.

Since we're talking about abortion, let's restate what should be abundantly clear - nobody is using abortion as a substitute for birth control. "Pro-choice" is an utterly stupid term that plays right into the political tempest-in-a-tea-pot, completely on-brand for the Democratic party. An appropriate label would be pro-medical-care. This whole topic is akin to debating whether individual states should be able to prevent their residents from receiving blood transfusions.

[sophacles]

How is pro choice a stupid term? You are literally arguing that the government shouldn't get involved in someone's medical care, that they should be allowed to make their own choices rather than having the decision forced on them by the court.

The only reason i can see you saying this is that you are angry and have found a group to other. Perhaps you should do some meditation or smoke a joint or whatever to relax, and stop directing your anger at people advocating for a position you agree with.

[mindslight]

"Choice" implies that abortion is some optional activity, directly supporting this red team narrative of convenience. Putting the focus on individual choice carries little weight with collectivists/conservatives, especially when there is an imagined second person involved. Meanwhile from someone in the position of needing a medically necessary or medically prudent abortion, the situation is anything but a choice.

The politickers have chosen the strongest statement to rally their own group around, but what it has actually done is create a potent straw man for opposition to rally around.

[MisterBastahrd]

pro-medical-care is identically stupid.

This is about the right to bodily autonomy, not medical care. Right now we have a right to not be searched, but don't have a right to do what we want with our own bodies. Give it a few years, watch in amusement as redneck states start attempting to ban tattoo parlors for "decency" reasons under the auspices of "proper medical care."

[anamax]

> This is about the right to bodily autonomy, not medical care.

Does "bodily autonomy" apply to vaccines?

[MisterBastahrd]

What number of people were forced to take a vaccine?

[anamax]

> What number of people were forced to take a vaccine?

Folks who worked for govt agencies and contractors were fired for refusing and there were serious efforts to deny govt services on that basis.

Feel free to play games with "forced" but we both know how you'd come down wrt comparable measures and abortion.

[adolph]

redneck states

[MisterBastahrd]

Yes, redneck states (I'm from Louisiana and live in Texas... I have no reason to be politically correct). The current opposition to bodily autonomy is historically intertwined with opposition to dismantling segregation, and there are many "super-concerned" adults living south of the Mason-Dixon who would be just fine with prohibiting their kids from getting tattoos because they clash with appearances at Sunday service. The exact same disregard for bodily autonomy for the purposes of preserving the life of a fetus also applies to body art.

[oceanghost]

Ironically the bible forbids tattoos (LV 19:28), but doesn't say much about abortion.

[jessaustin]

The 9th amendment...

This argument proves too much. One might say, for example, that the right to crush annoying smartphones isn't specifically addressed in the constitution or amendments thereof, and thus we must have that right. However, the states do have laws against theft, vandalism, etc. so we don't actually have the right to crush any smartphones that annoy us. The way to preempt those state laws would be with a federal law establishing such a right.

I am pro-choice, but such a federal law addressing abortion could have been passed at any point in the decades since (or before?) Roe. My understanding of the leaked ruling is that it would be overruled by such codification.

The weakness of the appeal to 9A explains why Roe itself did not rely on that.

[robonerd]

> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That's great and all, but how did they ass-pull the third trimester restriction? Courts recognizing rights not explicitly found in the Constitution is what the 9th amendment permits. But to ass-pull a restriction to a right, when that restriction isn't found in the Constitution or any law passed by congress? Is that really what the 9th Amendment is about? That's hard to swallow if so. What if SCOTUS ass-pulls a restriction to the 1st Amendment and says it never applies to computers? Is that the sort of thing the 9th Amendment permits?

[anamax]

> The upcoming court ruling, denies and disparages a right that was retained by the people for the last 50 years.

That ruling returns the relevant power to the states, see the 10th amendment.

[hn_version_0023]

The Supreme Court has been stacked with ideologues and possibly criminals (given Mr. Kavanaugh’s history). I’ve even read that getting Gorsuch on the court required a huge payoff to Mr. Breyer — open corruption.

I’m not well versed enough in its history to know if this is abnormal. I find it unacceptable, but given the state of government in the US, I don’t have any solutions.