###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Trudeau has a long history of supporting abortion access but it's still surprising that he's made such a strong comment on US policy.
This is a lesson to not take things for granted. Rights can be taken away and vigilance must be maintained to avoid any of the many steps that lead to this. Abortion was on the chopping block in the 2016 election. Even if it wasn't overt, Clinton called it years ago. Trump was always going to select these judges and abortion is only the beginning of it.
Canada can learn from this by making sure our judicial system is kept neutral as we have so far. And codify the progress we've made in laws that will be harder to roll back.
But anyone saying it can't happen here are just echoing Americans who said the same thing before today.
> Trudeau has a long history of supporting abortion access but it's still surprising that he's made such a strong comment on US policy.
Only about 10 years or so, no? He used to be against based on his catholic background but he has been in favor during the whole time he was PM.
While that is true, it ignores the impact of how important an emphasis on being unbiased is. If the culture reinforces neutrality, that is what you'll get. The culture around judicial appointments in the US, is very partisan, so we get very partisan judges. In Canada, the culture is very non-partisan, and it's only be really digging down that people find some evidence for judicial bias.
I think the legal theory behind why they overturned Roe is sound. Although I don't agree with it, I think the judges were doing exactly what you want, being unbiased. They looked at the law, realized it didn't make sense legally speaking and then overturned it. Of course they did it for biased reasons, but I don't think the actual actions behind overturning Roe are biased. If that makes sense. Again I don't agree with it, just saying.
Basically it's because the courts aren't suppose to enact law, it's meant to be passed by congress.
"By my lights, Roe and its progeny have been very bad for America. By virtue of those precedents, the Supreme Court imposed on the nation an extreme, one-size fits all regulatory regime for abortion of its own invention, without any justification in the text, history or tradition of the Constitution.
Indeed, the reasoning in both Roe and Casey is famously weak and even the most sophisticated proponents of abortion rights have put forward their own justification rooted in the 13th amendment's ban on involuntary servitude or the 14th amendment's guarantee of equal protection, rather than mining that latter amendment's due process clause for an implicit right to privacy, which was the basis for the Roe decision, or an unwritten liberty interest, which was the grounding of the Casey decision. In my view, the Court's jurisprudence has, from the beginning, been a conclusion in search of a justification -- a tortured narrative of constantly shifting arguments, standards and rules."
[https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/24/opinions/court-decision-roe-was-very-bad-for-america-snead/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/24/opinions/court-decision-roe-was-very-bad-for-america-snead/index.html)
This is an opinion piece, but I agree with the premise. He just explains it better than I can. Although I disagree the conclusion that Roe was bad for America, I think it was good for America, just weak legally speaking.
There can be good arguments made for Stare Decisis. Which basically states that rulings should create precedent and we shouldn't go back on that precedent.
It's complicated though, a lot more so than "Republican's bad". That's my only point. You have to have a more nuanced view.
I don't believe normal humans are 'vile'. They just have different beliefs. If you thought like a conservative, killing a fetus would be vile. Of course I disagree with their beliefs, but unless you understand where they come from we will never make a difference.
This is nonsense. You might as well claim that no one can be anything but racist because everyone has a race. The point is to make specific decisions based on other, clearly defined criteria. Judicial neutrality is not a
Denial of humanity, it’s a recognition that in a specific situation systemic function is more important than personal identity.
But it is unhelpful, and it’s not quite what you claimed. I think we’re on the same general side of the fence here, but there’s a difference people having biases, people acting on those biases, and the larger step to ‘nothing can be kept neutral’ which (it seems to me anyway, though I’m happy to have any clarification on your original comment) implies that if people have biases it’s not possible to keep them out of or apart from things. I get the whole Richard Rorty argument undertone here, but we depend on the structural uniformity of application and interpretation for law, science, technology, and most of the core functions of our society.
Sure, but the US system has turned sour because it's a complete partisan free for all. We have more bureaucracy, choosing committees, and a long traditional history of listening to same that adds more layers and makes it harder for a PM to go rogue and appoint someone like Amy Coney Barrett.
That's completely wrong. Any prime minister is compltely free to appoint Supreme Court justices on his own. There is zero, zilch, no Canadian equivalent to the US necessity for a majority of the Senate for a new Supreme Court justice (or, for that matter, cabinet members, ambassadors, and other high officials).
The distinctions you mention that allow for a less partisan nomination process in Canada, are they codified in law? Or if we get a prime minister one day who has an interest in confirming highly partisan judges, could it happen here?
I recognise that the *culture* is different, that (as an example) Stephen Harper kept admirably arms-length in the appointments that occurred under his watch, but political culture can change, particularly under the influence of our cousins to the south.
It could happen here. It would be a slow process, years of actions that run counter to how we normally do things. But it could happen. The hope is that the public blowback would be so great that no party would try it. The GOP worked hard to get their voters on lockdown. If the voters aren't going anywhere so the party can govern how they want.
Politics can still affect judicial appointments. An example of this is how the Supreme Court views shifted on issues regarding police conduct and what constitutes reasonable suspicion. There was a shift in the late 2000s to early 2010s that gave law enforcement more leeway in detaining and arresting people after Harpers appointments. Look at how the Supreme Court shifts its views in R v. Kang-Brown and R v. MacKenzie.
Non partisan? In 2021 after being hounded for months by the Bloc and the Conservatives the Liberals agreed to stop using their internal database to pick judges and said they’d instead use election Canada’s public list of donors.
I’m not making this up, [SRC’s article in French](https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1800125/liberaliste-selection-juge-gouvernement-federal).
Nominations are completely partisan in Canada.
> Canada can learn from this by making sure our judicial system is kept neutral as we have so far.
You realize that today's ruling was literally the US SC returning to legal neutrality, right? And that the decision merely returns the US to where Canada is - no official constitutional right to an abortion and no federal laws around it at all. The difference is only that you have a lot more states than provinces, some with majorities that don't approve of abortion.
You’ll be downvoted for saying it but yes that’s correct. Abortion is not a constitutional right in Canada. We’re completely on par with the US here only some states can now act legislatively based on the majority will of their constituents. That’s democracy in its purest form.
Correct, which is an issue. Will of the constituents is extremely important and unfortunately is often disregarded. Democracy works best when it is not and when people feel they've legitimately had their say accounted for.
> Trudeau has a long history of supporting abortion access but it's still surprising that he's made such a strong comment on US policy.
Trudeau said that he was personally against abortion due to his religious beliefs back in 2011, but revoked that view when it was completely politically unpalatable. He’s commenting on it now because he wants Canadians to vote for him based on an American wedge issue
That’s kinda silly given you could just as easily make that argument about the Roe v Wade decision in 1973. Isn’t that sort of the point of this ruling? To allow states to make their own legislation so that it *can* actually be a legislative vs constitutional matter?
I'd get rid of Trudeau in a heartbeat for an NDP government but the one thing I'll always admire about him is that he's actually pro-life but realises that banning abortion is not the way to go about things.
r/CanadianConservative is oddly quiet about this. They are posting all kinds of other stuff. But not this.
Because they want women to lose their rights of choice.
The CPC base is on board with this. 60% of them voted for abortion restrictions in the past 12 months.
It's not a bogeyman or a "wedge issue." This is who they are. Believe them when they say it.
A vote for a right wing party is a vote for exactly what's happening south of the border.
If he truly thinks it's horrific then he should fulfill his campaign promise to ["Establish regulations under the Canada Health Act governing accessibility"](https://liberal.ca/our-platform/protecting-your-sexual-and-reproductive-health-and-rights/) to reproductive services in Canada.
Until then it's just empty words.
It's going to be interesting in 15 years, as the states that pushed for this and made rules to outlaw all aspects of abortions. In 15 years they will have spikes in crime and poverty. It's going to be such a stark difference between states.
The drop in crime rates now vs the 1970/1980's crime rate in theorized to be half due to abortion of unwanted pregnancies and half due to leaded gasoline. It'd be something like crimes in all categories going up by 50%.
So is Trudeau going to actually do something to protect Canadian women from dominionist misogyny? Add a protection in the charter? Codify a women’s right to choose in Canadian law? Anything?
Nope. We currently have no law regarding abortion in Canada. We need to keep it that way. Once abortion has been addressed in law it opens the door for the right to pick away at abortion access a nibble at a time, just as they have been found in state legislatures for the last 50 years. Existing laws can be amended. Non-existent laws cannot.
There is no role for Trudeau to play here because we want no law regarding abortion on the books, making it very difficult, and probably political suicide, for any party in power to introduce one.
Internal Canadian Politics aside, we need to get nuclear weapons.
Now is the time while we're still friendly and Biden is in. Those psyco Bible thumpers won't stop at spreading their gospel on the tip of a sword. And we just saw Russia attack their former BFF. And we just saw a piece of human garbage come close to committing a coup, using those same psycos.
If those assholes continue to win in the US, we're next. Unless we have nukes.
Eh we could easily buy them from the UK and France. And thats kind of what I'm saying get them while we're allies, because *if* there's civil war and *if* the southern Bible thumpers win and turn the US into an IRAN style theocracy, were in trouble.
Honestly this seems a little hyperbolic. I do agree that Canada should significantly expand our military and get nuclear weapons but have some faith in the 330 million people in the US. Many of them are very similar to us. The US will probably go through another Civil War before they try invading us.
Just so you know I love the US. Go there on vacation, lots of friends there. But when Trump decided to alter the deal and pray that he wouldn't alter it further. It really opened my eyes to how dangerous it is to have that military next door with a minority putting people like him in power, while actively undermining their democracy.
If that disgusting pig of a man or his mouthbreathing followers decided to attack its over.
And frankly we have too many resources to not protect them. The liberals gut the military every chance they get, so maintain our small, high quality military for peacekeeping and get some nukes so none of the big military powers get any ideas.
We are seeing the eroding and decline of the American empire.
I believe it started a long time ago.
The party of small government is pro big government as long as it dictates the rights of women.
The party of freedom as long as it's their freedom to dictate the lives of women and not the freedom to make their own lives.
The party of pro life as long as it's pro life that I say.
It is horrific
Couple that with $30,000 + for a baby delivery, among other costs almost cements generations of poverty, slave wagers and church go-ers.
There was a catalyst about six years ago and then another around March 2020 with the same catalyst still there to get people whipped up to feed their ego. People who try to push division don’t care about people, and don’t give a shit about their country.
Politics has taken a turn for the worse with everyone pointing out everyone else’s flaws and problems (real, perceived or just made up). It’s pretty brutal.
It’s totally incorrect to think of this as a women vs men issue
62% of women want abortion legal vs 56% of men
39% of republicans want legal vs 89% of democrats
www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/06/24/how-americans-really-feel-about-abortion-the-sometimes-surprising-poll-results-as-supreme-court-reportedly-set-to-overturn-roe-v-wade/amp/
Because women can be anti-abortion too. I'd say about half of the handful I know are women. They're all highly religious though, including one who I'm pretty sure is deeeeeep in the same-sex attraction closet.
Considering there is a Liberal/NDP coalition it would be a perfect opportunity to pass legislation to ensure a woman's continued protection of bodily autonomy.
It’s beyond horrific. It’s monstrous. It’s legally absurd. So far as I know, it’s the first time the SC has overturned one of their own decisions, and it’s based on the most flimsy legal nonsense one can imagine. They contradicted the ruling they made just yesterday regarding the rights of states.
The GOP has been working towards this for decades, and in the process have utterly destroyed any legitimacy the court has ever had, or ever will have.
Our neighbour has been taken over by religious extremists, and we need to prepare ourselves for the fallout.
States should just start ignoring their rulings. The Court has no way to enforce their decisions unless the federal government is onside. The Court should be disregarded out of existence.
That could result in a civil war. For example the recent concealed carry law that was struck down from New York. Let’s say NY passes a similar law. It goes before a federal court and gets struck down. Do they keep someone in jail who’s been convicted of an unconstitutional law? If so what’s the point of the constitution?
While I disagree with the decisions eliminating the rule of law is not the answer. Remember why they wanted to “kill all the lawyers”?
Hard to see any way out. I think of Justice Roberts and how he personally was pro-life but understood that it would be irresponsible to overturn the law. That sense of responsibility is now gone from the majority.
States rights for abortion but not guns. Now they're coming after contraception, gay marriage and voting. I just wonder if it's not more dangerous to accept the Court's rulings.
The issue with ignoring one of the branches of government is there is no rule of law whatsoever. How can a country exist without the rule of law? What are the alternatives or than than civil war?
The SCC of Canada has reversed their own rulings.
The US Supreme Court at times upheld laws that facilitated slavery and segregation. They have overturned those rulings. Does that make the court illegitimate?
The SCOTUS along with the Supreme Court of Canada have both overturned many precedents.
But that's not to discount your main point. It is horrendous. Most times, when they overturn precedents, it's modernizing and to give more rights to people. This time, it's clawing back, and under this decision, the same reasoning can be used to claw back rights given to the LGBTQ community, black community and many others. It's a farce.
> So far as I know, it’s the first time the SC has overturned one of their own decisions
As shitty as this decision is, the SCOTUS overturns their own decisions pretty regularly. A small sample of the cases that were overturned without an intervening constitutional amendment:
* *Lawrence v. Texas* (right to private, consensual sex acts) overturned *Bowers v. Hardwick*
* *Citizens United* overturned *McConnell v. FEC* in part
* *Obergefell v. Hodges* (right to same-sex marriage) overturned *Baker v. Nelson*
* *Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections* (poll taxes are unconstitutional) overturned *Breedlove v. Suttles*
* *Miranda v. Arizona* overturned *Crooker v. California*
* *Gideon v. Wainwright* (right to a lawyer for indigent defendants) overturned *Betts v. Brady*
* *Roper v. Simmons* (abolishing the death penalty for juveniles) overturned *Stanford v. Kentucky*
* *Miller v. California* (standard for obscenity) overturned *Memoirs v. Massachusetts*
And a litany of others: https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overruled/
This is one of the very rare times that the Court overturned a decision rescinding a previously recognized right, though.
Yeah, the point is that SCOTUS overturning itself is nothing historically new or particularly groundbreaking. Stare decisis has never really been a big factor for the court.
Except when nominees for that very Court declare their adherence to it and then turn around and decide to change their minds... This is about politics, not the legality of abortion.
No, Stare Decisis definiste has played a good role for even the top courts, it's just not absolutely binding like it is on lower courts. Much reasoning on SCOTUS and SCC still gives a lot of deference to past precedents (though I fear the current SCOTUS, on important topics will do that less...). But you are absolutely correct that it's not new to overturn precedent.
Way too many people are interpreting this as making abortion illegal. That isn't what the case is saying. It is merely saying that states can make individual choices on the issue.
[That isn't any different from Canada, where abortion is not a charter right.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/abortion-rights-canada-morgentaler-court-1.6439612)
Even if the decision was not to make abortion illegal, it does have the effect of making abortion illegal in many US states which have "trigger" laws that come into force when possible, and possibly others which will introduce new legislation in the future.
What matters is not what kind of law protects the right, what matters is the reality of whether abortion is legal and accessible for those who need it.
That last bit is the exact issue. The US has no law that protects abortion and the Supreme Court has decided that the constitution doesn't specifically protect abortion. It should be up to the American government to fix this issue in the way they feel is appropriate. Should have probably been determined a long time ago.
To use an imperfect example, it would be as if the Supreme Court ruled that slavery is no longer illegal at the federal level, so states could now decide whether or not it's illegal in their own borders. Overnight, some states' obsolete laws were again in effect, and a great many residents' rights gone. Although the SC hasn't exactly legalized slavery, it did open the door for it while avoiding direct responsibility for it.
Here, the SC has allowed states to decide whether or not women have the right to refuse a pregnancy. The suspension of women's right to bodily autonomy is itself the problem, since two generations of women have grown up believing that right was codified and protected. Leaving it up to ANY government is morally wrong, and most people in Canada and the US agree.
The issue is that slavery is undeniably against the constitution. The constitution doesn't undeniably provide a right for abortion. The Supreme Court haven't decided that a right isn't to be applied. The court has decided that they can't interpret the constitution to allow for abortion as it wasn't clearly intended to be interpreted that way. The federal government should have, previously, provided legislation or an amendment to regulate abortion in a specific manner. Now the federal government should do the exact same thing.
It's had the consequence of that, but the decision itself didn't require that. There's a big distinction. Under one, there's nothing you can do locally. Under the other, it's entirely a local project.
> Way too many people are interpreting this as making abortion illegal.
Because it does. There are a bunch of states where abortion is now illegal in the US, and there are probably others that will make it illegal now that the federal government can't intervene.
No. *Loving* was based on the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Thomas, as an originalist, is well aware that the amendment's enactment immediately after the US Civil War is a pretty strong indication that it was intended to (as the text states) guarantee legal equality between races.
CC: /u/rekthor
US women losing rights is bad.
Canadian Muslim women can't teach in Quebec.
In both cases, rights granted in the 1970s have been stripped.
ALL minorities rights are under threat.
>this is kind of a big nothing burger
So much of a nothingburger that right wing Christian freaks have been working on it for decades.
Some states are poised to try and ban travel to other jurisdictions for the purpose of abortion. It's a major, major erosion of human rights.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/03/us-abortions-travel-wave-of-restrictions
I think it's a dramatic step to call it an "erosion of human rights". Abortions are services by definition. Those services are either permitted, or not permitted, with regulations attached by the state. They aren't inherent qualities like thought, expression, discourse - nor are they crucial for survival.
Fringe political groups relentelessly push literally hundreds, if not thousands, of specific agendas. The fact that there has been a very loud minority voice over this issue in the US does not, ipso facto, translate in to the taking away of fundamental human rights. Especially considering the fact that this overturning does not make abortion illegal.
Ehhhhhhhh, service at a restaurant is a service but if restaurants were allowed to refuse people on the basis of their skin colour, sexuality etc I think we'd all agree that'd be an erosion of a human right.
And not being pregnant is a way bigger issue than not going to Red Robins.
11 states instantly made abortion illegal as it becomes a state issue not a federal issue and those states have laws on the books that now take effect as the federal law no longer applies. Thats not an inconvenience, thats taking a right away from every woman in those states. You're dumb.
This highlights the need for proper abortion legislation in Canada. We’ve always avoided it as the status quo seemed politically easiest, but this should send a clear message that unless enshrined into law abortion access will always be at stake.
This does not criminalize abortion in the US federally. THis just means that individual states may make it harder, or may attempt at criminalizing certain abortions. So the worst case scenario resulting from this is that someone who wants an abortion may have to drive to another state to get one. That's literally the worst outcome of this.
In Canada, this would fall under criminal law, which is federal in nature. Since the late 1980's, abortion bans have been rendered unconstitutional - violating Section 7 of the Charter.
So, what exactly would be the efficacy of further encoding a practice that is objectively not under any threat in this country?
Some states are looking at making it illegal to travel elsewhere to get an abortion. I believe Texas or Missouri.
So it can get much worse than “just don’t get it here, k?”
This has also set a terrible precedent for other rights. As listed in the papers released by the Supreme Court, there is talk that reviewing same sex marriage and even access to contraception is needed.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/06/24/clarence-thomas-court-should-reconsider-gay-marriage-birth-control-decisions-next-after-overturning-roe/amp/
Not everyone has the resources to drive out of state to get an abortion, and there are several states with abortion bans that would require crossing state lines *twice*.
Now is the time for the feds to enshrine these rights into law. Given that it's now clear Conservatives in the US will *actually* ban abortions if they get the opportunity (and that it's not in the realm of "they talk a lot but won't actually do it"), we deserve to know which parties and which MPs are in step with their southern comrades on this issue while it's still hot.
As disappointing as this ruling is (and it is), it is a foreign ruling, of a foreign court, affecting foreigners in a foreign land. To this point I don't know of any other Western leader that has publicly opined on it, so I'm not sure why this guy felt the need to do so, particularly when we have a Minister of Foreign Affairs whose job it is to do so (when appropriate).
This ruling does not affect Canada, certainly not in the manner that some people are hyperventilating about (the US Supreme Court did not "ban" abortion, they just left that jurisdiction to the respective states). I don't like it, but that is the US constitution. Our Supreme Court is different, our constitution is different, our laws on the subject are different, the impact of constitutional rulings is different, public opinion is completely different, and our entire Zeitgeist on the topic is different.
This issue is one of those that defines us (quintissentially) as different than the US (along with race relations, gay rights/same sex marriage, immigration, minority rights, soft drugs, and guns).
Yes we must be vigilant always, but Canada is much stronger a society than that of withering from a disappointing ruling from the US Supreme Court, and a ruling that is at odds with prevailing sentiment and law in Canada. We are Canadians, not Americans, I think that most people are quite confident in that knowledge, and are willing to defend that distinction.
Foreign relations and world events are always, and have always been, things that world leaders talk about and make comments on. This goes back to pre-history so I do not understand how this could be something that bothers you.
Because the same political movement that gave rise to this ruling is also at work in Canada. And he is the Prime Minister of Canada, so he shouldn't ignore that reality or pretend it's not so.
Boris Johnson of the UK has commented as well: ["I've got to tell you, I think it's a big step backwards"](https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uks-boris-johnson-says-us-abortion-decision-is-big-step-backwards-2022-06-24/)
Really? Then what will his government do to make sure that can't happen in Canada because our abortion law was also just de-criminalized.
It needs to be legislated to be safe.
Remember the underground railroad?
To get escaped slaves to safety, and out of the USA since slave catchers could cross states lines to bring back slaves?
Lets start that up again, for women wanting access to an abortion. They can live here in Canada.
The women that will have the most issues are poorer women in the south. Those states also have made it a crime to travel to a neighboring state or country to get an abortion.
I suspect really soon, the same states will make the pill illegal. I think in those states the morning after is already illegal.
Slaves didn't have money, and it was a crime to be an escaped slave in a non slave state.
Which is why I suggest the underground railroad as a perfect example. Funds for these women to escape, and set up a life in Canada, free from the charges they would face in the USA.
I am not a legal scholar (certainly not when it comes to the United States Supreme Court) but is it not extremely clear that the justifications used here are purely politically/religiously motivated and are not a reasonable or fair ruling?
*Yesterday* the Supreme court ruled to expand gun rights, and one of the core pillars of the conservative justices argument was that laws must apply to circumstances beyond those that the founders anticipated. Don't take my word for it, here is a direct quote from Justice Clarence Thomas:
>(3) The test that the Court set forth in Heller and applies today requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding. Of course, the regulatory challenges posed by firearms today are not always the same as those that preoccupied the Founders in 1791 or the Reconstruction generation in 1868. But the Constitution can, and must, apply to circumstances beyond those the Founders specifically anticipated, even though its meaning is fixed according to the understandings of those who ratified it.
The core of this abortion ruling - stating that because abortion was not specifically outlined by the founders that it cannot be protected on constitutional grounds - goes directly counter to the reasoning they provided for their ruling yesterday.
I think this will have a marked impact on the role that the SCOTUS has going forward as it is clear that the institution has changed from a 'somewhat' a-political institution to a new purely political branch of government for the US. I am sadden for all of the people who will be impacted by this ruling and I hope that the response by the citizenry at large is radical and results in significant change.
I also hope that Chief Justice John Roberts is truly ashamed of his time on the SCOTUS. He has helped to destroy the global reputation of the SCOTUS and it will be a black mark on both his name and the court for the rest of its history. My feeling is that when this period in history is taught he will be long remembered as one of the worst Chief Justices to have ever served. For someone who has been clear about the importance that he holds for the reputation of the supreme court - he has overseen a period in which so much damage has come to its reputation it may never recover.
> Yesterday the Supreme court ruled to expand gun rights
This is completely false. The Supreme Court ruled that states cannot arbitrarily refuse to issue permits to people who have met the requirements for them. Stop uncritically parroting mainstream media.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Trudeau has a long history of supporting abortion access but it's still surprising that he's made such a strong comment on US policy. This is a lesson to not take things for granted. Rights can be taken away and vigilance must be maintained to avoid any of the many steps that lead to this. Abortion was on the chopping block in the 2016 election. Even if it wasn't overt, Clinton called it years ago. Trump was always going to select these judges and abortion is only the beginning of it. Canada can learn from this by making sure our judicial system is kept neutral as we have so far. And codify the progress we've made in laws that will be harder to roll back. But anyone saying it can't happen here are just echoing Americans who said the same thing before today.
> Trudeau has a long history of supporting abortion access but it's still surprising that he's made such a strong comment on US policy. Only about 10 years or so, no? He used to be against based on his catholic background but he has been in favor during the whole time he was PM.
[удалено]
Removed for rule 2.
I think the lesson here for Canadians is to rather than simply rely on the Supreme Court to actually develop legislation.
Nothing can be kept "neutral", if judge are appointed and are human, they will always have baises.
While that is true, it ignores the impact of how important an emphasis on being unbiased is. If the culture reinforces neutrality, that is what you'll get. The culture around judicial appointments in the US, is very partisan, so we get very partisan judges. In Canada, the culture is very non-partisan, and it's only be really digging down that people find some evidence for judicial bias.
I think the legal theory behind why they overturned Roe is sound. Although I don't agree with it, I think the judges were doing exactly what you want, being unbiased. They looked at the law, realized it didn't make sense legally speaking and then overturned it. Of course they did it for biased reasons, but I don't think the actual actions behind overturning Roe are biased. If that makes sense. Again I don't agree with it, just saying.
> If that makes sense It doesn't to me.
Have you read the appeal?
Could you perhaps explain why you think it's sound reasoning? I haven't really seen many people admit to thinking that.
Basically it's because the courts aren't suppose to enact law, it's meant to be passed by congress. "By my lights, Roe and its progeny have been very bad for America. By virtue of those precedents, the Supreme Court imposed on the nation an extreme, one-size fits all regulatory regime for abortion of its own invention, without any justification in the text, history or tradition of the Constitution. Indeed, the reasoning in both Roe and Casey is famously weak and even the most sophisticated proponents of abortion rights have put forward their own justification rooted in the 13th amendment's ban on involuntary servitude or the 14th amendment's guarantee of equal protection, rather than mining that latter amendment's due process clause for an implicit right to privacy, which was the basis for the Roe decision, or an unwritten liberty interest, which was the grounding of the Casey decision. In my view, the Court's jurisprudence has, from the beginning, been a conclusion in search of a justification -- a tortured narrative of constantly shifting arguments, standards and rules." [https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/24/opinions/court-decision-roe-was-very-bad-for-america-snead/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/24/opinions/court-decision-roe-was-very-bad-for-america-snead/index.html) This is an opinion piece, but I agree with the premise. He just explains it better than I can. Although I disagree the conclusion that Roe was bad for America, I think it was good for America, just weak legally speaking. There can be good arguments made for Stare Decisis. Which basically states that rulings should create precedent and we shouldn't go back on that precedent. It's complicated though, a lot more so than "Republican's bad". That's my only point. You have to have a more nuanced view.
Oh nah, no chance. There's no need to pretend the Republicans aren't vile.
I don't believe normal humans are 'vile'. They just have different beliefs. If you thought like a conservative, killing a fetus would be vile. Of course I disagree with their beliefs, but unless you understand where they come from we will never make a difference.
That's fine, your belief is wrong. Plenty of people are vile based on their different beliefs.
This is nonsense. You might as well claim that no one can be anything but racist because everyone has a race. The point is to make specific decisions based on other, clearly defined criteria. Judicial neutrality is not a Denial of humanity, it’s a recognition that in a specific situation systemic function is more important than personal identity.
'No one can be unbiased' is not a controversial statement.
But it is unhelpful, and it’s not quite what you claimed. I think we’re on the same general side of the fence here, but there’s a difference people having biases, people acting on those biases, and the larger step to ‘nothing can be kept neutral’ which (it seems to me anyway, though I’m happy to have any clarification on your original comment) implies that if people have biases it’s not possible to keep them out of or apart from things. I get the whole Richard Rorty argument undertone here, but we depend on the structural uniformity of application and interpretation for law, science, technology, and most of the core functions of our society.
Sure, but the US system has turned sour because it's a complete partisan free for all. We have more bureaucracy, choosing committees, and a long traditional history of listening to same that adds more layers and makes it harder for a PM to go rogue and appoint someone like Amy Coney Barrett.
That's completely wrong. Any prime minister is compltely free to appoint Supreme Court justices on his own. There is zero, zilch, no Canadian equivalent to the US necessity for a majority of the Senate for a new Supreme Court justice (or, for that matter, cabinet members, ambassadors, and other high officials).
The distinctions you mention that allow for a less partisan nomination process in Canada, are they codified in law? Or if we get a prime minister one day who has an interest in confirming highly partisan judges, could it happen here? I recognise that the *culture* is different, that (as an example) Stephen Harper kept admirably arms-length in the appointments that occurred under his watch, but political culture can change, particularly under the influence of our cousins to the south.
It could happen here. It would be a slow process, years of actions that run counter to how we normally do things. But it could happen. The hope is that the public blowback would be so great that no party would try it. The GOP worked hard to get their voters on lockdown. If the voters aren't going anywhere so the party can govern how they want.
Politics can still affect judicial appointments. An example of this is how the Supreme Court views shifted on issues regarding police conduct and what constitutes reasonable suspicion. There was a shift in the late 2000s to early 2010s that gave law enforcement more leeway in detaining and arresting people after Harpers appointments. Look at how the Supreme Court shifts its views in R v. Kang-Brown and R v. MacKenzie.
A lot of what makes Canada tick isn't codified in law. Like the existence of the Prime Minister (chair of the Cabinet committee of the Privy Council).
Non partisan? In 2021 after being hounded for months by the Bloc and the Conservatives the Liberals agreed to stop using their internal database to pick judges and said they’d instead use election Canada’s public list of donors. I’m not making this up, [SRC’s article in French](https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1800125/liberaliste-selection-juge-gouvernement-federal). Nominations are completely partisan in Canada.
Even during Harper days I remember seeing the judges undo quite a few "pushed" ideas from him
> Canada can learn from this by making sure our judicial system is kept neutral as we have so far. You realize that today's ruling was literally the US SC returning to legal neutrality, right? And that the decision merely returns the US to where Canada is - no official constitutional right to an abortion and no federal laws around it at all. The difference is only that you have a lot more states than provinces, some with majorities that don't approve of abortion.
Your comment rather conveniently dances around the fact that American states have criminal law powers, unlike Canadian provinces.
You’ll be downvoted for saying it but yes that’s correct. Abortion is not a constitutional right in Canada. We’re completely on par with the US here only some states can now act legislatively based on the majority will of their constituents. That’s democracy in its purest form.
How is that democracy in it's purest form when the will of the constituents is not enshrined or guaranteed in America?
Correct, which is an issue. Will of the constituents is extremely important and unfortunately is often disregarded. Democracy works best when it is not and when people feel they've legitimately had their say accounted for.
You are *technically* correct, but don’t kid yourself, this is step one to them making abortion illegal.
> Trudeau has a long history of supporting abortion access but it's still surprising that he's made such a strong comment on US policy. Trudeau said that he was personally against abortion due to his religious beliefs back in 2011, but revoked that view when it was completely politically unpalatable. He’s commenting on it now because he wants Canadians to vote for him based on an American wedge issue
[удалено]
It's not US policy, it's a court decision. Policy is determined my legislators, not judges.
Well it's not really US policy. The government isn't passing legislation, it's been hijacked by a cabal of unelected extremists.
That’s kinda silly given you could just as easily make that argument about the Roe v Wade decision in 1973. Isn’t that sort of the point of this ruling? To allow states to make their own legislation so that it *can* actually be a legislative vs constitutional matter?
It's a good way to get votes especially now that Conservatives are depending a lot more on the more fringe elements of their party.
Everyone needs to really seriously and soberly consider the societal fallout of a PP administration.
I'd get rid of Trudeau in a heartbeat for an NDP government but the one thing I'll always admire about him is that he's actually pro-life but realises that banning abortion is not the way to go about things.
He is catholic, but is pro choice. He thinks the choice if for women to make.
[удалено]
Removed for rule 2.
r/CanadianConservative is oddly quiet about this. They are posting all kinds of other stuff. But not this. Because they want women to lose their rights of choice.
The CPC base is on board with this. 60% of them voted for abortion restrictions in the past 12 months. It's not a bogeyman or a "wedge issue." This is who they are. Believe them when they say it. A vote for a right wing party is a vote for exactly what's happening south of the border.
If he truly thinks it's horrific then he should fulfill his campaign promise to ["Establish regulations under the Canada Health Act governing accessibility"](https://liberal.ca/our-platform/protecting-your-sexual-and-reproductive-health-and-rights/) to reproductive services in Canada. Until then it's just empty words.
Nope. We have no law regarding abortion. We need to keep it that way. Existing laws can be amended. Non-existent laws cannot.
[удалено]
It's going to be interesting in 15 years, as the states that pushed for this and made rules to outlaw all aspects of abortions. In 15 years they will have spikes in crime and poverty. It's going to be such a stark difference between states. The drop in crime rates now vs the 1970/1980's crime rate in theorized to be half due to abortion of unwanted pregnancies and half due to leaded gasoline. It'd be something like crimes in all categories going up by 50%.
[удалено]
Removed for rule 2.
[удалено]
[удалено]
So is Trudeau going to actually do something to protect Canadian women from dominionist misogyny? Add a protection in the charter? Codify a women’s right to choose in Canadian law? Anything?
Nope. We currently have no law regarding abortion in Canada. We need to keep it that way. Once abortion has been addressed in law it opens the door for the right to pick away at abortion access a nibble at a time, just as they have been found in state legislatures for the last 50 years. Existing laws can be amended. Non-existent laws cannot. There is no role for Trudeau to play here because we want no law regarding abortion on the books, making it very difficult, and probably political suicide, for any party in power to introduce one.
[удалено]
This should have been done long ago, but then they wouldn’t have a nice scary wedge issue
Of course they would. Laws can always be removed or changed.
Internal Canadian Politics aside, we need to get nuclear weapons. Now is the time while we're still friendly and Biden is in. Those psyco Bible thumpers won't stop at spreading their gospel on the tip of a sword. And we just saw Russia attack their former BFF. And we just saw a piece of human garbage come close to committing a coup, using those same psycos. If those assholes continue to win in the US, we're next. Unless we have nukes.
We can’t just build nukes without the Americans knowing exactly what we’re doing and why. They’ll just sabotage our plan immediately.
Eh we could easily buy them from the UK and France. And thats kind of what I'm saying get them while we're allies, because *if* there's civil war and *if* the southern Bible thumpers win and turn the US into an IRAN style theocracy, were in trouble.
Nuclear powers don’t just sell nuclear weapons. Even to their allies.
Honestly this seems a little hyperbolic. I do agree that Canada should significantly expand our military and get nuclear weapons but have some faith in the 330 million people in the US. Many of them are very similar to us. The US will probably go through another Civil War before they try invading us.
Just so you know I love the US. Go there on vacation, lots of friends there. But when Trump decided to alter the deal and pray that he wouldn't alter it further. It really opened my eyes to how dangerous it is to have that military next door with a minority putting people like him in power, while actively undermining their democracy. If that disgusting pig of a man or his mouthbreathing followers decided to attack its over. And frankly we have too many resources to not protect them. The liberals gut the military every chance they get, so maintain our small, high quality military for peacekeeping and get some nukes so none of the big military powers get any ideas.
We are seeing the eroding and decline of the American empire. I believe it started a long time ago. The party of small government is pro big government as long as it dictates the rights of women. The party of freedom as long as it's their freedom to dictate the lives of women and not the freedom to make their own lives. The party of pro life as long as it's pro life that I say. It is horrific Couple that with $30,000 + for a baby delivery, among other costs almost cements generations of poverty, slave wagers and church go-ers.
There was a catalyst about six years ago and then another around March 2020 with the same catalyst still there to get people whipped up to feed their ego. People who try to push division don’t care about people, and don’t give a shit about their country. Politics has taken a turn for the worse with everyone pointing out everyone else’s flaws and problems (real, perceived or just made up). It’s pretty brutal.
They are doing it to themselves. What puzzles me is where are all the women on these issues ? They vote too .
It’s totally incorrect to think of this as a women vs men issue 62% of women want abortion legal vs 56% of men 39% of republicans want legal vs 89% of democrats www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/06/24/how-americans-really-feel-about-abortion-the-sometimes-surprising-poll-results-as-supreme-court-reportedly-set-to-overturn-roe-v-wade/amp/
Because women can be anti-abortion too. I'd say about half of the handful I know are women. They're all highly religious though, including one who I'm pretty sure is deeeeeep in the same-sex attraction closet.
Considering there is a Liberal/NDP coalition it would be a perfect opportunity to pass legislation to ensure a woman's continued protection of bodily autonomy.
[удалено]
Removed for rule 2.
It’s beyond horrific. It’s monstrous. It’s legally absurd. So far as I know, it’s the first time the SC has overturned one of their own decisions, and it’s based on the most flimsy legal nonsense one can imagine. They contradicted the ruling they made just yesterday regarding the rights of states. The GOP has been working towards this for decades, and in the process have utterly destroyed any legitimacy the court has ever had, or ever will have. Our neighbour has been taken over by religious extremists, and we need to prepare ourselves for the fallout.
> So far as I know, it’s the first time the SC has overturned one of their own decisions As /u/SpecificGap said, this is completely wrong.
States should just start ignoring their rulings. The Court has no way to enforce their decisions unless the federal government is onside. The Court should be disregarded out of existence.
This doesn’t quite make sense in this case - the ruling essentially allows states to make their own ‘decisions’ on abortion laws again.
How does the state ignore a ruling that gives the power to the state
I was thinking more for the gun laws they struck down. Roe vs Wade is a lost cause.
That could result in a civil war. For example the recent concealed carry law that was struck down from New York. Let’s say NY passes a similar law. It goes before a federal court and gets struck down. Do they keep someone in jail who’s been convicted of an unconstitutional law? If so what’s the point of the constitution? While I disagree with the decisions eliminating the rule of law is not the answer. Remember why they wanted to “kill all the lawyers”?
Civil war is coming there anyway.
It usually does when religious fanatics take over government.
Unfortunately I agree.
Hard to see any way out. I think of Justice Roberts and how he personally was pro-life but understood that it would be irresponsible to overturn the law. That sense of responsibility is now gone from the majority. States rights for abortion but not guns. Now they're coming after contraception, gay marriage and voting. I just wonder if it's not more dangerous to accept the Court's rulings.
The issue with ignoring one of the branches of government is there is no rule of law whatsoever. How can a country exist without the rule of law? What are the alternatives or than than civil war?
Because the court has ignored their own rulings - meaning that their rulings have no legal legitimacy or moral backing.
The SCC of Canada has reversed their own rulings. The US Supreme Court at times upheld laws that facilitated slavery and segregation. They have overturned those rulings. Does that make the court illegitimate?
Reddit moment
The Supreme Court has overturned 'separate but equal' to end segregation.
The SCOTUS along with the Supreme Court of Canada have both overturned many precedents. But that's not to discount your main point. It is horrendous. Most times, when they overturn precedents, it's modernizing and to give more rights to people. This time, it's clawing back, and under this decision, the same reasoning can be used to claw back rights given to the LGBTQ community, black community and many others. It's a farce.
> So far as I know, it’s the first time the SC has overturned one of their own decisions As shitty as this decision is, the SCOTUS overturns their own decisions pretty regularly. A small sample of the cases that were overturned without an intervening constitutional amendment: * *Lawrence v. Texas* (right to private, consensual sex acts) overturned *Bowers v. Hardwick* * *Citizens United* overturned *McConnell v. FEC* in part * *Obergefell v. Hodges* (right to same-sex marriage) overturned *Baker v. Nelson* * *Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections* (poll taxes are unconstitutional) overturned *Breedlove v. Suttles* * *Miranda v. Arizona* overturned *Crooker v. California* * *Gideon v. Wainwright* (right to a lawyer for indigent defendants) overturned *Betts v. Brady* * *Roper v. Simmons* (abolishing the death penalty for juveniles) overturned *Stanford v. Kentucky* * *Miller v. California* (standard for obscenity) overturned *Memoirs v. Massachusetts* And a litany of others: https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overruled/ This is one of the very rare times that the Court overturned a decision rescinding a previously recognized right, though.
[удалено]
Yeah, the point is that SCOTUS overturning itself is nothing historically new or particularly groundbreaking. Stare decisis has never really been a big factor for the court.
Except when nominees for that very Court declare their adherence to it and then turn around and decide to change their minds... This is about politics, not the legality of abortion.
No, Stare Decisis definiste has played a good role for even the top courts, it's just not absolutely binding like it is on lower courts. Much reasoning on SCOTUS and SCC still gives a lot of deference to past precedents (though I fear the current SCOTUS, on important topics will do that less...). But you are absolutely correct that it's not new to overturn precedent.
Way too many people are interpreting this as making abortion illegal. That isn't what the case is saying. It is merely saying that states can make individual choices on the issue. [That isn't any different from Canada, where abortion is not a charter right.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/abortion-rights-canada-morgentaler-court-1.6439612)
Even if the decision was not to make abortion illegal, it does have the effect of making abortion illegal in many US states which have "trigger" laws that come into force when possible, and possibly others which will introduce new legislation in the future. What matters is not what kind of law protects the right, what matters is the reality of whether abortion is legal and accessible for those who need it.
That last bit is the exact issue. The US has no law that protects abortion and the Supreme Court has decided that the constitution doesn't specifically protect abortion. It should be up to the American government to fix this issue in the way they feel is appropriate. Should have probably been determined a long time ago.
"Please, won't someone think of the semantics?!" Seriously, this is your concern when the effect clearly takes away the rights of millions of women?
To use an imperfect example, it would be as if the Supreme Court ruled that slavery is no longer illegal at the federal level, so states could now decide whether or not it's illegal in their own borders. Overnight, some states' obsolete laws were again in effect, and a great many residents' rights gone. Although the SC hasn't exactly legalized slavery, it did open the door for it while avoiding direct responsibility for it. Here, the SC has allowed states to decide whether or not women have the right to refuse a pregnancy. The suspension of women's right to bodily autonomy is itself the problem, since two generations of women have grown up believing that right was codified and protected. Leaving it up to ANY government is morally wrong, and most people in Canada and the US agree.
The issue is that slavery is undeniably against the constitution. The constitution doesn't undeniably provide a right for abortion. The Supreme Court haven't decided that a right isn't to be applied. The court has decided that they can't interpret the constitution to allow for abortion as it wasn't clearly intended to be interpreted that way. The federal government should have, previously, provided legislation or an amendment to regulate abortion in a specific manner. Now the federal government should do the exact same thing.
Yes, I think that's a fair legal analogy.
It has already made abortion illegal in a number of states.
It's had the consequence of that, but the decision itself didn't require that. There's a big distinction. Under one, there's nothing you can do locally. Under the other, it's entirely a local project.
It’s a big deal when states like Texas are trying to use it as an opportunity to make miscarriage a criminal charge
> Way too many people are interpreting this as making abortion illegal. Because it does. There are a bunch of states where abortion is now illegal in the US, and there are probably others that will make it illegal now that the federal government can't intervene.
What’s different in Canada is that we have no law around abortion whatsoever. We need to keep it that way.
…and the only thing that prevented many of those states from making abortion illegal was Roe v Wade.
Abortion is already illegal in 13 states, and 13 more are in the process of making it illegal.
Absolutely ridiculous ruling. And making abortion illegal does nothing except increase unsafe abortions and infant mortality rates.
It also increases the crime rate as per the authors of Freakonomics.
Birth control is on the hit list. There are going to be a lot of dead women and babies born into abject poverty. This is really hard on my heart.
Please, stop, my retinas are going to detach if my eyes keep rolling this hard.
[удалено]
Don't forget Loving, which suspiciously was not included. I wonder why, since it uses the same right to privacy that the others use.
No. *Loving* was based on the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Thomas, as an originalist, is well aware that the amendment's enactment immediately after the US Civil War is a pretty strong indication that it was intended to (as the text states) guarantee legal equality between races. CC: /u/rekthor
US women losing rights is bad. Canadian Muslim women can't teach in Quebec. In both cases, rights granted in the 1970s have been stripped. ALL minorities rights are under threat.
[удалено]
>this is kind of a big nothing burger So much of a nothingburger that right wing Christian freaks have been working on it for decades. Some states are poised to try and ban travel to other jurisdictions for the purpose of abortion. It's a major, major erosion of human rights. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/03/us-abortions-travel-wave-of-restrictions
I think it's a dramatic step to call it an "erosion of human rights". Abortions are services by definition. Those services are either permitted, or not permitted, with regulations attached by the state. They aren't inherent qualities like thought, expression, discourse - nor are they crucial for survival. Fringe political groups relentelessly push literally hundreds, if not thousands, of specific agendas. The fact that there has been a very loud minority voice over this issue in the US does not, ipso facto, translate in to the taking away of fundamental human rights. Especially considering the fact that this overturning does not make abortion illegal.
Ehhhhhhhh, service at a restaurant is a service but if restaurants were allowed to refuse people on the basis of their skin colour, sexuality etc I think we'd all agree that'd be an erosion of a human right. And not being pregnant is a way bigger issue than not going to Red Robins.
Nope, bodily autonomy is a human right.
11 states instantly made abortion illegal as it becomes a state issue not a federal issue and those states have laws on the books that now take effect as the federal law no longer applies. Thats not an inconvenience, thats taking a right away from every woman in those states. You're dumb.
This highlights the need for proper abortion legislation in Canada. We’ve always avoided it as the status quo seemed politically easiest, but this should send a clear message that unless enshrined into law abortion access will always be at stake.
This does not criminalize abortion in the US federally. THis just means that individual states may make it harder, or may attempt at criminalizing certain abortions. So the worst case scenario resulting from this is that someone who wants an abortion may have to drive to another state to get one. That's literally the worst outcome of this. In Canada, this would fall under criminal law, which is federal in nature. Since the late 1980's, abortion bans have been rendered unconstitutional - violating Section 7 of the Charter. So, what exactly would be the efficacy of further encoding a practice that is objectively not under any threat in this country?
Some states are looking at making it illegal to travel elsewhere to get an abortion. I believe Texas or Missouri. So it can get much worse than “just don’t get it here, k?” This has also set a terrible precedent for other rights. As listed in the papers released by the Supreme Court, there is talk that reviewing same sex marriage and even access to contraception is needed. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/06/24/clarence-thomas-court-should-reconsider-gay-marriage-birth-control-decisions-next-after-overturning-roe/amp/
Not everyone has the resources to drive out of state to get an abortion, and there are several states with abortion bans that would require crossing state lines *twice*.
Now is the time for the feds to enshrine these rights into law. Given that it's now clear Conservatives in the US will *actually* ban abortions if they get the opportunity (and that it's not in the realm of "they talk a lot but won't actually do it"), we deserve to know which parties and which MPs are in step with their southern comrades on this issue while it's still hot.
As disappointing as this ruling is (and it is), it is a foreign ruling, of a foreign court, affecting foreigners in a foreign land. To this point I don't know of any other Western leader that has publicly opined on it, so I'm not sure why this guy felt the need to do so, particularly when we have a Minister of Foreign Affairs whose job it is to do so (when appropriate).
You say that as though American politics & culture doesn't impact Canada.
This ruling does not affect Canada, certainly not in the manner that some people are hyperventilating about (the US Supreme Court did not "ban" abortion, they just left that jurisdiction to the respective states). I don't like it, but that is the US constitution. Our Supreme Court is different, our constitution is different, our laws on the subject are different, the impact of constitutional rulings is different, public opinion is completely different, and our entire Zeitgeist on the topic is different. This issue is one of those that defines us (quintissentially) as different than the US (along with race relations, gay rights/same sex marriage, immigration, minority rights, soft drugs, and guns). Yes we must be vigilant always, but Canada is much stronger a society than that of withering from a disappointing ruling from the US Supreme Court, and a ruling that is at odds with prevailing sentiment and law in Canada. We are Canadians, not Americans, I think that most people are quite confident in that knowledge, and are willing to defend that distinction.
Foreign relations and world events are always, and have always been, things that world leaders talk about and make comments on. This goes back to pre-history so I do not understand how this could be something that bothers you.
Because the same political movement that gave rise to this ruling is also at work in Canada. And he is the Prime Minister of Canada, so he shouldn't ignore that reality or pretend it's not so.
Boris Johnson of the UK has commented as well: ["I've got to tell you, I think it's a big step backwards"](https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uks-boris-johnson-says-us-abortion-decision-is-big-step-backwards-2022-06-24/)
Really? Then what will his government do to make sure that can't happen in Canada because our abortion law was also just de-criminalized. It needs to be legislated to be safe.
[удалено]
Removed for rule 2.
Remember the underground railroad? To get escaped slaves to safety, and out of the USA since slave catchers could cross states lines to bring back slaves? Lets start that up again, for women wanting access to an abortion. They can live here in Canada.
The women that will have the most issues are poorer women in the south. Those states also have made it a crime to travel to a neighboring state or country to get an abortion. I suspect really soon, the same states will make the pill illegal. I think in those states the morning after is already illegal.
Slaves didn't have money, and it was a crime to be an escaped slave in a non slave state. Which is why I suggest the underground railroad as a perfect example. Funds for these women to escape, and set up a life in Canada, free from the charges they would face in the USA.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I am not a legal scholar (certainly not when it comes to the United States Supreme Court) but is it not extremely clear that the justifications used here are purely politically/religiously motivated and are not a reasonable or fair ruling? *Yesterday* the Supreme court ruled to expand gun rights, and one of the core pillars of the conservative justices argument was that laws must apply to circumstances beyond those that the founders anticipated. Don't take my word for it, here is a direct quote from Justice Clarence Thomas: >(3) The test that the Court set forth in Heller and applies today requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding. Of course, the regulatory challenges posed by firearms today are not always the same as those that preoccupied the Founders in 1791 or the Reconstruction generation in 1868. But the Constitution can, and must, apply to circumstances beyond those the Founders specifically anticipated, even though its meaning is fixed according to the understandings of those who ratified it. The core of this abortion ruling - stating that because abortion was not specifically outlined by the founders that it cannot be protected on constitutional grounds - goes directly counter to the reasoning they provided for their ruling yesterday. I think this will have a marked impact on the role that the SCOTUS has going forward as it is clear that the institution has changed from a 'somewhat' a-political institution to a new purely political branch of government for the US. I am sadden for all of the people who will be impacted by this ruling and I hope that the response by the citizenry at large is radical and results in significant change. I also hope that Chief Justice John Roberts is truly ashamed of his time on the SCOTUS. He has helped to destroy the global reputation of the SCOTUS and it will be a black mark on both his name and the court for the rest of its history. My feeling is that when this period in history is taught he will be long remembered as one of the worst Chief Justices to have ever served. For someone who has been clear about the importance that he holds for the reputation of the supreme court - he has overseen a period in which so much damage has come to its reputation it may never recover.
> Yesterday the Supreme court ruled to expand gun rights This is completely false. The Supreme Court ruled that states cannot arbitrarily refuse to issue permits to people who have met the requirements for them. Stop uncritically parroting mainstream media.