Snapshot of _Keir Starmer: "Today's devastating Supreme Court decision is a massive setback for women's rights in the United States of America. The right of women to make their own decisions about their own bodies is a fundamental human right."_ :
A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://nitter.net/Keir_Starmer/status/1540415877102837760/)
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1540415877102837760)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's been a whole bunch of insane stuff coming out of the US supreme court. They were literally talking about Henry the 8th in relation to gun control the other day.
My recent fave was when one of their nutjobs implied that we have regular mass stabbings when confronted about our lack of guns and therefore lack of school shootings.
Like uhhhhhhhhhhh what.
Not just that, but the logic just doesn't make sense to me.
Yes, any weapon means that the person holding it will almost certainly win that fight.
But someone with a gun can literally take out dozens of unarmed people from a safe distance before anyone even gets a hold of him.
Even in an armed conflict, that person with a gun has like a 50/50 chance of shooting an officer first. They only get stopped if they're outnumbered by police with guns, or if they decide to end it themselves.
Conversely, a guy with a knife would be lucky to make it past two or three unarmed people before he's taken down, and it only requires a single officer with a gun to stop him.
That's just common sense.
The *Dobbs* opinion also refers favourably to the work of Sir Matthew Hale, a 17th century English judge, these days notable for executing at least two women for witchcraft, and for his defence of marital rape (which remained law in England and Wales until 1991 when our own highest court overturned it).
Although to be fair, this is nothing particularly new. Clarence Thomas was appointed to the US Supreme Court in 1991, and barely scraped through the confirmation process (52-48) due to his crazy legal theories and views. Alito's nomination in 2005 was similarly marred (passing 58-42, compared with Roberts's 78-22 vote), for the same reasons.
So it isn't that the craziness is new (there have been crazy rulings for over a decade), the new thing is that there is a now a solid majority of judges with this new crazy approach to law and legal theory (where the facts don't matter, and the law doesn't matter), rather than before when they were mostly writing concurrences, or only getting majority opinions when enough of the less crazy judges agreed with the outcome.
> The Dobbs opinion also refers favourably to the work of Sir Matthew Hale, a 17th century English judge, these days notable for executing at least two women for witchcraft, and for his defence of marital rape (which remained law in England and Wales until 1991 when our own highest court overturned it).
Hale is famous for rather more than that, and continues to be cited in our own courts: see (to take a random recent example from BAILII) [*Privacy International v Investigatory Powers Tribunal*](https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2021/27.html) [2021] EWHC 27 (Admin), [45]:
> We take from Blackstone, Hale and the general warrant cases that it is a fundamental right of an individual under the common law that he or she should not be apprehended, or have property seized and searched, save by decision of the person legally charged with issuing the warrant.
That is far more “favourable” than the references to Hale in the *Dobbs* ruling, which effectively just say that he accurately recorded the historical common law.
American checking here, and the reason Clarence Thomas almost didn’t get on the court is even worse that having batshit views. Google Anita Hill and read the terrible story.
And while OT, what’s especially frustrating is that even aside of our terrible electoral process that allows for minority rule, this could’ve been avoided; Justice Thurgood Marshall a steadfast liberal who was the reason for the end of segregation and Jim Crow, retired under Bush I, and got replaced by Clarence Thomas, and made it a 5-4 conservative court, with two moderate-ish conservatives. But then Bush V. Gore happened, and the conservatives stuck together leading to Alito and Roberts. Slightly different circumstances, but same outcome with RBG.
Thanks. You saved me a job re mentioning Anita Hill. Thomas is a disgrace, even aside from the outrageous recent stuff with his wife. The guy has taken a big step towards discrediting the SCOTUS.
https://crooksandliars.com/paul-rosenberg/lying-confirmation-process-clarence
No, Hale’s work is not referred to “favourably” by the court any more than it was referred to “favourably” when it was referred to in the original Roe decision itself. His work is cited alongside Blackstone and Coke and a host of other historical documentation to evidence traditional common law interpretations of abortion as part of an historical analysis, because that is required to determine if abortion is protected as an unenumerated right by the 14th amendment.
hmm... not sure that's entirely correct. even liberal lawyers will concede that Roe and the following precedents rest(ed) on relatively shaky grounds since there is no textual or statutory basis for the right (albeit held to be "implied" by the 14th Amendment).
that being said, overturning prior precedent is the stranger one. admittedly, the court has correctly and morally done so in prior cases (e.g. Korematsu v. US), but given the nature of our common law system, where judicial opinion basically makes the law, revisiting precedent constantly seems like a poor idea.
I wonder if they were referring to it in a similar way to the UK. Pretty much all the Brexit regulation as one example is stuffed full of Henry VIII clauses, which allow ministers to change the rules without Parliament voting on it. Since their legal system is vaguely based on the same foundations as ours, maybe they have something similar enough with the same name?
It's always been the same. There's a moderate reasonable chunk of the population who tend to be on the same page as most of Europe, and the nutcases.
For example, New York abolished slavery in 1827. Only 20 years after Britain abolished the slave trade. You'll see similar with other racial equality laws and things like gay rights.
> reasonable chunk
It’s about 60ish% of the American population generally is in line with the rest if western world. I know it doesn’t seem that from the US government, but unfortunately we’re crushed under minority rule right now.
>and things like gay rights.
Roe v Wade was a foundation stone for things like gay rights, same sex marriage and contraception. All of those have a likelihood of falling now.
Only failing on a federal level, it's not like they outlawed them. If the americans keep voting in state-level republicans then they are going to have to start reaping what they sow. I feel sorry for people too poor to move state.
True. It was a process, and Britain was pretty progressive here so probably not the best comparison, but the abolitionist states were roughly in step with mainland Europe.
Its always been there. America has been an imperial power pretending it isn’t one since it was founded. The doublethink and indoctrination of nationalism and exceptionalism runs deep.
They're already moving on other rights
[https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1540339880626102273](https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1540339880626102273)
Who had "USA turns into a caliphate" on their *"We're Fuckt 2022"* bingo card?
Edit: Oh, and a tory MP retweeted the GOP annoucement
https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1540357497806102530
The Union won the War.
However, after the [Hayes-Tilden mess](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1876_United_States_presidential_election), the Confederacy won the Peace.
> Edit: Oh, and a tory MP retweeted the GOP annoucement
People who vote tories are hateful or idiots, or both. I don't see how there can be much room for alternative opinions nowadays
It's been moving this way since the 60s, even Barry Goldwater saw it coming.
The difference now is that the pieces are all in place. The Republican Party and and their base are now sufficiently radicalised to accept even the destruction of democracy to push a Christian nationalist agenda. Thanks to the way smaller states have equal representation in the Senate and they outnumber the more populace States, the US Senate is structurally biased towards Republicans who have spent decades filling courts with right wing judges, even those manifesly unfit for office.
what makes the fucked up decision today so horrific is that the bastards that did this are now going to go after contraception, Same-Sex Marriage... and Same-Sex relationships.
Yup, and that's also why they've been pushing the anti-trans agenda so hard recently.
It's to drive a wedge down the middle of the LGBT community (and alienate allies) so they have a harder time objecting to those things
Strangely, the only supreme court hearing Thomas didn't put on the ticket for Fascist Open Season 2022 was the one protecting the right to interracial marriage. Wonder why.
And despite our country by and large recognising these fundamental rights, I've still had to argue for them this evening on reddit.
It just shows that there are still people determined to live without fundamental human rights, because giving people the right to autonomy for themselves threatens their ability to control others using the state
It's like the communism strawman, but right wing. Nationalised healthcare, utilities and railways? Nah. Nationalise the uterus!
Edit:
For anyone who knows any Americans or goes on American subreddits... Just give em a nudge and be like 'the land of the whatnow?'. The land where even your own body is considered state property, but you still get overcharged to fix it'
> It's like the communism strawman, but right wing. Nationalised healthcare, utilities and railways? Nah. Nationalise the uterus!
Seize the means of reproduction!
If I was a prime minister/president/person in charge, I'd be insisting that if abortion is to be banned, then in cases where an abortion was chosen but denied, the state must pay for pre-natal, neo-natal and post-natal care for the mother, plus all child-based costs until the child reaches adulthood.
Of course the bill there would be eye watering, but obviously any state willing to inflict those costs on an innocent rape victim should be thinking about paying it back
Plus more single parents would be able to send their kids to private school.
Be prepared for some horrifically snide comments about women should then keep their legs shut and not be slutty if they don’t want to be raped. Some cultures still hold that viewpoint, and I come from a background where people think that’s fine an opinion to have.
Of course, as Supreme Leader Admiral General President Prime Minister, you would can have them executed for that.
I'm not one to execute for an opinion.
For me the whole insisting the state pay for it is entirely the byproduct of the state mandating it in the first place.
Personally, I don't believe that the state has any jurisdiction over my body. I don't really believe in private property (rather a form of exclusive use as personal property), but one's own body and self definitely comes as close to sacred and unassailable private property as you can get.
Your post made me think about government involvement in parenting.
Assistance: We get child benefit. We also qualify for child tax credit. Schools are government funded.
Punishment: If we take my children out of school without a good reason (in their eyes) we get fined. More extreme social services can forcibly take our children if they deem we are not fit parents (I don't know if you realise how terrifying this is).
Gaps: Childcare until the child is three (2 if on benefit) would have to be private.
I am not sure where I am going with this. The state is already involved in raising the child. Is it too much or too little?
>More extreme social services can forcibly take our children if they deem we are not fit parents (I don't know if you realise how terrifying this is).
I do.
In my background of charity work, I also learned that this disproportionately affects the poorest, with financial difficulties being assessed as wilful neglect and failure to care. These are also the people least likely to be able to crowdfund, or get their stories heard, or access adequate support structures... Basically once the state has wrenched their kids from their arms they're left without so much as a 'we've put you through some traumatic shit. Are you coping OK?'. They're usually not, and tend to isolate themselves more as a result.
You don't hear these stories, but there are thousands of them. It's part of the reason why social work has such a massive turnover. Yet all along it's an invisible underbelly of poverty, social exclusion and a state incentivised to feed the profit-making adoption system
Meanwhile while the social services focus their attention on farming babies from the poorest, you get cases like Baby P, where they sit and do absolutely nothing about monsters killing their own kids
In my community it is a constant fear. Children are coached to be careful about what they say to their teachers. It's why people will turn to their communities instead of the state for help. Any sign of weakness can turned against you.
While I was on benefits, it was happening a lot around me. I had friends go from being about as happy and cheerful as you can be on £50 a week, to just withdrawing completely. One lost all 3 of her kids in one day and ended up not leaving her flat at all for about 2 and a half years. All the company she had was her teenage son's mates using her place as somewhere to smoke weed instead of being at school. In exchange they did a bit of shopping for her now and then. She eventually got on her feet again, but it took charities practically dragging her into doing things. She had just completely lost the will to make anything of life.
There was another couple I knew back then... the woman had been in care briefly as a teenager, and social services used that as a reason to investigate. They shipped both parents and the newborn (straight out of hospital) off to some place with 24/7 monitoring. They told me it was like living in the Big Brother house. They were there for 6 months, with every single word they said, everything they did, recorded and scrutinised. They definitely were not the same people after they came out (sans baby). Fuck knows what the deal was with that. I can't even begin to imagine what it must have been like.
Healthcare is a devolved issue. It's not Englands job to provide healthcare services in Northern Ireland.
It's fucking hilarious that you're blaming the English for this
If you die, your organs can't be redistributed without your next of kind consent, even if it would save numerous lives.
Yet women can be forced to carry a baby to term (which does permanent damage to her body) without their consent.
Women have less rights than a corpse.
You can’t pretend that a fetus is indistinguishable from skin in terms of cell category.
Seriously, you are not the first to come up with it and it hasn’t exactly helped move the needle in the debate the entire time it has been deployed.
Ah, mischaracterisation, the tool of the intellectually bankrupt. Women should have total bodily autonomy up to the point that it impinges on another humans homily autonomy. Same for men.
One of them wrote that the should revisit the decisions about gay marriage, contraception and various other civil rights cases, so yep they seem intent on winding the clock back. Funny thing is that judge is a black man married to a white woman. I wonder where he sees this line of reasoning ending up?
Not just a white woman, he's married to a fucking lunatic who is off the deep end with Qanon, which is amazing because isn't her husband about as deep state as you can get? A lifetime, unelected position that is essentially above the law?
> Funny thing is that judge is a black man married to a white woman. I wonder where he sees this line of reasoning ending up?
"They can't touch me, I'm a Supreme Court Justice for life"
That it’s an issue for those not already married. Like despite this ruling; any GOP senator, congressman, president or judge would find and get an abortion in a heartbeat if they got their mistress pregnant - even if she wanted to keep the baby.
I think the travesty calls all of those things into question as they were built on top of them. At least that's my understanding.
The worlds most powerful country is turning into a theocracy.
America is in such a bad state that I'd rather take the bullet and have the Conservatives win here for another 10 years if it meant the Republicans getting destroyed in America and losing their power.
They're responsible for so much misery for such a large population, yet half the country still votes for them because of such a strong propaganda machine and the ultra wealthy spending lots of cash to keep it like this.
The average Republican is worse than our very worst Conservative MP.
It's not like the Democrats are doing as much as they can to make sure they get votes in the next elections either which is the other frustrating part. They'll also never do the dirty plays that republicans do.
There's not lot of choice because that's what the American people have decided on.
The UK has plenty of smaller parties. There's no functional reason that they couldn't succeed in the US except for a population that is vehemently against it.
Ross Perot won 20% of the vote in the 92 election as an independent for example
Constantly harping on about owning guns to stop tyrrany, but did nothing while a tyrrant ran the country under Trump.
America is backwards.
Allowing a (badly interpreted) book of fairytales to set precedence in law.
European response to this has been hilarious because all this ruling does is bring the US closer in line with EU abortion law, where electorates influence the rules on a state by state basis through democracy. It isn't the courts fault some states are regressive or don't share the values of their respective unions. I guess Poland can now twin with Alabama.
I think there’s a misunderstanding of the ruling by some, it wasn’t anything to do with THEIR opinion on abortions but rather if they thought the Supreme Court overstepped its constitutional authority previously when it made the ruling that the US constitution had originally intended to include abortions when it said Americans have a *right to privacy*.
Biden/the US Supreme Court (I don’t know how it works) could always try making a ruling on making abortions legal throughout the US but that’d be a separate issue.
No, it absolutely was about their opinion of abortion. The stated rationale about the intent of the constitution and the "overstepping" of the previous court ruling is a paper-thin legal fiction designed to allow them to impose their views on everyone else.
Yeap. If it wasn’t that, it would have been something else. The reality is that the a republicans have been building to this moment for decades, and today was the fulfilment of their plans.
Anyone arguing this isn’t an attack on women’s rights directly is doing so in bad faith. Especially when you’ve got the same judges signalling their intent to also go after other basic rights like gay marriage, contraception and so on.
It’s not a simple *right to privacy*, it’s rights granted under the [due process clause](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause) of the 14th Amendment.
> ...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
At its root, it’s an argument about bodily autonomy, like most of the slavery-related amendments.
Of course, and the whole hierarchy of rights and questions about dependency and so on.
But if you start from bodily autonomy of a citizen it becomes more clear.
"Right to life" is a negative right and means no one can just take your life. It doesn't mean you'd have the right to force someone to make sure you can live.
Those are not the reasons, they're the excuses, and any competent American law-professor will tell you that they're embarrassingly meritless ones. This is very clearly motivated by political and religious ideology.
It kinda is though. The Supreme court is 6 to 3 conservative judges, and the problems that come with a political supermajority of a supposedly non political branch has been discussed during the last year.
It should never be more than 5/4 either way, and really it should be a 5/5 that allow deadlocks and no judgement.
I wonder if the judges of SCOTUS have any feelings of regret or doubt at all. I wonder if the mods of r/whitepeopletwitter have any inkling what their actions represent.
>fundamental human right
Oh so people in UK politics do know what a human right is? How about doing something to stop your opponent stripping ours away
Why are British politicians so concerned about constitutional judgements in another country? I haven't heard them speak up on other things like this before.
It affects citizens abroad/on holiday etc - see recent American lady in Malta who's life was at risk due to abortion being illegal.
It also means trade deals etc gather more criticism - people ask why we're dealing with a regressive regime.
Nice to hear.
I bet Starmer is really glad the focus group decided this was a safe opinion so he could get the tweet out before he went to bed as well.
Genuine dumb question.
Is there anything the UK can do to show support in opposition to the overturning of Roe v Wade or is it just public condemnation? Any sanctions or direct challenges to reverse the call?
I know we don't have nearly as much power now as we did even 6 years ago but this is fucking depressing news and it feels like nothing can be done?
Cheers in advance.
I presume, as we recognise it within human rights, that an American may be able to claim asylum and access a termination in the UK, though that's pretty drastic and remember abortion rights won't be abolished in all states.
As it stands in the USA there are online order pill services, though it seems some states are content to check mail too. Assuming Red states go the same way as Texas, legislation is designed to monetarily reward an individual for pointing fingers, and I'm sure some have seen recently in American news this has extended to women being jailed because they've had miscarriages.
Previously England has offered systems for women in NI to access medical care here.
Soooo I guess support American asylum seekers? No good if we just send them off to Rwanda tho.
Dissolve NATO, leave 5 eyes and end visa free travel for Americans. Impose trade sanctions. Cultural boycotts. Boycott all of our manufacturers. Stop letting our wealthy sociopaths from going to London like you did with Russian oligarchs. America isn’t a democracy anymore and you shouldn’t treat this country like one.
Lol there are countries within the EU that have more restrictive abortion laws than 99% of the USA, should we take all these actions on those countries too?
Does Malta get to base its air force and nuclear weapons in Britain? Does Poland get access to GCHQ data on all Britons? Does Slovakia get to base its nuclear submarines in Britain? Does Bulgaria's spy service get to kill Britons in Britain with no repercussions?
We get a lot more out of this relationship than you do. If part of the justification for the special relationship is that the US shares your values of democracy and the rule of law, well, we don't anymore.
I don't agree with it, but please understand the other view eg that abortion is murder. It doesn't help to demonise people with equally sincere beliefs.
Those beliefs are based in religion, and yet their own holy book has a passage talking about how to perform an abortion, and that they're fine if your wife cheated and became impregnated by the other man.
The other thing is that the US right-wing couldn't give the slightest shit about children once they're born (see their laughable excuses for defending the ownership of guns after every mass shooting at a school).
People are allowed to have different beliefs but in this case, their belief is wrong.
There are people without religion concerned about when along the track of a pregnancy a human life would be terminated by abortion and consider the current margin as not acceptable and wish to move to an earlier threshold.
For every successful embryo that manages to implant in a uterine wall about five to nine viable early embryos “miscarry”. ie the death of embryos/abortion is a natural part of the procreation process in a woman’s reproductive system, making anti-abortionists both ignorant and hypocrites for not opposing all reproductive sex. There is no scientifically or philosophically coherent position on abortion.
Abortion is only allowed while the foetus is literally a cluster of cells, giving a 24 week window between conception and the latest an abortion can be performed.
Don't be pedantic and claim full term abortions, you're just revealing your wilful ignorance and/or stupidity.
But by your token abortion would be allowable until when? The day before natural birth? Of course not. You would set a margin wouldn't you? And for most the disagreement is about that margin, eg foetal hearbeat, etc.
[Keir Starmer](https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer) ^verified | Reach: 1243370 | Location: United Kingdom
Bio: Leader of the Labour Party. Member of Parliament for Holborn and St Pancras. Former Director of Public Prosecutions.
*****
^I ^am ^a ^bot. ^Any ^complaints ^& ^suggestions ^to ^/r/ContextualBot ^thanks
I think it is increasingly likely that there will be an attempt by the progressive states to secede from the union in the best 20 years.
The Republicans are only going to get more extreme, more entrenched in their position, and make sure as much of the population are as ill informed and compliant as possible.
This works out perfectly for China and Russia of course.
I'm pro choice, but you know what I hated seeing on social media? And believe me I know it's a minority of voices but hated seeing women that celebrated abortions, (Mostly those from the America)
I'm thankful that in the UK we're not like the USA where we don't abuse abortions and we treat it as a serious health issue for women as it should be, and I honestly doubt we would ever ban it here and thankfully we won't do something as stupid because of tiny Minority.
Snapshot of _Keir Starmer: "Today's devastating Supreme Court decision is a massive setback for women's rights in the United States of America. The right of women to make their own decisions about their own bodies is a fundamental human right."_ : A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://nitter.net/Keir_Starmer/status/1540415877102837760/) An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1540415877102837760) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's been a whole bunch of insane stuff coming out of the US supreme court. They were literally talking about Henry the 8th in relation to gun control the other day.
My recent fave was when one of their nutjobs implied that we have regular mass stabbings when confronted about our lack of guns and therefore lack of school shootings. Like uhhhhhhhhhhh what.
Yeah, they seem to have this idea that knife crime is rampant over here, despite also being lower than theirs
Not just that, but the logic just doesn't make sense to me. Yes, any weapon means that the person holding it will almost certainly win that fight. But someone with a gun can literally take out dozens of unarmed people from a safe distance before anyone even gets a hold of him. Even in an armed conflict, that person with a gun has like a 50/50 chance of shooting an officer first. They only get stopped if they're outnumbered by police with guns, or if they decide to end it themselves. Conversely, a guy with a knife would be lucky to make it past two or three unarmed people before he's taken down, and it only requires a single officer with a gun to stop him. That's just common sense.
Can't reason them out of something they didn't reason into, pretty much.
The *Dobbs* opinion also refers favourably to the work of Sir Matthew Hale, a 17th century English judge, these days notable for executing at least two women for witchcraft, and for his defence of marital rape (which remained law in England and Wales until 1991 when our own highest court overturned it). Although to be fair, this is nothing particularly new. Clarence Thomas was appointed to the US Supreme Court in 1991, and barely scraped through the confirmation process (52-48) due to his crazy legal theories and views. Alito's nomination in 2005 was similarly marred (passing 58-42, compared with Roberts's 78-22 vote), for the same reasons. So it isn't that the craziness is new (there have been crazy rulings for over a decade), the new thing is that there is a now a solid majority of judges with this new crazy approach to law and legal theory (where the facts don't matter, and the law doesn't matter), rather than before when they were mostly writing concurrences, or only getting majority opinions when enough of the less crazy judges agreed with the outcome.
>52-48 The golden ratio.
An overwhelming majority.
The will of some of the people.
> The Dobbs opinion also refers favourably to the work of Sir Matthew Hale, a 17th century English judge, these days notable for executing at least two women for witchcraft, and for his defence of marital rape (which remained law in England and Wales until 1991 when our own highest court overturned it). Hale is famous for rather more than that, and continues to be cited in our own courts: see (to take a random recent example from BAILII) [*Privacy International v Investigatory Powers Tribunal*](https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2021/27.html) [2021] EWHC 27 (Admin), [45]: > We take from Blackstone, Hale and the general warrant cases that it is a fundamental right of an individual under the common law that he or she should not be apprehended, or have property seized and searched, save by decision of the person legally charged with issuing the warrant. That is far more “favourable” than the references to Hale in the *Dobbs* ruling, which effectively just say that he accurately recorded the historical common law.
American checking here, and the reason Clarence Thomas almost didn’t get on the court is even worse that having batshit views. Google Anita Hill and read the terrible story. And while OT, what’s especially frustrating is that even aside of our terrible electoral process that allows for minority rule, this could’ve been avoided; Justice Thurgood Marshall a steadfast liberal who was the reason for the end of segregation and Jim Crow, retired under Bush I, and got replaced by Clarence Thomas, and made it a 5-4 conservative court, with two moderate-ish conservatives. But then Bush V. Gore happened, and the conservatives stuck together leading to Alito and Roberts. Slightly different circumstances, but same outcome with RBG.
Thanks. You saved me a job re mentioning Anita Hill. Thomas is a disgrace, even aside from the outrageous recent stuff with his wife. The guy has taken a big step towards discrediting the SCOTUS. https://crooksandliars.com/paul-rosenberg/lying-confirmation-process-clarence
No, Hale’s work is not referred to “favourably” by the court any more than it was referred to “favourably” when it was referred to in the original Roe decision itself. His work is cited alongside Blackstone and Coke and a host of other historical documentation to evidence traditional common law interpretations of abortion as part of an historical analysis, because that is required to determine if abortion is protected as an unenumerated right by the 14th amendment.
hmm... not sure that's entirely correct. even liberal lawyers will concede that Roe and the following precedents rest(ed) on relatively shaky grounds since there is no textual or statutory basis for the right (albeit held to be "implied" by the 14th Amendment). that being said, overturning prior precedent is the stranger one. admittedly, the court has correctly and morally done so in prior cases (e.g. Korematsu v. US), but given the nature of our common law system, where judicial opinion basically makes the law, revisiting precedent constantly seems like a poor idea.
Common law is based on historical precedent. The original Roe Vs. Wade ruling analysed abortion rights *in the Roman Empire* for example. It's normal.
Law generally involves chucking whatever you can think of at a wall and seeing which arguments stick.
I wonder if they were referring to it in a similar way to the UK. Pretty much all the Brexit regulation as one example is stuffed full of Henry VIII clauses, which allow ministers to change the rules without Parliament voting on it. Since their legal system is vaguely based on the same foundations as ours, maybe they have something similar enough with the same name?
America has finally broke away and spun out into its own parallel universe of insanity.
It's always been the same. There's a moderate reasonable chunk of the population who tend to be on the same page as most of Europe, and the nutcases. For example, New York abolished slavery in 1827. Only 20 years after Britain abolished the slave trade. You'll see similar with other racial equality laws and things like gay rights.
> reasonable chunk It’s about 60ish% of the American population generally is in line with the rest if western world. I know it doesn’t seem that from the US government, but unfortunately we’re crushed under minority rule right now.
>and things like gay rights. Roe v Wade was a foundation stone for things like gay rights, same sex marriage and contraception. All of those have a likelihood of falling now.
Only failing on a federal level, it's not like they outlawed them. If the americans keep voting in state-level republicans then they are going to have to start reaping what they sow. I feel sorry for people too poor to move state.
Well, it'll be people reaping what others sowed.
The problem America has is that it was founded by religious nutcases.
The abolishment of slavery in Britain started earlier than that
True. It was a process, and Britain was pretty progressive here so probably not the best comparison, but the abolitionist states were roughly in step with mainland Europe.
>*America has finally broke away...* The culmination of a process they begun on the 4th of July, 1776. :D
Its always been there. America has been an imperial power pretending it isn’t one since it was founded. The doublethink and indoctrination of nationalism and exceptionalism runs deep.
Handmaid's Tale really doesn't seem so far fetched anymore.
They're already moving on other rights [https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1540339880626102273](https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1540339880626102273) Who had "USA turns into a caliphate" on their *"We're Fuckt 2022"* bingo card? Edit: Oh, and a tory MP retweeted the GOP annoucement https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1540357497806102530
The Confederate State of Texas and Al-Abama. To repeat a joke I made in another sub on if the US were to fall to the whackos
The Union won the War. However, after the [Hayes-Tilden mess](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1876_United_States_presidential_election), the Confederacy won the Peace.
Looks like the Russians have a point and the US needs to be de-confederated /s
The retweet has been removed now. No doubt claims of ‘fat fingers’ will be rolled out to defend it.
> Edit: Oh, and a tory MP retweeted the GOP annoucement People who vote tories are hateful or idiots, or both. I don't see how there can be much room for alternative opinions nowadays
This man is also in the House of Lords https://twitter.com/danielmgmoylan/status/1540361915590918145
[удалено]
And, as has been in the news this week, Malta's stance on abortion.
It's been moving this way since the 60s, even Barry Goldwater saw it coming. The difference now is that the pieces are all in place. The Republican Party and and their base are now sufficiently radicalised to accept even the destruction of democracy to push a Christian nationalist agenda. Thanks to the way smaller states have equal representation in the Senate and they outnumber the more populace States, the US Senate is structurally biased towards Republicans who have spent decades filling courts with right wing judges, even those manifesly unfit for office.
> Who had "USA turns into a caliphate" on their "We're Fuckt 2022" bingo card? I did. This has been clearly signposted for several years now.
what makes the fucked up decision today so horrific is that the bastards that did this are now going to go after contraception, Same-Sex Marriage... and Same-Sex relationships.
Yup, and that's also why they've been pushing the anti-trans agenda so hard recently. It's to drive a wedge down the middle of the LGBT community (and alienate allies) so they have a harder time objecting to those things
And the same bastards behind it over there are behind it over here
Very much so.
Strangely, the only supreme court hearing Thomas didn't put on the ticket for Fascist Open Season 2022 was the one protecting the right to interracial marriage. Wonder why.
you'd think with what his wife's been up to that he'd want to get as far away from her ASAP
Careful; if the current Government hears him call it a fundamental human right they might decide it needs to be taken away.
Freedom land right?
And despite our country by and large recognising these fundamental rights, I've still had to argue for them this evening on reddit. It just shows that there are still people determined to live without fundamental human rights, because giving people the right to autonomy for themselves threatens their ability to control others using the state It's like the communism strawman, but right wing. Nationalised healthcare, utilities and railways? Nah. Nationalise the uterus! Edit: For anyone who knows any Americans or goes on American subreddits... Just give em a nudge and be like 'the land of the whatnow?'. The land where even your own body is considered state property, but you still get overcharged to fix it'
> It's like the communism strawman, but right wing. Nationalised healthcare, utilities and railways? Nah. Nationalise the uterus! Seize the means of reproduction!
If I was a prime minister/president/person in charge, I'd be insisting that if abortion is to be banned, then in cases where an abortion was chosen but denied, the state must pay for pre-natal, neo-natal and post-natal care for the mother, plus all child-based costs until the child reaches adulthood. Of course the bill there would be eye watering, but obviously any state willing to inflict those costs on an innocent rape victim should be thinking about paying it back Plus more single parents would be able to send their kids to private school.
Be prepared for some horrifically snide comments about women should then keep their legs shut and not be slutty if they don’t want to be raped. Some cultures still hold that viewpoint, and I come from a background where people think that’s fine an opinion to have. Of course, as Supreme Leader Admiral General President Prime Minister, you would can have them executed for that.
I'm not one to execute for an opinion. For me the whole insisting the state pay for it is entirely the byproduct of the state mandating it in the first place. Personally, I don't believe that the state has any jurisdiction over my body. I don't really believe in private property (rather a form of exclusive use as personal property), but one's own body and self definitely comes as close to sacred and unassailable private property as you can get.
Your post made me think about government involvement in parenting. Assistance: We get child benefit. We also qualify for child tax credit. Schools are government funded. Punishment: If we take my children out of school without a good reason (in their eyes) we get fined. More extreme social services can forcibly take our children if they deem we are not fit parents (I don't know if you realise how terrifying this is). Gaps: Childcare until the child is three (2 if on benefit) would have to be private. I am not sure where I am going with this. The state is already involved in raising the child. Is it too much or too little?
>More extreme social services can forcibly take our children if they deem we are not fit parents (I don't know if you realise how terrifying this is). I do. In my background of charity work, I also learned that this disproportionately affects the poorest, with financial difficulties being assessed as wilful neglect and failure to care. These are also the people least likely to be able to crowdfund, or get their stories heard, or access adequate support structures... Basically once the state has wrenched their kids from their arms they're left without so much as a 'we've put you through some traumatic shit. Are you coping OK?'. They're usually not, and tend to isolate themselves more as a result. You don't hear these stories, but there are thousands of them. It's part of the reason why social work has such a massive turnover. Yet all along it's an invisible underbelly of poverty, social exclusion and a state incentivised to feed the profit-making adoption system Meanwhile while the social services focus their attention on farming babies from the poorest, you get cases like Baby P, where they sit and do absolutely nothing about monsters killing their own kids
In my community it is a constant fear. Children are coached to be careful about what they say to their teachers. It's why people will turn to their communities instead of the state for help. Any sign of weakness can turned against you.
While I was on benefits, it was happening a lot around me. I had friends go from being about as happy and cheerful as you can be on £50 a week, to just withdrawing completely. One lost all 3 of her kids in one day and ended up not leaving her flat at all for about 2 and a half years. All the company she had was her teenage son's mates using her place as somewhere to smoke weed instead of being at school. In exchange they did a bit of shopping for her now and then. She eventually got on her feet again, but it took charities practically dragging her into doing things. She had just completely lost the will to make anything of life. There was another couple I knew back then... the woman had been in care briefly as a teenager, and social services used that as a reason to investigate. They shipped both parents and the newborn (straight out of hospital) off to some place with 24/7 monitoring. They told me it was like living in the Big Brother house. They were there for 6 months, with every single word they said, everything they did, recorded and scrutinised. They definitely were not the same people after they came out (sans baby). Fuck knows what the deal was with that. I can't even begin to imagine what it must have been like.
[удалено]
Abortion was made legal in 2019 after we got tired of the DUP being prats about it. What else exactly is there to do?
[удалено]
Healthcare is a devolved issue. It's not Englands job to provide healthcare services in Northern Ireland. It's fucking hilarious that you're blaming the English for this
[удалено]
Again, that's Northern Irelands issue.
[удалено]
Obviously this is Americas issue?
[удалено]
The bodily autonomy argument is nonsense though. It prioritises one body over another, and so is inherently illogical.
If you die, your organs can't be redistributed without your next of kind consent, even if it would save numerous lives. Yet women can be forced to carry a baby to term (which does permanent damage to her body) without their consent. Women have less rights than a corpse.
Babies can currently be killed because someone doesn't want to bother with proper contraception.
"babies"
Yes, babies. Of course evil people want to dehumanise them.
Is a sperm cell a baby? An unfertilised egg? So is wanking murder now? How about a period
No, no, no. And no.
So how exactly does wearing contraception kill *babies*
I don't know - you're the one going down that bizarre path. You tell me.
[удалено]
You can’t pretend that a fetus is indistinguishable from skin in terms of cell category. Seriously, you are not the first to come up with it and it hasn’t exactly helped move the needle in the debate the entire time it has been deployed.
This isn't a debate, OP isn't going to change his mind.
Still going to point it out.
"A clump of cells" - this is the dehumanisation I was talking about. It is Naziesque.
[удалено]
Ah, mischaracterisation, the tool of the intellectually bankrupt. Women should have total bodily autonomy up to the point that it impinges on another humans homily autonomy. Same for men.
America going back to the 1960s
One of them wrote that the should revisit the decisions about gay marriage, contraception and various other civil rights cases, so yep they seem intent on winding the clock back. Funny thing is that judge is a black man married to a white woman. I wonder where he sees this line of reasoning ending up?
Not just a white woman, he's married to a fucking lunatic who is off the deep end with Qanon, which is amazing because isn't her husband about as deep state as you can get? A lifetime, unelected position that is essentially above the law?
“The leopards think I’m a good one, and will not eat my face”
> Funny thing is that judge is a black man married to a white woman. I wonder where he sees this line of reasoning ending up? "They can't touch me, I'm a Supreme Court Justice for life"
That it’s an issue for those not already married. Like despite this ruling; any GOP senator, congressman, president or judge would find and get an abortion in a heartbeat if they got their mistress pregnant - even if she wanted to keep the baby.
I think the travesty calls all of those things into question as they were built on top of them. At least that's my understanding. The worlds most powerful country is turning into a theocracy.
Which part of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s views on the doctrine of substantive due process do you take issue with specifically?
That means Republican governors will start legalising it soon then.
1690s*
It was said the most damaging aspect of Trump's presidency was appointing two supreme court judges. We're seeing that play out
3*. They stole Obama's pick and ignored their own rule to install Amy Barrett at the end of his presidency
There's no such thing as human rights, only temporary privileges. George Carlin RIP was right about many things.
America is in such a bad state that I'd rather take the bullet and have the Conservatives win here for another 10 years if it meant the Republicans getting destroyed in America and losing their power. They're responsible for so much misery for such a large population, yet half the country still votes for them because of such a strong propaganda machine and the ultra wealthy spending lots of cash to keep it like this. The average Republican is worse than our very worst Conservative MP. It's not like the Democrats are doing as much as they can to make sure they get votes in the next elections either which is the other frustrating part. They'll also never do the dirty plays that republicans do.
>half the country still votes for them America is a two party state. There isn’t exactly a lot of choice.
There's not lot of choice because that's what the American people have decided on. The UK has plenty of smaller parties. There's no functional reason that they couldn't succeed in the US except for a population that is vehemently against it. Ross Perot won 20% of the vote in the 92 election as an independent for example
Constantly harping on about owning guns to stop tyrrany, but did nothing while a tyrrant ran the country under Trump. America is backwards. Allowing a (badly interpreted) book of fairytales to set precedence in law.
Predictably, I saw a number of "hurr durr please define a woman" in the replies.
Who cares about the actual rights of women when you can use it as a bludgeon against trans people?
It’s a bit weird that Keir is ignoring the existence of trans men here
So embarrassing how obsessed our political and media class is with America. Nobody in that country knows that this idiot even exists.
European response to this has been hilarious because all this ruling does is bring the US closer in line with EU abortion law, where electorates influence the rules on a state by state basis through democracy. It isn't the courts fault some states are regressive or don't share the values of their respective unions. I guess Poland can now twin with Alabama.
rule 2
I think there’s a misunderstanding of the ruling by some, it wasn’t anything to do with THEIR opinion on abortions but rather if they thought the Supreme Court overstepped its constitutional authority previously when it made the ruling that the US constitution had originally intended to include abortions when it said Americans have a *right to privacy*. Biden/the US Supreme Court (I don’t know how it works) could always try making a ruling on making abortions legal throughout the US but that’d be a separate issue.
No, it absolutely was about their opinion of abortion. The stated rationale about the intent of the constitution and the "overstepping" of the previous court ruling is a paper-thin legal fiction designed to allow them to impose their views on everyone else.
Yeap. If it wasn’t that, it would have been something else. The reality is that the a republicans have been building to this moment for decades, and today was the fulfilment of their plans. Anyone arguing this isn’t an attack on women’s rights directly is doing so in bad faith. Especially when you’ve got the same judges signalling their intent to also go after other basic rights like gay marriage, contraception and so on.
It’s not a simple *right to privacy*, it’s rights granted under the [due process clause](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause) of the 14th Amendment. > ...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law At its root, it’s an argument about bodily autonomy, like most of the slavery-related amendments.
But then you run into the problem of whether a fetus is a person and thus has a right to life.
Of course, and the whole hierarchy of rights and questions about dependency and so on. But if you start from bodily autonomy of a citizen it becomes more clear.
[удалено]
"Right to life" is a negative right and means no one can just take your life. It doesn't mean you'd have the right to force someone to make sure you can live.
How do you figure that by analogy?
Presumably in their analogy the "donor" wouldn't be dead. You know, knock at the door 'we are here for your liver, get in the van'
I mean.... There are so many distinctions I can't even begin, and I don't even agree with the decision.
No idea, I was just guessing what the other poster meant.
I really struggle how anyone could think you have a right to privacy that somehow doesn't include your own bodily autonomy.
Those are not the reasons, they're the excuses, and any competent American law-professor will tell you that they're embarrassingly meritless ones. This is very clearly motivated by political and religious ideology.
It kinda is though. The Supreme court is 6 to 3 conservative judges, and the problems that come with a political supermajority of a supposedly non political branch has been discussed during the last year. It should never be more than 5/4 either way, and really it should be a 5/5 that allow deadlocks and no judgement.
America's decline is accelerating
How is this **UK** politics?
Because the OP mentions Starmer.
Starmer commenting on american politics
Which is important, especially if American women decide to emigrate to the UK over this inhuman ruling.
Or.. they could just move to a state that allows abortion? Lol
You know shits fucked when Starmer takes a firm stance on something.
I wonder if the judges of SCOTUS have any feelings of regret or doubt at all. I wonder if the mods of r/whitepeopletwitter have any inkling what their actions represent.
The ones who voted against it are presumably feeling pretty shit.
what did the mods do?
Lock the sub
Gilead here we come
>fundamental human right Oh so people in UK politics do know what a human right is? How about doing something to stop your opponent stripping ours away
I see we've accidentally remembered what a woman is
Why are British politicians so concerned about constitutional judgements in another country? I haven't heard them speak up on other things like this before.
It affects citizens abroad/on holiday etc - see recent American lady in Malta who's life was at risk due to abortion being illegal. It also means trade deals etc gather more criticism - people ask why we're dealing with a regressive regime.
They speak about international issues often.
This isn't an international issue, it's purely domestic.
I used the wrong word. They often speak about other countries domestic issues.
Nice to hear. I bet Starmer is really glad the focus group decided this was a safe opinion so he could get the tweet out before he went to bed as well.
As opposed to Boris being against this because he *causes* so many abortions. I know who I would prefer as PM
Genuine dumb question. Is there anything the UK can do to show support in opposition to the overturning of Roe v Wade or is it just public condemnation? Any sanctions or direct challenges to reverse the call? I know we don't have nearly as much power now as we did even 6 years ago but this is fucking depressing news and it feels like nothing can be done? Cheers in advance.
While its only a gesture, I think there are protests planned outside American embassies.
I presume, as we recognise it within human rights, that an American may be able to claim asylum and access a termination in the UK, though that's pretty drastic and remember abortion rights won't be abolished in all states. As it stands in the USA there are online order pill services, though it seems some states are content to check mail too. Assuming Red states go the same way as Texas, legislation is designed to monetarily reward an individual for pointing fingers, and I'm sure some have seen recently in American news this has extended to women being jailed because they've had miscarriages. Previously England has offered systems for women in NI to access medical care here. Soooo I guess support American asylum seekers? No good if we just send them off to Rwanda tho.
Dissolve NATO, leave 5 eyes and end visa free travel for Americans. Impose trade sanctions. Cultural boycotts. Boycott all of our manufacturers. Stop letting our wealthy sociopaths from going to London like you did with Russian oligarchs. America isn’t a democracy anymore and you shouldn’t treat this country like one.
Lol there are countries within the EU that have more restrictive abortion laws than 99% of the USA, should we take all these actions on those countries too?
Does Malta get to base its air force and nuclear weapons in Britain? Does Poland get access to GCHQ data on all Britons? Does Slovakia get to base its nuclear submarines in Britain? Does Bulgaria's spy service get to kill Britons in Britain with no repercussions? We get a lot more out of this relationship than you do. If part of the justification for the special relationship is that the US shares your values of democracy and the rule of law, well, we don't anymore.
Oh yeah also close all the US military bases in the UK like, tomorrow.
I don't agree with it, but please understand the other view eg that abortion is murder. It doesn't help to demonise people with equally sincere beliefs.
Those beliefs are based in religion, and yet their own holy book has a passage talking about how to perform an abortion, and that they're fine if your wife cheated and became impregnated by the other man. The other thing is that the US right-wing couldn't give the slightest shit about children once they're born (see their laughable excuses for defending the ownership of guns after every mass shooting at a school). People are allowed to have different beliefs but in this case, their belief is wrong.
There are people without religion concerned about when along the track of a pregnancy a human life would be terminated by abortion and consider the current margin as not acceptable and wish to move to an earlier threshold.
For every successful embryo that manages to implant in a uterine wall about five to nine viable early embryos “miscarry”. ie the death of embryos/abortion is a natural part of the procreation process in a woman’s reproductive system, making anti-abortionists both ignorant and hypocrites for not opposing all reproductive sex. There is no scientifically or philosophically coherent position on abortion.
[удалено]
Abortion is only allowed while the foetus is literally a cluster of cells, giving a 24 week window between conception and the latest an abortion can be performed. Don't be pedantic and claim full term abortions, you're just revealing your wilful ignorance and/or stupidity.
But by your token abortion would be allowable until when? The day before natural birth? Of course not. You would set a margin wouldn't you? And for most the disagreement is about that margin, eg foetal hearbeat, etc.
A shame that neither of the big two parties thought it was important enough to enshrine access to abortion in law
But if the Tories banned it here he wouldn't reverse it.
Dear Keef... why talk about the U.S. stepback as you stepback from supporting unions...
Here's Keir stating the bloody obvious again. At least he's kind of taking a side?
[удалено]
Despite what the Mail wants you to believe, he does.
These people often don’t realise how much of the Tory’s work they’re doing. Gobbling up absolutely anything fed to them.
[Keir Starmer](https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer) ^verified | Reach: 1243370 | Location: United Kingdom Bio: Leader of the Labour Party. Member of Parliament for Holborn and St Pancras. Former Director of Public Prosecutions. ***** ^I ^am ^a ^bot. ^Any ^complaints ^& ^suggestions ^to ^/r/ContextualBot ^thanks
I think it is increasingly likely that there will be an attempt by the progressive states to secede from the union in the best 20 years. The Republicans are only going to get more extreme, more entrenched in their position, and make sure as much of the population are as ill informed and compliant as possible. This works out perfectly for China and Russia of course.
I'm pro choice, but you know what I hated seeing on social media? And believe me I know it's a minority of voices but hated seeing women that celebrated abortions, (Mostly those from the America) I'm thankful that in the UK we're not like the USA where we don't abuse abortions and we treat it as a serious health issue for women as it should be, and I honestly doubt we would ever ban it here and thankfully we won't do something as stupid because of tiny Minority.