Roe v Wade Overturned

Ozzie_Isaac

JohnInCarolina said:

caliking said:

JohnInCarolina said:

caliking said:

JohnInCarolina said:

It’ll be interesting watching companies in these states try and recruit or retain talent in the coming years.  

 Mitigation measures are already being deployed. I don't think its actually going to make a tangible difference. 

*****'S (posted above), and Google (I'm sure there are others) have announced relocation benefits, or health insurance coverage, to take care of abortion services for their employees. Given how it matters less where an employee is physically present for many companies nowadays (at certain levels), I don't think it will hurt the companies much.

"You're a conservative right-winger, who DGAF about abortion rights? Howz about working out of our TX office??"

"We fully support a woman's right to make choices regarding her health/body/offspring. No WI office for you. How about working out of our Schaumburg office in IL??"

It will impact student - undergraduate and graduate (particularly international) - recruiting and matriculation at institutions in all of those states.  I guarantee it.  

I still say nope.

Visa considerations trump just about everything else for international students/trainees in the biomedical sciences. caliqueen tells me stories of what new hires did not ask/consider before signing on, and it makes me cringe. Sadly, many PI's do not have the scruples that keep them from exploiting trainees/younger graduates. 

My colleagues are saying they’re seeing it already.  You may recall I spent several years here as the Director of Graduate Studies.

To be clear I’m talking about the very best students, the ones who typically get into multiple schools and have choices of where to matriculate.

We actually saw a much smaller version of this at Duke many years ago when NC passed that awful bathroom bill.  We missed out on a good number of students.  

Companies are willing to pay to have their employees go to other states for healthcare today, but I guarantee that will end if you are in specific states.  Some states will prosecute you if you are pregnant, go somewhere, and come back not pregnant.  They have said that.  They will also hold those who helped accountable.  So anyone who paid, helped, or supported a pregnant person get an abortion will face criminal consequences.  Companies will not sign up for that.

The full ramifications of this ruling are yet to be understood.  I promise the radical-right woke up this morning with a hard-on dreaming about all the power this gives them.

Botch

Methinks cornyn got a lot more flack for backing the gun bill than he expected, so he's stooping to this.
 
 
 

 

 

Battleborn

Botch said:

Methinks cornyn got a lot more flack for backing the gun bill than he expected, so he's stooping to this.
 
 
 

 

 

Maybe I am misunderstanding your point, but he is pointing out that precedent has been overturned in the past. Plessy was overturned by Brown. 

JohnInCarolina

Battleborn said:

Botch said:

Methinks cornyn got a lot more flack for backing the gun bill than he expected, so he's stooping to this.
 
 
 

 

 

Maybe I am misunderstanding your point, but he is pointing out that precedent has been overturned in the past. Plessy was overturned by Brown. 

The upshot of Brown overturning Plessy was an expansion of rights and civil liberties.  The upshot of Roe being overturned was a reduction in rights and civil liberties.

I understand the point Cornyn is trying to make, I just don’t think it’s a good one.  

HeavyG

reason.com /2022/06/24/alitos-abortion-ruling-overturning-roe-is-an-insult-to-the-9th-amendment/

Alito's Abortion Ruling Overturning Roe Is an Insult to the 9th Amendment

Damon Root6-8 minutes 6/24/2022

---

At the heart of Justice Samuel Alito's opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturns Roe v. Wade (1973) and eliminates the constitutional right to abortion, is Alito's objection that "the Constitution makes no mention of abortion." For Alito and the many legal conservatives who think like him, unenumerated constitutional rights are inherently suspect. When a court recognizes an unenumerated right, these conservatives say, that court is almost certainly guilty of judicial activism.

But this conservative mindset is at odds with constitutional text and history, both of which make clear that unenumerated rights are entitled to the same respect as the small handful of rights that the Constitution specifically lists.

Remember that when the Constitution was first ratified, it did not yet contain its famous first 10 amendments, otherwise known as the Bill of Rights. Those amendments arrived a few years later. They were added in response to the fierce criticism leveled against the Constitution by the Anti-Federalists, who opposed ratification on several grounds, one of which was that the document lacked a bill of rights, and therefore, in their view, left a number of key rights unprotected (because unmentioned).

The Federalists, who labored on behalf of the Constitution's ratification, rejected this argument. Why? Because, explained James Wilson, one of the leading figures at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention, "if we attempt an enumeration, everything that is not enumerated is presumed to be given." And the consequence of that, Wilson told the Pennsylvania Ratification Convention, "is, that an imperfect enumeration would throw all implied power into the scale of the government; and the rights of the people would be rendered incomplete."

James Iredell, a future justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, made the same argument at the North Carolina Ratification Convention. "It would not only be useless, but dangerous, to enumerate a number of rights which are not intended to be given up," he said. That is "because it would be implying, in the strongest manner, that every right not included in the exception might be impaired by the government without usurpation." Furthermore, Iredell added, "it would be impossible to enumerate every one. Let anyone make what collection or enumeration of rights he pleases, I will immediately mention twenty or thirty more rights not contained in it."

James Madison, one of the principal architects of the new Constitution, closely followed this debate. On June 8, 1789, he gave a speech to Congress proposing the group of amendments that would ultimately become the Bill of Rights. While doing so, he directly addressed the Anti-Federalist/Federalist debate. "It has been observed also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration," he said, "and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the general government, and were consequently insecure." Madison acknowledged that "this is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; But, I conceive, that may be guarded against. I have attempted it."

Madison's attempt became enshrined in the Constitution as the Ninth Amendment. Here is what it says: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In short, unenumerated rights get the same respect as enumerated ones.

Today, most legal conservatives purport to be constitutional originalists. What that means for the legal debate over abortion is that any purported originalist must face the question of whether abortion rights may be considered to be among the unenumerated rights "retained by the people" that Madison's Ninth Amendment was specifically written and ratified to protect. Alito's opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization entirely fails to grapple with this necessary question.

Here is my answer to the question: Founding era history strongly supports the view that abortion rights, at least during the early stages of pregnancy, do fall within the orbit of Madison's Ninth Amendment. "When the United States was founded and for many subsequent decades, Americans relied on the English common law," explained an amicus brief filed in Dobbs by the American Historical Association and the Organization of American Historians. "The common law did not regulate abortion in early pregnancy. Indeed, the common law did not even recognize abortion as occurring at that stage. That is because the common law did not legally acknowledge a fetus as existing separately from a pregnant woman until the woman felt fetal movement, called 'quickening,' which could occur as late as the 25th week of pregnancy."

William Blackstone's widely read Commentaries on the Laws of England, first published in 1765, made this exact point: Life "begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb." Under the common law, Blackstone explained, legal penalties for abortion only occurred "if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb."

Blackstone's work was a major influence on America's founding generation. The founders read Blackstone and they well understood that abortion was legal during the early stages of pregnancy under the common law. What is more, because every state at the time of the founding followed the common law as described by Blackstone, no state originally possessed the lawful power to prohibit abortion before quickening. We might call this the original understanding of the regulatory powers of the states.

That same original understanding extends to the Ninth Amendment. Because the states followed the common law at the founding, the American people originally understood that lawmakers lacked the lawful power to prohibit women from ending an unwanted pregnancy during its early stages. The freedom to end an unwanted pregnancy before quickening thus falls within the original meaning and understanding of a right "retained by the people."

Botch

Battleborn said:
Maybe I am misunderstanding your point, but he is pointing out that precedent has been overturned in the past. Plessy was overturned by Brown. 

1.  I didn't realize that Brown had overturned Plessy; thank you for the clarification.
2.  By saying this, cornyn appears to be saying "now do..." like he wants to overturn Brown and return to segregation.  At least that's how I read it.  

Battleborn

JohnInCarolina said:

Battleborn said:

Botch said:

Methinks cornyn got a lot more flack for backing the gun bill than he expected, so he's stooping to this.
 
 
 

 

 

Maybe I am misunderstanding your point, but he is pointing out that precedent has been overturned in the past. Plessy was overturned by Brown. 

The upshot of Brown overturning Plessy was an expansion of rights and civil liberties.  The upshot of Roe being overturned was a reduction in rights and civil liberties.

I understand the point Cornyn is trying to make, I just don’t think it’s a good one.  

I agree with that, but I think the context of the argument is what matters.  

To be clear, I don’t agree with yesterday’s ruling. At the same time, I also think the court left Roe open to legislated, as it should have been at some point in the last 50 years, at a federal level. Instead of interpreting the right to abortion under the 14th amendment the court stated that it should be left to the 10th. 

JohnInCarolina

Battleborn said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Battleborn said:

Botch said:

Methinks cornyn got a lot more flack for backing the gun bill than he expected, so he's stooping to this.
 
 
 

 

 

Maybe I am misunderstanding your point, but he is pointing out that precedent has been overturned in the past. Plessy was overturned by Brown. 

The upshot of Brown overturning Plessy was an expansion of rights and civil liberties.  The upshot of Roe being overturned was a reduction in rights and civil liberties.

I understand the point Cornyn is trying to make, I just don’t think it’s a good one.  

I agree with that, but I think the context of the argument is what matters.  

To be clear, I don’t agree with yesterday’s ruling. At the same time, I also think the court left Roe open to legislated, as it should have been at some point in the last 50 years, at a federal level. Instead of interpreting the right to abortion under the 14th amendment the court stated that it should be left to the 10th. 

That’s all well and good, but as many have pointed out, they used some fairly tortured legal logic to get there.  And they know full well that Congress can barely agree to name post offices these days.   The court likes to pretend they operate in some kind of vacuum.  But that’s what it is: pretend.

HeavyG

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1540852015693037568

JohnInCarolina

HeavyG said:

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1540852015693037568

JohnInCarolina

http://twitter.com/jmpalmieri/status/1540691951934226433?s=20&t=W3X4XKHlOmvJC7O4y8FYSA

HighHeat

https://twitter.com/cernovich/status/1540880126576996352?s=21&t=t_TXa2lAwrqLqd8GGnnJxw

JohnInCarolina

Could we get some smarter or better trolls up in here?  Thanks.

JohnInCarolina

YukonRon

I am a life long regestered Republican, but since the day Reagan shook hands with Falwell, and welcomed them to the Republican Party was my last day voting for the GOP. 

This is the result of Christians in the party.  We knew it was coming and we let it happen. Many people will protest, many will sign petitions, but the best way to end this path towards fascism, is to vote, get people to vote, and help people get to the voting stations. 

The next two elections are the most important in the history of the USA.

You either vote for Republican evangelical hypocrite fascism, or you vote for democracy. 

It is that simple.

Vote Blue.

HighHeat

So have y’all figured out what a woman is now or not?

HeavyG

YukonRon said:

I am a life long regestered Republican, but since the day Reagan shook hands with Falwell, and welcomed them to the Republican Party was my last day voting for the GOP. 

This is the result of Christians in the party.  We knew it was coming and we let it happen. Many people will protest, many will sign petitions, but the best way to end this path towards fascism, is to vote, get people to vote, and help people get to the voting stations. 

The next two elections are the most important in the history of the USA.

You either vote for Republican evangelical hypocrite fascism, or you vote for democracy. 

It is that simple.

Vote Blue.

Barry had it right when he said this in 1994...

HeavyG

https://twitter.com/markos/status/1541183103225303042

nolaegghead

Wut

JohnInCarolina

nolaegghead said:

Wut

She clearly married into the right family.

paqman

nolaegghead

CP92

JohnInCarolina said:

nolaegghead said:

Wut

She clearly married into the right family.

Each and every one of them are just iggies. 

dmchicago

caliking

JohnInCarolina said:

caliking said:

JohnInCarolina said:

caliking said:

JohnInCarolina said:

It’ll be interesting watching companies in these states try and recruit or retain talent in the coming years.  

 Mitigation measures are already being deployed. I don't think its actually going to make a tangible difference. 

*****'S (posted above), and Google (I'm sure there are others) have announced relocation benefits, or health insurance coverage, to take care of abortion services for their employees. Given how it matters less where an employee is physically present for many companies nowadays (at certain levels), I don't think it will hurt the companies much.

"You're a conservative right-winger, who DGAF about abortion rights? Howz about working out of our TX office??"

"We fully support a woman's right to make choices regarding her health/body/offspring. No WI office for you. How about working out of our Schaumburg office in IL??"

It will impact student - undergraduate and graduate (particularly international) - recruiting and matriculation at institutions in all of those states.  I guarantee it.  

I still say nope.

Visa considerations trump just about everything else for international students/trainees in the biomedical sciences. caliqueen tells me stories of what new hires did not ask/consider before signing on, and it makes me cringe. Sadly, many PI's do not have the scruples that keep them from exploiting trainees/younger graduates. 

My colleagues are saying they’re seeing it already.  You may recall I spent several years here as the Director of Graduate Studies.

To be clear I’m talking about the very best students, the ones who typically get into multiple schools and have choices of where to matriculate.

We actually saw a much smaller version of this at Duke many years ago when NC passed that awful bathroom bill.  We missed out on a good number of students.  

Point conceded. I was going to say that you're talking about a small subset of a large number of folks applying to study/train/work on this side. But, some quick Google-fu shows that there were about 185K+ Indian students in the US in 2017. That decreased by ~4% in 2019. Then, by another ~14% in 2020-2021. And, that's just Indian students. 

EggaddictArnold

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LI4UEHUvtM

JohnInCarolina

EggaddictArnold said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LI4UEHUvtM

That’s a fail.  

We need smarter or better trolls around here.

EggaddictArnold

JohnInCarolina said:

EggaddictArnold said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LI4UEHUvtM

That’s a fail.  

We need smarter or better trolls around here.

Please, douchebag, even an **** like your should find that funny. Babies aren’t going to kill themselves, they need help from people like you

JohnInCarolina

EggaddictArnold said:

JohnInCarolina said:

EggaddictArnold said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LI4UEHUvtM

That’s a fail.  

We need smarter or better trolls around here.

Please, douchebag, even an **** like your should find that funny. Babies aren’t going to kill themselves, they need help from people like you

I didn’t watch it, because you’re too stupid to figure out how to embed the video, and you’re hiding behind an obvious troll account.  

Take all the shots you want at me, you fucKKKing coward.  

EggaddictArnold

JohnInCarolina said:

EggaddictArnold said:

JohnInCarolina said:

EggaddictArnold said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LI4UEHUvtM

That’s a fail.  

We need smarter or better trolls around here.

Please, douchebag, even an **** like your should find that funny. Babies aren’t going to kill themselves, they need help from people like you

I didn’t watch it, because you’re too stupid to figure out how to embed the video, and you’re hiding behind an obvious troll account.  

Take all the shots you want at me, you fucKKKing coward.  

Then how would you know we need smarter or better trolls. Expand your mind “Professor”. KKK was a nice touch A++