[thepossum]

Winstonm, on 2023-March-12, 09:16, said:

A lot of the reason is structural-the fact that in the senate states like Wyoming have the same voting power as California.

Not that I know much about US federalism but we have a similar but different federal system which does not oversimplify power to every individual vote being equal worth - I'm in kind of a mid to large-sized State out of our few (population wise at least)
When younger and more naive (in my view) I had similar concerns apparent gerrymandering
However when I see the mess the world is in I feel it protects us somewhat against the whole world being like California
They try their best irrespective of the US Federal system

I am just chuckling myself wondering what would happen if they suddenly changed the voting system to equal weight per voter
What would happen
Where do all those independent militia hang out?

My younger self would never have defended a gerrymander or any means other than the ballot box to keep things in order - keeping things in order sounds authooritarian and fascist - that is not what I men. preserving some kind of diversity and difference and respecting difference

What could be rather fascist is if California or New York or Texas some other big power ran something - oh wait - full circle
Sorry getting mixed up. New York isn't that big. Florida perhaps. I forget
I need to check a State population table to find who should be running our lives

And I could be wrong but California (or big tech) took over much of New York, media, you name it

Maybe the world has always been techno-fascist. Maybe its just a different bunch these days. Has nobody else noticed

They seem to have trouble knowing how to run banks (and other new areas of enterprise) though

Whoever owns them some corporations run the world so complaining about gerrymanders - hmmmm

They tried taking over the world's money. They took over and undermined/disrupted/mined every industry in ever place in the world

Complaining about gerrymanders. You do not run the world. Not if most of us have a choice

[Winstonm]

thepossum, on 2023-March-13, 01:27, said:

Not that I know much about US federalism but we have a similar but different federal system which does not oversimplify power to every individual vote being equal worth - I'm in kind of a mid to large-sized State out of our few (population wise at least)
When younger and more naive (in my view) I had similar concerns apparent gerrymandering
However when I see the mess the world is in I feel it protects us somewhat against the whole world being like California
They try their best irrespective of the US Federal system

I am just chuckling myself wondering what would happen if they suddenly changed the voting system to equal weight per voter
What would happen
Where do all those independent militia hang out?

My younger self would never have defended a gerrymander or any means other than the ballot box to keep things in order - keeping things in order sounds authooritarian and fascist - that is not what I men. preserving some kind of diversity and difference and respecting difference

What could be rather fascist is if California or New York or Texas some other big power ran something - oh wait - full circle
Sorry getting mixed up. New York isn't that big. Florida perhaps. I forget
I need to check a State population table to find who should be running our lives

And I could be wrong but California (or big tech) took over much of New York, media, you name it

Maybe the world has always been techno-fascist. Maybe its just a different bunch these days. Has nobody else noticed

They seem to have trouble knowing how to run banks (and other new areas of enterprise) though

Whoever owns them some corporations run the world so complaining about gerrymanders - hmmmm

They tried taking over the world's money. They took over and undermined/disrupted/mined every industry in ever place in the world

Complaining about gerrymanders. You do not run the world. Not if most of us have a choice

i’m not sure your understanding is accurate; California could not rule but their 40 000,000 who want legal abortion could not be cancelled by 400, 000 in Wyoming who really don’t care about abortion but do like to piss off Californians. Meanwhile, all the women in every state are held hostage by the whims of the minority.

[thepossum]

Winstonm, on 2023-March-13, 15:25, said:

i’m not sure your understanding is accurate; California could not rule but their 40 000,000 who want legal abortion could not be cancelled by 400, 000 in Wyoming who really don’t care about abortion but do like to piss off Californians. Meanwhile, all the women in every state are held hostage by the whims of the minority.

I think you missed my point slightly and maybe my sense of humour or the ridiculous doesn't work internationally

EDIT I will also say I spent most of my life with extreme political people whose favourite tactics in argument include terrible misrepresentation. Don't waste your time doing it to me

[Czbornik]

Winstonm, on 2023-March-13, 15:25, said:

i’m not sure your understanding is accurate; California could not rule but their 40 000,000 who want legal abortion could not be cancelled by 400, 000 in Wyoming who really don’t care about abortion but do like to piss off Californians. Meanwhile, all the women in every state are held hostage by the whims of the minority.

This is a very flimsy argument in my opinion. According to the 2020 census California had 39,512,223 population, Wyoming had 578,759. California had two senators; Wyoming had two senators. At the same time Texas had 28,995,881 population, Vermont had 623,989. Texas had two senators; Vermont had two senators. I really can't buy the argument that the people in Wyoming are more determined to piss off Californians than people in Vermont are determined to piss off Texans. As for "all the women in every state are held hostage by the whims of the minority", as I see it the SCOTUS returned the right to abortion to the elected officials of the states.....who are elected by the MAJORITY. In my view that means the elected officials in California can legalize abortion up to partial birth if they so choose. The two senators from Wyoming don't really have a say about it.

[Winstonm]

Czbornik, on 2023-March-13, 18:52, said:

This is a very flimsy argument in my opinion. According to the 2020 census California had 39,512,223 population, Wyoming had 578,759. California had two senators; Wyoming had two senators. At the same time Texas had 28,995,881 population, Vermont had 623,989. Texas had two senators; Vermont had two senators. I really can't buy the argument that the people in Wyoming are more determined to piss off Californians than people in Vermont are determined to piss off Texans. As for "all the women in every state are held hostage by the whims of the minority", as I see it the SCOTUS returned the right to abortion to the elected officials of the states.....who are elected by the MAJORITY. In my view that means the elected officials in California can legalize abortion up to partial birth if they so choose. The two senators from Wyoming don't really have a say about it.

You are correct about abortion. Poor example. The SCOTUS had 3 new justices appointed by a president who did not win the popular vote and those justices were confirmed by a senate where Vermont and Wyoming have an equal say with California and Texas. Perhaps your counter argument is a bit weak.

[johnu]

Czbornik, on 2023-March-13, 18:52, said:

In my view that means the elected officials in California can legalize abortion up to partial birth if they so choose. The two senators from Wyoming don't really have a say about it.

Yes, California can currently pass laws to legalize abortion, and they have. That's why the QOP wants a national law to outlaw abortion and override California law, in which case, the 2 senators from Wyoming will have more than their fair share of the vote on that bill.

[Czbornik]

johnu, on 2023-March-14, 01:36, said:

Yes, California can currently pass laws to legalize abortion, and they have. That's why the QOP wants a national law to outlaw abortion and override California law, in which case, the 2 senators from Wyoming will have more than their fair share of the vote on that bill.

Yes, I've read a little about that proposed law. As I understand it, it would ban all abortions past 15 weeks' gestation. That sounds reasonable on the surface (surely a woman can make a decision about terminating her pregnancy within 3 1/2 months), but I would be opposed to any federal law regulating abortion. Abortion is a very touchy issue (VERY touchy) and I think the SCOTUS got it right when they returned that issue to the states. Californians can do as they like, Texans can do as they like, the voters can register their pleasure or displeasure at the ballot box.

[Winstonm]

Czbornik, on 2023-March-14, 17:59, said:

Yes, I've read a little about that proposed law. As I understand it, it would ban all abortions past 15 weeks' gestation. That sounds reasonable on the surface (surely a woman can make a decision about terminating her pregnancy within 3 1/2 months), but I would be opposed to any federal law regulating abortion. Abortion is a very touchy issue (VERY touchy) and I think the SCOTUS got it right when they returned that issue to the states. Californians can do as they like, Texans can do as they like, the voters can register their pleasure or displeasure at the ballot box.

Is the issue really what you think is reasonable for a woman to do concerning her body or is the real (and only) issue at what point does a fetus become viable?
Do I need to point out that the point of viability would not change from state to state?

[Winstonm]

Czbornik, on 2023-March-14, 17:59, said:

Yes, I've read a little about that proposed law. As I understand it, it would ban all abortions past 15 weeks' gestation. That sounds reasonable on the surface (surely a woman can make a decision about terminating her pregnancy within 3 1/2 months), but I would be opposed to any federal law regulating abortion. Abortion is a very touchy issue (VERY touchy) and I think the SCOTUS got it right when they returned that issue to the states. Californians can do as they like, Texans can do as they like, the voters can register their pleasure or displeasure at the ballot box.

Is the issue really what you think is reasonable for a woman to do concerning her body or is the real (and only) issue at what point does a fetus become viable?
Do I need to point out that the point of viability would not change from state to state?

And one other question: if one state decides that the tissue at conception cannot be aborted, who but the federal government can overrule that state law with federal law?
I am afraid your states’ rights position is inherently weak.

[Czbornik]

Winstonm, on 2023-March-14, 18:26, said:

I am afraid your states’ rights position is inherently weak.

May be. But it's also the position of the SCOTUS. I yield to their wisdom.

[Winstonm]

Czbornik, on 2023-March-14, 18:53, said:

May be. But it's also the position of the SCOTUS. I yield to their wisdom.

Which is the reason to make a federal law that grants women control of their own bodies, wouldn’t you say?

[kenberg]

While reading over the above comments it occurred to me that if it is Constitutionally legit for Congress to legalize abortion nationally then I suppose it is Constitutionally legit for Congress to forbid abortion nationally. I usually avoid expressing a legal opinion on anything, quantum mechanics is much easier to read than SCOTUS legal arguments (and more interesting), but this seems clear enough.


I have mentioned before that Barbara Bush once expressed her view that abortion is something that she would never do but she had no interest in imposing this view on anyone else. A very straightforward approach that I like.

My own thinking, on many issues, is that I will lead my life, making my choices, and let others lead their lives making their choices. Sometimes it is necessary to interfere in someone else's life but my default choice is not to. About the same as the Barbara Bush view only she said it better.

How to handle the current legal mess? Beats me. Maybe there could be a Constitutional Amendment requiring people to mind their own business.

[shyams]

kenberg, on 2023-March-15, 12:41, said:

While reading over the above comments it occurred to me that if it is Constitutionally legit for Congress to legalize abortion nationally then I suppose it is Constitutionally legit for Congress to forbid abortion nationally. I usually avoid expressing a legal opinion on anything, quantum mechanics is much easier to read than SCOTUS legal arguments (and more interesting), but this seems clear enough.


I have mentioned before that Barbara Bush once expressed her view that abortion is something that she would never do but she had no interest in imposing this view on anyone else. A very straightforward approach that I like.

My own thinking, on many issues, is that I will lead my life, making my choices, and let others lead their lives making their choices. Sometimes it is necessary to interfere in someone else's life but my default choice is not to. About the same as the Barbara Bush view only she said it better.

How to handle the current legal mess? Beats me. Maybe there could be a Constitutional Amendment requiring people to mind their own business.

It might be that the Legislature in the USA shirks away from its responsibility to legislate, especially on controversial issues. It seems they prefer to use wedge issues to raise bucketloads of political donations (and consequently get reelected) than to resolve said wedge issues.

[Czbornik]

Winstonm, on 2023-March-14, 22:26, said:

Which is the reason to make a federal law that grants women control of their own bodies, wouldn’t you say?

No I wouldn't. I am not opposed to abortion. I am opposed to abortion without limits. And I think those limits should be set by the states, not the feds.

[johnu]

Czbornik, on 2023-March-15, 14:43, said:

No I wouldn't. I am not opposed to abortion. I am opposed to abortion without limits. And I think those limits should be set by the states, not the feds.

There is currently a case in federal district court that seeks to ban the use of abortion pills nationwide. The judge in this case was appointed by Trump. If the case gets to the Supreme court, 6 right fringe judges (who already overturned Roe v Wade) who did not receive a single vote from the public will decide the case.

[pilowsky]

Czbornik, on 2023-March-15, 14:43, said:

No I wouldn't. I am not opposed to abortion. I am opposed to abortion without limits. And I think those limits should be set by the states, not the feds.

Are there any other aspects of a woman's health that you want the courts/government to have sovereignty over?

[Czbornik]

johnu, on 2023-March-15, 16:34, said:

There is currently a case in federal district court that seeks to ban the use of abortion pills nationwide. The judge in this case was appointed by Trump. If the case gets to the Supreme court, 6 right fringe judges (who already overturned Roe v Wade) who did not receive a single vote from the public will decide the case.

As previously stated, I am not opposed to abortion per se; therefore I am not opposed to "morning after" pills. I hope the judge in this case rules in favor of the defendants and if it gets to the SCOTUS I hope they uphold his ruling.

[Czbornik]

pilowsky, on 2023-March-15, 17:22, said:

Are there any other aspects of a woman's health that you want the courts/government to have sovereignty over?

This is a feeble argument. I have said repeatedly that a woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy before the fetus becomes viable. I don't think she should have the right to have the fetus's spinal cord clipped as it comes out of the womb. That, in my opinion, is barbaric.

[Winstonm]

Czbornik, on 2023-March-15, 14:43, said:

No I wouldn't. I am not opposed to abortion. I am opposed to abortion without limits. And I think those limits should be set by the states, not the feds.

Can you explain why Florida or Texas should treat the same woman differently than say New York due to her address?
In other words, why is it you are so adamantly opposed to a federal law?

I am confused as I don't see that you have a cogent argument for that position other than you don't like the idea of the federal government making laws.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2023-March-15, 21:26, said:

Can you explain why Florida or Texas should treat the same woman differently than say New York due to her address?
In other words, why is it you are so adamantly opposed to a federal law?

I am confused as I don't see that you have a cogent argument for that position other than you don't like the idea of the federal government making laws.

I will give my own take on this. We have state prisons because there are state laws and we have federal prisons because there are federal laws. Most people accept that some matters should be dealt with by state law or county law or such, and other matters should be dealt with at the federal level. When I was in high school, class of 56, there was a great deal of discussion about federal aid to education. The worry was that if the feds started funding education they would also exert control over the curriculum. Views change as to which should be federal and which should be state-funded and controlled.

So the question could be: When we look at other areas of regulation, is abortion akin to other federally regulated matters or more akin to other state regulated matters? My legal knowledge is too scant for me to confidently answer this. I think that before Roe v Wade abortion was treated as suitable for state regulation rather than federal, but as mentioned above, views change. As I mentioned earlier, a problem with having it be federal is that it could then go either way. Maybe a woman could then get an abortion in any state. but also maybe she could then get an abortion in no state.