• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The official consequences caused by the overturning of Roe thread

Page 23 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Brainonska511 said:
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/0...unlocked_article_code=1.zU0.vG6-.D_QDdMMxBQfw (gifted article)

For now, they have unanimously upheld access to abortion pills - throwing out that Texas federal judge's ruling on the basis of standing.


Funny thing there with standing - here they accept that the plaintiffs had no standing, but in made up cake and website land with regards to gay rights, standing didn't seem to be a problem...
Click to expand...
While that case was absolute bullshit too what they basically did there was endorse the lie and then apply the usual principles of standing to it.

Had they gone along with the lower court rulings here it would have unleashed nationwide chaos because the theory of standing they endorsed was so batshit crazy that it would have enabled anyone to sue over any policy they personally dislike. As an example in the ruling say, a teacher could sue over immigration policy because their classroom might someday become more crowded.

I'm not at all surprised they overturned this as it was one of the most embarrassing rulings I've ever seen. They will wait for a less insane case to try and ban medication abortion.
 
K1052 said:
Look the founders decided that one hyper conservative partisan judge in Amarillo should literally run the entire country. I don't make the rules, we just have to respect it.
Click to expand...
The Federal Court system could fix it whenever they would like (eg, stricter rules on forum shopping, requiring judge randomization across districts if there are fewer than X judges in an area...). Conservatives on the supreme court like it this way though, since it can be a nice vehicle to bring cherry picked cases in front of the court.
 
Brainonska511 said:
The Federal Court system could fix it whenever they would like (eg, stricter rules on forum shopping, requiring judge randomization across districts if there are fewer than X judges in an area...). Conservatives on the supreme court like it this way though, since it can be a nice vehicle to bring cherry picked cases in front of the court.
Click to expand...

The output of the 5th is not exactly what they had mostly in mind though even if the policy aligns with their desires. When both Alito and Thomas are like "nah, I'm out" your decision really sucks ass.
 
K1052 said:
The output of the 5th is not exactly what they had mostly in mind though even if the policy aligns with their desires. When both Alito and Thomas are like "nah, I'm out" your decision really sucks ass.
Click to expand...
Sure, in this case they checked out. But they like the pathway overall. A batshit circuit to feed things to conservative justices.
 
Pens1566 said:
I wouldn't be too ecstatic over the standing ruling today. It's a temporary "win" on a technicality.

Like others have mentioned, there will be a case that makes its way up soon enough where they will rule they way they want to.
Click to expand...
Yep. Basically they just said they sued the wrong people, so go back and do it right next time so we can rule better for the right-wing anti-choice party.
 
MrSquished said:
Yep. Basically they just said they sued the wrong people, so go back and do it right next time so we can rule better for the right-wing anti-choice party.
Click to expand...

And there is currently another challenge where 3 states (ID, MO, KS) filed essentially the same suit on the grounds of states rights.

We'll see you right back here same time next year ...
 
nakedfrog said:
Well, how... expected.

www.nbcnews.com

Texas abortion ban linked to rise in infant and newborn deaths. Is it a 'foreshadow' for other states?

“This might foreshadow what is happening in other states,” said Johns Hopkins public health researcher Alison Gemmill. “Texas is basically a year ahead.”
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com
Click to expand...

“The specific increase in deaths attributable to congenital anomalies really makes an ironclad link between the change in the law and the terrible outcomes that they’re seeing for infants and families,” said Nan Strauss, senior policy analyst of maternal health at the National Partnership for Women & Families, who was not involved with the research. “The women and families have to suffer through an excruciating later part of pregnancy, knowing that their baby is likely to die in the first weeks of life.”
Click to expand...

Feature, not a bug…smh
 
nakedfrog said:
Well, how... expected.

www.nbcnews.com

Texas abortion ban linked to rise in infant and newborn deaths. Is it a 'foreshadow' for other states?

“This might foreshadow what is happening in other states,” said Johns Hopkins public health researcher Alison Gemmill. “Texas is basically a year ahead.”
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com
Click to expand...
Similar studies in many other states are going to produce the same heartbreaking results.

Republicans get their rocks off when people they control suffer the levels of misery dictated by Old Testament beliefs that god gets his cookies off on people suffering.
 
HomerJS said:
Every Republican must be required to remarry their first wife.
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t put any women thru that. I would venture to say women’s right to leave someone for any reason or not reason at all makes conservatives irate. How dare that uppity female not want to be near them!

Allowing women to divorce for any or no reason at all just makes sense. And men for that reason as well.

Why force people to stay together because conservatives feelings are hurt if they don’t?

Are our vows to be managed by the small government some more?

If states start to roll this back, expect marriages to dwindle because people won’t take the risk of being saddled with someone they don’t want to be married to
 
Last edited:
ch33zw1z said:
I wouldn’t put any women thru that. I would venture to say women’s right to leave someone for any reason or not reason at all makes conservatives irate. How dare that uppity female not want to be near them!

Allowing women to divorce for any or no reason at all just makes sense. And men for that reason as well.

Why force people to stay together because conservatives feelings are hurt if they don’t?

Are our vows to be managed by the small government some more?

If states start to roll this back, expect marriages to dwindle because people won’t take the risk of being saddled with someone they don’t want to be married to
Click to expand...
Republican base is so fucked up JD Vance managed to win an election telling women they need to stay in abusive marriages.

The Ohio Republican and Hillbilly Elegy author said that "one of the great tricks that I think the sexual revolution pulled on the American populace" was convincing people in "unhappy" or "even violent" marriages that getting divorced would "make people happier in the long term,"
Click to expand...
 
JFC....well, that's a great way to see the number of marriages in this country take a massive nosedive. Anyone with any self-respect would be nuts to get married with that kind of 1600's level bullshit in place. Not that I care how many people are married.
 
Stokely said:
JFC....well, that's a great way to see the number of marriages in this country take a massive nosedive. Anyone with any self-respect would be nuts to get married with that kind of 1600's level bullshit in place. Not that I care how many people are married.
Click to expand...

GOP: restrict abortion even for rape, restrict contraception, laud child marriages, remove no fault divorce, threaten to murder women who have abortions….what should we expect next

1. Arranged marriages
2. Force marriages to your rapist

It’s really a toss up
 
HomerJS said:
Republican base is so fucked up JD Vance managed to win an election telling women they need to stay in abusive marriages.
Click to expand...
Republicans look at this and think "that's terrible, we need to undo this"

www.nber.org

Divorce Laws and Family Violence

www.nber.org www.nber.org
For example, there was a large decline in the number of women committing suicide following the introduction of unilateral divorce, but no similar decline for men. States that passed unilateral divorce laws saw total female suicide decline by around 20 percent in the long run. The authors also find a large decline in domestic violence for both men and women following adoption of unilateral divorce. Finally, the evidence suggests that unilateral divorce led to a decline in females murdered by their partners, while the data reveal no discernible effects for homicide against men.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top