New Ohio abortion restriction

[ShAArk92]

Abortion is a great stain on this country that we will pay for at some point, kind of like slavery.

You're right, Phil. We will be held to account; individually and as a society

One could argue we are already seeing the rotten fruit in the disregard for others. The increasing selfishness, et al.

Thanks.

 

[NJlonghorn]

It may have been a joke, but people are idiots. Many think that overturning Roe would mean the criminalization if abortion throughout the country (a myth the media and abortion rights activists pretty much never correct), so plenty of low-information, radical feminists who have never read Roe would lose their minds if it got overturned. I could see them calling for secession like some in California are.

Frankly, I think it would be somewhat anticlimactic. Sure, you'd see some red states ban it, and the media would make a big deal out of it. However, when the ignorant people eventually realize that the world didn't come to an end and that you can still have an abortion in many states, the **** storm of idiocy will die down. They might even eventually realize that they were actually the ones forcing their views on people, not the other way around, but I won't hold my breath on that.

You are right that a second Trump SCOTUS appointment would merely result in the demise of Roe v. Wade, which would return the abortion debate to each state. I think some states would make a bad policy choice by outlawing abortion, but to me this wouldn't be the huge deal that liberals make it out to be.

The bigger problem would be the potential next step. If life begins at conception, then a fetus has the same rights as a post-birth person. A law that prohibits the murder of one but permits the murder of the other would, arguably, violate equal protection.

On the current Supreme Court, I suspect (without direct evidence) that support for this position is 2/8, and that it will become 3/9 with Trump's new appointment. Roe v. Wade might be the only consequence of a second Trump justice, but a national abortion ban could be the consequence of a third Trump justice.

I think a national abortion band would be bad policy, but that wouldn't really impact me personally all that much. My bigger concern is that a national abortion ban could (and I thin would) result in a huge liberal sweep of elected offices. Over 70% of Americans think abortion laws are either just right or too strict, with under 30% believing they are too permissive. Republicans would be marching against popular opinion by banning abortion outright.

 

[NJlonghorn]

Democrats will surely try to make this a "war on women" issue for obvious reasons, but I'm not sure that'll work very well.

If this is how the Dems spin it, you may be right. They should go back to what worked in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s -- this is a war about abortion rights. It has nothing to do with most other women's-rights issues, and trying to shoe-horn this into identity politics has failed and will continue to fail if they go in that direction.

 

[texas_ex2000]

You are right that a second Trump SCOTUS appointment would merely result in the demise of Roe v. Wade, which would return the abortion debate to each state. I think some states would make a bad policy choice by outlawing abortion, but to me this wouldn't be the huge deal that liberals make it out to be.

The only thing I care about is what would Texas decide?

Prepare for the boycotts.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The bigger problem would be the potential next step. If life begins at conception, then a fetus has the same rights as a post-birth person. A law that prohibits the murder of one but permits the murder of the other would, arguably, violate equal protection.

On the current Supreme Court, I suspect (without direct evidence) that support for this position is 2/8, and that it will become 3/9 with Trump's new appointment. Roe v. Wade might be the only consequence of a second Trump justice, but a national abortion ban could be the consequence of a third Trump justice.

Gotta disagree here. First, I've never actually heard of one of the current justices making this argument or raising it in a court opinion. I'm sure there's a legal commentator out there who espouses that view (because there's a legal commentator to espouse every view), but I've never heard any indication that a current justice agrees with it.

Second, I think it's questionable to call it a "next step." Roe isn't an equal protection case. It's a due process case that involves an entirely different body of law, different issues, different rights or alleged rights, and different potential parties of interest. Accordingly, an equal protection case involving fetuses is not a logical extension of reversing Roe. It would be an entirely new dispute with new issues. In fact, it's technically possible (though absurd) for the equal protection case to be made without overturning Roe.

Finally, an equal protection case could potentially made of any law. If someone did bring such a case, it would likely be decided under a rational basis test that would be very deferential to the states wanting to protect abortion rights. Accordingly the odds of them losing (and therefore forcing a national ban) are highly remote.

If this is how the Dems spin it, you may be right. They should go back to what worked in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s -- this is a war about abortion rights. It has nothing to do with most other women's-rights issues, and trying to shoe-horn this into identity politics has failed and will continue to fail if they go in that direction.

I'm not so sure. The reason Democrats stopped arguing about abortion rights and pivoted to "women's issues" is that it was a more humane sounding to use that euphemism than talking directly about abortion. If they went back to taking directly about abortion, it would force a discussion about the specifics of abortion, and they are gruesome. If I was a pro-choice advocate, I'd want to stay away from that.

 

[ShAArk92]

Well said, Deez

 

[Phil Elliott]

One could argue we are already seeing the rotten fruit in the disregard for others.

Oh I agree we are already reaping a bad harvest from abortion in a marked decrease in the respect for the sanctity of life.

 

[Monahorns]

Isn't a beating heart a scientifically measurable sign of human life? You stop the beating heart, you end a human life. Viability is a term that is more about voodoo than science.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Isn't a beating heart a scientifically measurable sign of human life? You stop the beating heart, you end a human life. Viability is a term that is more about voodoo than science.

I'm assuming "viability" is a series of scientifically measurable factors. So, 1 sign vs. a series of signs and research. I'll go with the latter.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Kasich surprisingly vetoed the Ohio "heartbeat" bill. He had this to say:

"Similar legislation enacted in two other states has twice been declared unconstitutional by federal judges, and the Supreme Court declined to review those decisions," he said in a statement.

 

[NJlonghorn]

Color me un-surprised. Kasich is a reasonable guy, and this action reinforces my belief that he was the best choice for the presidency in 2016. Oh well, I guess that shows you how much my opinion matters.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Color me un-surprised. Kasich is a reasonable guy, and this action reinforces my belief that he was the best choice for the presidency in 2016. Oh well, I guess that shows you how much my opinion matters.

This was a wise decision but the easy choice would have been to sign it.

 

[NJlonghorn]

This was a wise decision but the easy choice would have been to sign it.

Probably. Perhaps he is positioning himself for the pendulum swinging back from a surge too far to the right.

 

[nashhorn]

I'm assuming "viability" is a series of scientifically measurable factors

Whatever, heartbeat is enough for me, but of course that's just me. And I for one am glad I did NOT vote for Kasich and I would have vs Clinton (or even Trump for that matter). Again just my opinion but I think him an A****** for the veto. Changed my opinion,

 

[Monahorns]

You assume that viability uses scientific measures? Any facts to base your assumption on? My reading about the subject points to conjecture not measurements.

Do you deny that a heart beat is a scientific measurement of life?

 

[Horns11]

You assume that viability uses scientific measures? Any facts to base your assumption on? My reading about the subject points to conjecture not measurements.

Do you deny that a heart beat is a scientific measurement of life?

This one has some measures

You're trying to parse "life" with survivability. I don't think anyone doubts that a fetus is living inside a mother (or if there are sick individuals out there who think that a fetus is just some kind of amorphous blob parasite, they're in the minority). But viability is pretty important.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I'm glad Kasich vetoed the bill. He did the right thing. However, I do fear that this will mark the end of his political career. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[theiioftx]

Until he switches to the Democrat or Independent party, his career in politics beyond Gov of Ohio is over.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Until he switches to the Democrat or Independent party, his career in politics beyond Gov of Ohio is over.

Independents don't win statewide in Ohio, and Kasich is far too conservative to win a Democratic primary. If he can't survive a GOP primary, he's done.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Independents don't win statewide in Ohio, and Kasich is far too conservative to win a Democratic primary. If he can't survive a GOP primary, he's done.

It seems Kasich took a pragmatic view to his decision on vetoing the legislation. Pragmatism has no role in the current Republican party unless it comes via the cult of Trump personality.

 

[theiioftx]

That is my point. And kind of ironic that Kasich's staying in the race led to Trump getting the nomination.

 

[NJlonghorn]

Independents don't win statewide in Ohio, and Kasich is far too conservative to win a Democratic primary. If he can't survive a GOP primary, he's done.

If Trump keeps careening right, and if the 2020 Republican primary is Trump vs. Kasich, I think you may see lots of independents and democrats crossing over to vote for Kasich. How likely this is to succeed depends on how far right Trump goes, and how good of a candidate the Democrats put up. I wouldn't count him out just yet.

Edit to add: I hope this doesn't happen. I hope Trump does a good job as president and stays near enough to the center that folks like me and SH are comfortable voting for him in 2020. I'm just saying I'm not ready to give up on Kasich yet.