[mirceal]

Cute take but I'm going to ask the question: why did something that was in place for 50 years needs to be revisited? Is it maybe needed for the nutjobs that do want to ban abortion to do their thing?

Also, you need to ask yourself: is this about abortion? Or is it really about literally keeping the people poor, stupid and uneducated?

Think about it: if you're not poor this is not an issue. If you have 5 kids instead of 1, good luck getting them the proper education. But it's cool...we can use all that almost free labor to drive our corporate empires forward.

[dang]

I'm afraid your comments in this thread have been breaking the site guidelines. Can you please make your substantive points thoughtfully? That means without fulminating and without calling names.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[wilsonnb3]

> why did something that was in place for 50 years needs to be revisited?

Because it was poorly reasoned judicial activism and always has been. The amount of time that a decision stands should have no bearing on how good of a decision it is.

One of the dissents in Casey v Planned Parenthood in 92 also wanted to overturn Roe, for the same reasons that the current court did.

Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg thought that Roe v Wade was poorly reasoned.

[notch656a]

But what is baffling is why they picked Roe V Wade to overturn rather than cut it at the root, such as Wickard v Filburn which would have undone a massive swath of the kind of unconstitutional expansion of the federal government.

They could have applied their logic uniformly but bizarrely singled out an abortion case.

[coryfklein]

> why did something that was in place for 50 years needs to be revisited?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg made it her career to overturn precedents around women's rights that had been around far longer than 50 years.

[lanstin]

The law in New York City was from 1905. The current court doesn’t seem to value stability so much as their own agenda for how things ought to be.

Personally I think the root cause is an alliance between people with hateful beliefs and people that want the government not to tax or regulate large companies and rich families. Fine, slut shame people because they had sex and got pregnant (no matter the circumstances) and let us keep sponsoring fake research that carbon burn is good. Be openly racist again and lower those taxes even at the cost of not educating the young.

Just my theory tho. Hard to know.

[mirceal]

It is a good guess. This is not about right or wrong. This is about the rest of us being force the religious views of a minority by people who figure out it's a great way to divide and control us this way.

[hatware]

> why did something that was in place for 50 years needs to be revisited?

Please answer the same question, but for slavery.

[mirceal]

Do I need to remind you we had this thing called the Civil War over slavery?

Setting aside political posturing: Who cannot get an abortion today? Even in deep red states, if you're wealthy the same rules do not apply to you.