undefined | Better HN

0 pointsrayiner4y ago0 comments

> I doubt that this was a benevolent step ensuing that Roe is replaced by something more real.

It has nothing to do with "benevolence," but Roe being uniquely vulnerable in that its shortcomings as a legal decision made it a target even for the quarter of the GOP that disagrees with the party line on abortion.

> This is not the pattern we are seeing, or else explain the other religion-related decisions.

The explanation is that the Establishment Clause precedent is the next weakest after Roe. The U.S. was founded on religious pluralism, not French-style secularism. The absence of religious belief is, from the Constitutional perspective is not "neutral" but instead just another belief system. Excluding religious organizations and schools from public funding is plainly unconstitutional.

This is neither controversial in the US (a country where 2/3 of people disagree with the Supreme Court decision banning school prayer), or most other countries. Religious schools can get public funding in Sweden. Why not the US?

> More importantly Roe was universally accepted as real.

A real what?

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

Comevius4y ago

But isn't Roe weak because of the fundamental irresolvability of questions like when a fetus becomes a person, and thus Roe existed to leave room for political compromise. And even if it's a bad, constitutionally defective law, isn't overturning it 50 years later only causes harm and more polarization, kicking democracy further down the drain?

Actively playing favorites with a religion is not religious pluralism. Besides reality-wise how would all the fundamentalist stance about what America founded on, and how this and that should be interpreted based on that is useful if the country can't serve it's people. Nobody back then really thought that the country should not adapt to thrive.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse