It's a wedge issue where neither side will give any ground, which makes it exploitable. If you figure out a way to tie a wedge issue to the rest of your political platform you're virtually guaranteed support from one side or another. IMO one side has been much, much better at exploiting this fact and has has achieved great power despite representing less than a plurality of voters.
It’s a divisive issue because it represents fundamentally different world views. As an asian, the idea that the government can’t regulate abortion, which is prevalent among a large minority of Democrats these days, is remarkable. Even if abortion was a moral issue, and not about preserving human life, nothing precludes states from legislating morality. It’s illustrative to compare to Japan or Germany, which have “liberal” abortion regimes insofar as it’s widely available. But in both countries it’s still technically illegal. The state has the power to regulate, but simply tolerates abortion under certain conditions.
When people deny that power altogether, you’re dealing with fundamentally different notions of how society works, and that predictably produces conflict. And people perceive that conflict as involving more fundamental issues than what the marginal income tax rate should be.
And which side “represents less than a plurality of voters?” Republicans won a majority of the Congressional popular vote in 2016. They got a million and a half more votes than Democrats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_House_of_Re.... They’re on pace to do it again this year. They’re also a couple of points ahead in the generic Congressional ballot.
It’s an error to rely on the Presidential popular vote. Because it doesn’t count nobody is trying to win it. It’s easy for Democrats to campaign in big cities in red states, but the GOP has no incentive to spend resources in rural areas of blue states. But they can and do field Congressional candidates in those areas, which is reflected in the Congressional popular vote.
Government does and should regulate behavior. But, morality based on religious beliefs becomes a problem, when the beliefs of particular religious groups are imposed on others who don't believe as they do. Effective government would find the correct balance, where the laws reflect what's best for the majority and protects individual rights and freedoms within reason.
> The state has the power to regulate, but simply tolerates abortion under certain conditions.
The issue the U.S. will now be running into, is that various states will have conflicting laws on abortion, adding to chaos and confusion.
The extremism involved in total or nonsensical abortion bans by various states, like even in cases of: rape, statutory rape, teenage/child pregnancy, incest, life of mother in danger, high percentage chance child will have major birth defects, various contraceptive measures (IUDs, abortion pills) etc... Then becomes a matter of showing a callous attitude of destroying and endangering the lives of various women and even the children they might be forced to bear.
As someone who wishes this was codified in our constitution, I'm afraid the 'concept' is held relatively weakly.
Clarence Thomas has stated, regarding the Establishment Clause: 'The text and history of this Clause suggest that it should not be incorporated against the States.'
I wouldn't be surprised if there is concurrence among the conservative justices sans Roberts.
IMO, it's held "weakly" because there's a christian majority in the government at large (and the SC in particular). As such, the morality they advocate for just happens to also align with morality as defined by their faith.
If you hold a different morality (in particular the Jewish or Muslim views on abortion rights), you're just SOL because you're not a majority.
The Supreme Court has fewer deeply religious people than the country as a whole, because of the appointment process. The religious wing of the Democratic Party (conservative Hispanics and Black people) is excluded, while the religious wing of the Republican Party has to share appointments with economic libertarians (Kennedy, Roberts, etc).
That's besides the point regardless. The "Establishment Clause" prohibits the creation of a national church: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/inte.... That's what "Establishment of Religion" means--creating an official, established Church. Several states had an established church around the time of the founding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state.... For example, Massachusetts had "disestablished" its official church less than 10 years before the Constitution, and continued public funding of it until 40 years after the Constitution. The "Establishment Clause" prohibited the federal government from creating such an official religion.
The Establishment Clause does not prohibit people from voting for laws based on their religion. That is to say, it does not put a thumb on the scale in favor of beliefs based on secular philosophy versus religious philosophy. Voters (at the state level) can close stores on Sunday based on Christianity, no different than doing so based on secular beliefs about workers needing a day off.
So, none of that actually challenges my statement - that our politicians' morals are based extensively on those of their religion, thus avoiding any conflict of interest in their mind (i.e. Who doesn't view abortion as murder?), while still creating a "tyranny of the majority" for those who don't share their religion.
Legal or not according to the intent of "separation of church and state", it's holding us back as a country.
No, you're confused. The US has the Establishment Clause (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause) and the Free Exercise Clause, and they don't preclude religious people from using a religious basis to choose between secular policies. Abortion regulation is a secular policy area.
> The extremism involved in total or nonsensical abortion bans by various states, like even in cases of...
IIRC, most of those bans were passed when they had no hope of being enforced because of Roe v. Wade (e.g. they were for show). Now that case has been repealed, as things shake out, I expect many of those laws will be revised.
Religion is a red herring in the abortion debate. Abortion is illegal in Poland (Catholic) and Bangladesh (Muslim), and is technically illegal (though available) in Japan (Shinto and Buddhist). Regulation of abortion is therefore not something specific to a particular religious tradition.
In the U.S. specifically, moreover, abortion is best described as an internecine conflict between different branches of Christianity. The pro-choice movement is an outgrowth of mainline Protestantism, with its focus on individual self determination. The notion that the morality of extinguishing a fetal life "is between a woman and her doctor" and society has no say is uniquely Protestant. It's quite alien even to other societies that permit abortions, which tend to do so on utilitarian grounds like overpopulation.
And all that is fine, because "separation of church and state" does not mean that the government cannot regulate behavior "based on religious beliefs." The U.S. does not have French-style secularism, where there is a separate body of secular philosophy animating government and religious belief is actively excluded. It doesn't matter what people's reasons are for voting a particular way, as long as the end result is otherwise permissible.
> The U.S. has the concept of separating religion from government
Realizing that this is getting more deeply into politics...
GOP Rep. Boebert: ‘I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk’ - https://wapo.st/3u7AkGL
> Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), who faces a primary election Tuesday, says she is “tired” of the U.S. separation of church and state, a long-standing concept stemming only from a “stinking letter” penned by one of the Founding Fathers.
> Speaking at a religious service Sunday in Colorado, she told worshipers: “The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church. That is not how our Founding Fathers intended it.”
And then there's Mary Miller (R-Ill) who celebrated the ruling as a victory for white life. She claims it was just a mistake, but she's also the person that used a quote from Hitler in a campaign speech so "who knows." IMO it's an example of what I'm talking about: using the wedge issue of abortion to move folks closer to white nationalism and fascism in general.
>And which side “represents less than a plurality of voters?” Republicans won a majority of the Congressional popular vote in 2016. They got a million and a half more votes than Democrats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_House_of_Re.... They’re on pace to do it again this year.
This coupled with Presidential votes, even though technically only the electoral college counts, makes it quite fair to imply it is the Republicans that represent less than a plurality of voters.
The House popular vote more accurately reflects nationwide sentiment because both parties have an incentive to campaign in every state. Indeed, the leaders of both parties in the House are from California.
But both parties lack an incentive to try and win statewide "winner take all" contests in opposite-color states. Cross-referencing those results against polling suggests that this effect hurts the GOP, with their geographically more spread out base, slightly more than it hurts Democrats.
Rayiner. Dude. First, using the word 'plurality' the way you introduced it is confusing at best, and possibly just wrong.
Second, the 538 poll aggregation has massive margin for error. Filter down to just the polls rated A+ and you only get an half point advantage for Republicans. Change the filter to the polls rated B+ and above and you get a full point advantage for Democrats. Also, consider the changes over time. How confident are you that a 5% swing from Democrats to Republicans over the past year represents an actual ideological change mapping directly to abortion ideology?
> Rayiner. Dude. First, using the word 'plurality' the way you introduced it is confusing at best, and possibly just wrong.
The polls literally show Republicans with a plurality in the generic ballot.
> Second, the 538 poll aggregation has massive margin for error.
And in the last several cycles, polling error has undercounted conservatives.
> How confident are you that a 5% swing from Democrats to Republicans over the past year represents an actual ideological change mapping directly to abortion ideology?
I didn't say any of that, and I don't think that's true. My point is refuting this idea that Republicans are some sort of minority party. We're a closely divided country, as demonstrated by the fact that the GOP has won an absolute larger number of votes in more than half of House elections since 1992, and regularly pulls ahead of Democrats on the generic ballot.
> > Rayiner. Dude. First, using the word 'plurality' the way you introduced it is confusing at best, and possibly just wrong.
> The polls literally show Republicans with a plurality in the generic ballot.
I missed that the first comment you responded to was the one that suggested the Republicans didn't have a plurality. Thought you brought up a question of who has less than a plurality when both Republicans and Democrats clearly have at least a plurality.
> But in both countries it’s still technically illegal.
It would be nonsensical for activists in Japan to spend time advocating that abortion become technically legal without regard to practical situations where it could be performed.
This is essentialist reasoning ascribing some kind of soul to the law, which feels out of character for you. I suppose you could argue that sodomy is
'technically illegal' in many states, but that Lawrence & Baker carved out situations where it is tolerated.
Does the technicality of being prosecuted for non-consensual act of sodomy vs. an explicit sexual assault crime actually mean anything to the perpetrator if the penalty is the same?
> And which side “represents less than a plurality of voters?”
Party affiliation and political ideology are far from an exact match. That's why there are a handful of Republican governors posturing to uphold abortion rights.
Abortion is often a singular issue for pro-life advocates, who have had a particular motivation to mobilize built up over the past half-century. I personally have met a handful of people who hated everything about the Republican platform except for its stance on abortion, and that was the sole issue that decided their vote. Polarization has progressed to the point that there's only one
The pro-choice movement doesn't have the same fervor at this point, and I think a backlash is not going to be rapid due to a combination of:
- those who are pro-choice but happy to rationalize that it's now a state level issue and that the reversal of Roe v Wade was simply the correction of improper judicial activism.
- defeatist stances by those who feel disenfranchised and that voting is ineffective, particularly when done strategically to 'win' instead of based on a hard ideal
- those who would vote for abortion rights if a ballot was set in front of them but who personally find abortion repugnant or deserving of severe restriction
> It would be nonsensical for activists in Japan to spend time advocating that abortion become technically legal without regard to practical situations where it could be performed. This is essentialist reasoning ascribing some kind of soul to the law, which feels out of character for you.
I'm simply pointing out the difference between the government tolerating certain conduct, and the government lacking the power to prohibit that conduct. Abortion in Japan and Germany are examples of the former--legalization happened without denying the power of the government to have made it illegal in the first place.
Roe (and Lawrence), by contrast, not only legalized certain conduct, but declared that the government never had the power to make it illegal in the first place. That's actually quite radical compared to how most advanced countries view the issue.
> The pro-choice movement doesn't have the same fervor at this point
I don't think that's accurate. For a significant chunk of the pro-choice movement, it's a moral issue as much as it is for dedicated pro-lifers. They believe that the purpose of life is fulfilling one's individual hopes and dreams in the same way pro-lifers believe that the purpose of life is to be fruitful and multiply. For dedicated pro-choicers, the possibility of derailing individual aspirations is so unthinkable that it justifies ending a nascent human life. For dedicated pro-lifers, reproduction is such a clear mandate that it justifies derailing individual ambitions and aspirations. That's the fundamental conflict in world view that I'm talking about.
Not that I support this ruling in any way or form, but the 2016 election led to the current slate of justices who came up with this ruling. It is probably good and by design that we don’t change justices with the popular vote.
The House of Representatives is fully inconsequential to the selection and confirmation of Supreme Court justices, and the only Republicans on the ballot nation-wide lost the popular vote by a substantial margin.
As a legal matter, the Presidential popular vote is also “fully inconsequential” to the selection of Supreme Court Justices, or anything else.
We’re only talking about the popular vote insofar as Democrats try to delegitimize Republican administrations by insisting that they are a minority party that can gain power only through the quirk of our voting system. But in doing so they conveniently ignore the House popular vote, which Republicans routinely win.
You shouldn’t drink your own Kool-Aid. This Nixonian “Silent Majority” thinking is bad for Democrats, insofar as it causes them to get over their skis. In 2010, Democrats lost the House popular vote by almost 6 million votes. They lost it by 5 million in 2014 and 1.5 million in 2016. The House popular vote is a far better proxy for where the parties stand with the electorate.
The entire point of life appointments is to remove partisanship from judicial decisions. If the judges were up for election, their performance would most certainly suffer.
For example, look at the Federal Reserve. They are supposed to be independent from politics, but their head is appointed by the president every X years, and so they naturally make the decisions that guarantee them reelection and not the decisions which would maximize economic stability/utility.
> Even if abortion was a moral issue, and not about preserving human life, nothing precludes states from legislating morality.
Not nothing -- we have a constitution that guarantees rights, many of which are rights to behave immorally (in the eyes of some). In fact that's the core of the Democrat's argument.
> And people perceive that conflict as involving more fundamental issues than what the marginal income tax rate should be.
Agreed, and that's pretty much my entire point.
> It’s an error to rely on the Presidential popular vote. Because it doesn’t count nobody is trying to win it.
I see this argument a lot but I don't find it convincing. There are plenty of senate and representative seats that are not competitive and yet we still count their votes when discussing the balance of power between the two parties, despite the fact that one side is less likely to try to win.
Your answer begs the question. Yes, abortion is a wedge issue, but why is it a wedge issue? Why are people against abortions in the US when most people aren’t against abortion access in other countries.
Right. It seems to me that both sides would be better off at advancing their so called goals if they could compromise and offer concessions, but that never happens.
That's what makes it a wedge issue: there isn't much room for compromise. If one side believes abortion is literally murder, they're not going to say "well, a little bit of murder is OK if we get <foo>".
