this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2023
47 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
19 readers
1 users here now
@politics on kbin.social is a magazine to share and discuss current events news, opinion/analysis, videos, or other informative content related to politicians, politics, or policy-making at all levels of governance (federal, state, local), both domestic and international. Members of all political perspectives are welcome here, though we run a tight ship. Community guidelines and submission rules were co-created between the Mod Team and early members of @politics. Please read all community guidelines and submission rules carefully before engaging our magazine.
founded 2 years ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That is just it Roe vs Wade was about privacy, that the government has no right to know what you do. By elemiminating roe vs Wade the Supreme Court has said that it is ok for the government to know what it's citizens are doing with out probable cause.
It was telegraphed super hard when they attacked Roe and not Casey but claimed it was about abortion, and in the ruling they managed to take aim directly at the 14th amendment, which they have slowly been doing in other cases.
It's not about abortion, abortion is an easy way to tug on heart strings, it's about absolutely destroying due process and privacy. Without due process and privacy there is no protection... really from the government at all.
Privacy is a factor and part of the basis of the argument in Roe but that idea doesn't really hold up if you consider abortion to be a crime. An example in the medical setting is how some injuries have to be reported. It would be reasonable to point out how substance abuse isn't necessary reported but I doubt prolife people like that policy either.
To be clear I am pro-choice and there should be federal protections if not a full blown amendment for abortion, birth control, and other medical procedures but currently those protections are limited. That is how some states think they can do shit like demand medical records from other states. In general the idea of protections for privacy seems to be more limited than it should be.
For this particular issue the obvious thing outside of what should be legal would be that the states have no reason or jurisdiction to know anything. If there was a crime going on in that other state the demanding state has no grounds to charge anyone with anything. No crime was committed in their state even if a crime did happen. Said crime would be the business of the state in which the crime took place.
Shit this gets tricky because I wouldn't want states to not talk to each other about domestic violence if a person is trying to buy a firearm in a new state...
The background check is a federal thing with federal laws regulating it. The states are supposed to report things to the feds for things to show up on the NICS. There have been failures related to the NICS due to states or military not reporting things to the feds but they don't really report stuff to other states for the background check. And if states are asked about things it's the feds doing the asking. The FBI manages the background checks and NICS.
There is also a big difference between states sharing info about convictions and a random out of state police department, ag, or governor asking a hospital to violate HIPPA for something that isn't a crime in that state.