Of course they aren’t going to introduce “miscegenation laws”. And any American lawmaker that tried to introduce such a clearly repulsive law would be howled down and driven out of town, ASAFP
@SeaShantyIrish2 has a point. This site can lapse all too easily into anti-Americanism. It is not pretty. Yes America is having a brutal, intense and sometimes ugly debate about abortion - but this is a fundamental moral difficulty. Where does life begin? When do we begin to protect it? This is not a small matter, and they take it more seriously than us
Just because they are having this terrifically thorny debate does not mean that Americans - 99% of whom are decent kind honest people - are about to accept laws banning marriage between different races. It’s nuts
The Loving case which is the one which stated that bans on inter-racial marriage were unconstitutional is based on the same reasoning which the Court has today ruled is unconstitutional in relation to Roe v Wade.
You hope that someone would not seek to introduce such a law. But if they did, based on today's ruling you could not be confident that the Supreme Court would overrule it.
This is not a debate about abortion, fundamentally. Todays ruling effectively allows states to rule what people can and cannot do in their most private and intimate moments: who they can have sex with, what type of sex they can have and whether they can use contraception. It gives the state power over a person's body. And when the state does have that sort of power, when a person loses full autonomy over their own body and their most intimate activities, they lose full personhood. It chiefly affects women. But it goes beyond them as well.
I would also say this: @rcs1000 always says that people will make a democratic choice to have abortion. That may well be so. But if such laws are challenged and go to the Supreme Court can one be confident that they won't rule that abortion itself is unconstitutional and that states have no rights to make such laws? There is it seems to me a real risk that abortion could end up being unlawful throughout the US.
And if that happens other rights - gay rights for instance - are also at risk.
No
Abortion is uniquely difficult because two fundamental rights clash
The right of the unborn child to life, and the right of the mother to control her body
Personally I think we do this terrible balancing act OK in the UK. But I respect those who have firm moral beliefs that life begins at conception, and that the law - in America - should reflect that. It’s a deep philosophical dilemma
There is no deep philosophical dilemma about “banning interracial marriages”. Such a law would be barbaric and repulsive and it would be rejected out of hand by American voters and lawmakers. It is daft to suggest that this is within the realms of the possible
With respect you are missing the point. The SC decision removes the protections that allowed these barbaric and repulsive laws to be overturned. There are plenty of people in the US who think that, for instance, being gay is repulsive and may well seek to make it illegal. If they do pass such laws, the SC's reasoning today makes it very hard indeed to declare such laws unconstitutional.
We cannot be confident that there won't be groups in the US who might well seek to make inter-racial relationships unlawful. It was not after all that long ago that this was the case in significant parts of the US.
The significance of today's ruling is that we cannot take for granted rights we thought we had, even if we had them for half a century.
I appreciate that abortion raises moral issues. I could not have one. But I would not tell another woman what she should do with her own body nor force her to carry a child, give birth and then either have to look after the child or give it up for adoption. That is quite wrong. But there are people who do want to control others in matters of personal sexual morality and I fear that they have the wind behind them in the US.
On that basis what business is it of Johnson's that Russia chose to invade Ukraine?
It is invasion of a foreign country, not a decision about a foreign country's domestic law by that foreign country's highest court
How about this one then?
"Disgraceful scenes in U.S. Congress. The United States stands for democracy around the world and it is now vital that there should be a peaceful and orderly transfer of power."
Absolutely disagree with the law change re Roe v Wade but could someone please give me an understanding of why it’s been the leading news story on BBC radio this evening?
It’s really not cool but the UK is not the US and I seriously don’t believe that if there was a change to abortion rules in any other country it would even be mentioned on Radio 2 news bulletins.
I get that the US has massive cultural reach/is past it and irrelevant so whilst bemused by the level of coverage over last few months on the Today programme I don’t see why it’s leading in a country that isn’t affected remotely by it.
Thanks in advance.
Why do you think we aren't affected by it? We have plenty of American posters and many of us in the UK have connections with the USA.
When you say “many” do you think that there are more people in the UK with close family connections with the US than with the EU and therefore if more UK/EU family connections then why do we not have the same level of coverage of changes and opinions over, say abortion, in EU countries on the BBC?
journalists are more comfortable covering stories in english
Cyclefree - May I recommend, as I did earlier, that you look at US public opinion on abortion, at, for example, the Gallup site. For example: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
Please.
Look State by State.
Alabama, Indiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia etc all have majorities for making abortion mostly illegal. Until now they had no constitutional right to do so
Absolutely disagree with the law change re Roe v Wade but could someone please give me an understanding of why it’s been the leading news story on BBC radio this evening?
It’s really not cool but the UK is not the US and I seriously don’t believe that if there was a change to abortion rules in any other country it would even be mentioned on Radio 2 news bulletins.
I get that the US has massive cultural reach/is past it and irrelevant so whilst bemused by the level of coverage over last few months on the Today programme I don’t see why it’s leading in a country that isn’t affected remotely by it.
Thanks in advance.
The usual pattern around the world in recent years has been of more and more legalising abortion and contraception and increasing reproductive rights. The US going backwards is a man-bites-dog story, as well as being in the most powerful country in the world.
Us leads the world in trends and is signalling a reversal of the sexual revolution Remember no abortions means for example women are less likely to sleep around
Cyclefree - May I recommend, as I did earlier, that you look at US public opinion on abortion, at, for example, the Gallup site. For example: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
Please.
I have looked. I get that. How, though, does public opinion help when a law comes to the Supreme Court?
Of course they aren’t going to introduce “miscegenation laws”. And any American lawmaker that tried to introduce such a clearly repulsive law would be howled down and driven out of town, ASAFP
@SeaShantyIrish2 has a point. This site can lapse all too easily into anti-Americanism. It is not pretty. Yes America is having a brutal, intense and sometimes ugly debate about abortion - but this is a fundamental moral difficulty. Where does life begin? When do we begin to protect it? This is not a small matter, and they take it more seriously than us
Just because they are having this terrifically thorny debate does not mean that Americans - 99% of whom are decent kind honest people - are about to accept laws banning marriage between different races. It’s nuts
The Loving case which is the one which stated that bans on inter-racial marriage were unconstitutional is based on the same reasoning which the Court has today ruled is unconstitutional in relation to Roe v Wade.
You hope that someone would not seek to introduce such a law. But if they did, based on today's ruling you could not be confident that the Supreme Court would overrule it.
This is not a debate about abortion, fundamentally. Todays ruling effectively allows states to rule what people can and cannot do in their most private and intimate moments: who they can have sex with, what type of sex they can have and whether they can use contraception. It gives the state power over a person's body. And when the state does have that sort of power, when a person loses full autonomy over their own body and their most intimate activities, they lose full personhood. It chiefly affects women. But it goes beyond them as well.
I would also say this: @rcs1000 always says that people will make a democratic choice to have abortion. That may well be so. But if such laws are challenged and go to the Supreme Court can one be confident that they won't rule that abortion itself is unconstitutional and that states have no rights to make such laws? There is it seems to me a real risk that abortion could end up being unlawful throughout the US.
And if that happens other rights - gay rights for instance - are also at risk.
No
Abortion is uniquely difficult because two fundamental rights clash
The right of the unborn child to life, and the right of the mother to control her body
Personally I think we do this terrible balancing act OK in the UK. But I respect those who have firm moral beliefs that life begins at conception, and that the law - in America - should reflect that. It’s a deep philosophical dilemma
There is no deep philosophical dilemma about “banning interracial marriages”. Such a law would be barbaric and repulsive and it would be rejected out of hand by American voters and lawmakers. It is daft to suggest that this is within the realms of the possible
With respect you are missing the point. The SC decision removes the protections that allowed these barbaric and repulsive laws to be overturned. There are plenty of people in the US who think that, for instance, being gay is repulsive and may well seek to make it illegal. If they do pass such laws, the SC's reasoning today makes it very hard indeed to declare such laws unconstitutional.
We cannot be confident that there won't be groups in the US who might well seek to make inter-racial relationships unlawful. It was not after all that long ago that this was the case in significant parts of the US.
The significance of today's ruling is that we cannot take for granted rights we thought we had, even if we had them for half a century.
I appreciate that abortion raises moral issues. I could not have one. But I would not tell another woman what she should do with her own body nor force her to carry a child, give birth and then either have to look after the child or give it up for adoption. That is quite wrong. But there are people who do want to control others in matters of personal sexual morality and I fear that they have the wind behind them in the US.
The trouble is that most countries have not resorted to the constitution or supreme court to make homosexuality legal. It was done through the democratic process. I'm a liberal and I believe in individual rights and autonomy but you can only push so hard against a democratic majority before you get overwhelmed and potentially lose everything.
Of course they aren’t going to introduce “miscegenation laws”. And any American lawmaker that tried to introduce such a clearly repulsive law would be howled down and driven out of town, ASAFP
@SeaShantyIrish2 has a point. This site can lapse all too easily into anti-Americanism. It is not pretty. Yes America is having a brutal, intense and sometimes ugly debate about abortion - but this is a fundamental moral difficulty. Where does life begin? When do we begin to protect it? This is not a small matter, and they take it more seriously than us
Just because they are having this terrifically thorny debate does not mean that Americans - 99% of whom are decent kind honest people - are about to accept laws banning marriage between different races. It’s nuts
The Loving case which is the one which stated that bans on inter-racial marriage were unconstitutional is based on the same reasoning which the Court has today ruled is unconstitutional in relation to Roe v Wade.
You hope that someone would not seek to introduce such a law. But if they did, based on today's ruling you could not be confident that the Supreme Court would overrule it.
This is not a debate about abortion, fundamentally. Todays ruling effectively allows states to rule what people can and cannot do in their most private and intimate moments: who they can have sex with, what type of sex they can have and whether they can use contraception. It gives the state power over a person's body. And when the state does have that sort of power, when a person loses full autonomy over their own body and their most intimate activities, they lose full personhood. It chiefly affects women. But it goes beyond them as well.
I would also say this: @rcs1000 always says that people will make a democratic choice to have abortion. That may well be so. But if such laws are challenged and go to the Supreme Court can one be confident that they won't rule that abortion itself is unconstitutional and that states have no rights to make such laws? There is it seems to me a real risk that abortion could end up being unlawful throughout the US.
And if that happens other rights - gay rights for instance - are also at risk.
No
Abortion is uniquely difficult because two fundamental rights clash
The right of the unborn child to life, and the right of the mother to control her body
Personally I think we do this terrible balancing act OK in the UK. But I respect those who have firm moral beliefs that life begins at conception, and that the law - in America - should reflect that. It’s a deep philosophical dilemma
There is no deep philosophical dilemma about “banning interracial marriages”. Such a law would be barbaric and repulsive and it would be rejected out of hand by American voters and lawmakers. It is daft to suggest that this is within the realms of the possible
Leon. Just seen your question at the end of PT. You're right of course. Folk were locked up for homosexuality in this country within our life times. In the eighties in Scotland. That just about impinges on my consciousness. Is that worse? Well both are pretty bad. I don't think either are coming back. But if I had to bet, I reckon we are more likely to see bans on inter racial marriage in certain US States first. The US used to be a beacon of liberty. Massively oversold, and very often not observed. It isn't now.
I don’t think so. No one is bothered about whether people are married or not. Some other forms of egregious racism and misogyny are more likely.
Cyclefree - May I recommend, as I did earlier, that you look at US public opinion on abortion, at, for example, the Gallup site. For example: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
Please.
I have looked. I get that. How, though, does public opinion help when a law comes to the Supreme Court?
Or even a Senate filibuster, or an electoral college that over-represents small states.
Absolutely disagree with the law change re Roe v Wade but could someone please give me an understanding of why it’s been the leading news story on BBC radio this evening?
It’s really not cool but the UK is not the US and I seriously don’t believe that if there was a change to abortion rules in any other country it would even be mentioned on Radio 2 news bulletins.
I get that the US has massive cultural reach/is past it and irrelevant so whilst bemused by the level of coverage over last few months on the Today programme I don’t see why it’s leading in a country that isn’t affected remotely by it.
Thanks in advance.
The usual pattern around the world in recent years has been of more and more legalising abortion and contraception and increasing reproductive rights. The US going backwards is a man-bites-dog story, as well as being in the most powerful country in the world.
Us leads the world in trends and is signalling a reversal of the sexual revolution Remember no abortions means for example women are less likely to sleep around
What exactly is your problem with women "sleeping around"?
Of course they aren’t going to introduce “miscegenation laws”. And any American lawmaker that tried to introduce such a clearly repulsive law would be howled down and driven out of town, ASAFP
@SeaShantyIrish2 has a point. This site can lapse all too easily into anti-Americanism. It is not pretty. Yes America is having a brutal, intense and sometimes ugly debate about abortion - but this is a fundamental moral difficulty. Where does life begin? When do we begin to protect it? This is not a small matter, and they take it more seriously than us
Just because they are having this terrifically thorny debate does not mean that Americans - 99% of whom are decent kind honest people - are about to accept laws banning marriage between different races. It’s nuts
The Loving case which is the one which stated that bans on inter-racial marriage were unconstitutional is based on the same reasoning which the Court has today ruled is unconstitutional in relation to Roe v Wade.
You hope that someone would not seek to introduce such a law. But if they did, based on today's ruling you could not be confident that the Supreme Court would overrule it.
This is not a debate about abortion, fundamentally. Todays ruling effectively allows states to rule what people can and cannot do in their most private and intimate moments: who they can have sex with, what type of sex they can have and whether they can use contraception. It gives the state power over a person's body. And when the state does have that sort of power, when a person loses full autonomy over their own body and their most intimate activities, they lose full personhood. It chiefly affects women. But it goes beyond them as well.
I would also say this: @rcs1000 always says that people will make a democratic choice to have abortion. That may well be so. But if such laws are challenged and go to the Supreme Court can one be confident that they won't rule that abortion itself is unconstitutional and that states have no rights to make such laws? There is it seems to me a real risk that abortion could end up being unlawful throughout the US.
And if that happens other rights - gay rights for instance - are also at risk.
No
Abortion is uniquely difficult because two fundamental rights clash
The right of the unborn child to life, and the right of the mother to control her body
Personally I think we do this terrible balancing act OK in the UK. But I respect those who have firm moral beliefs that life begins at conception, and that the law - in America - should reflect that. It’s a deep philosophical dilemma
There is no deep philosophical dilemma about “banning interracial marriages”. Such a law would be barbaric and repulsive and it would be rejected out of hand by American voters and lawmakers. It is daft to suggest that this is within the realms of the possible
With respect you are missing the point. The SC decision removes the protections that allowed these barbaric and repulsive laws to be overturned. There are plenty of people in the US who think that, for instance, being gay is repulsive and may well seek to make it illegal. If they do pass such laws, the SC's reasoning today makes it very hard indeed to declare such laws unconstitutional.
We cannot be confident that there won't be groups in the US who might well seek to make inter-racial relationships unlawful. It was not after all that long ago that this was the case in significant parts of the US.
The significance of today's ruling is that we cannot take for granted rights we thought we had, even if we had them for half a century.
I appreciate that abortion raises moral issues. I could not have one. But I would not tell another woman what she should do with her own body nor force her to carry a child, give birth and then either have to look after the child or give it up for adoption. That is quite wrong. But there are people who do want to control others in matters of personal sexual morality and I fear that they have the wind behind them in the US.
Pro-choice means just that. If you don't believe in abortion, then you won't have an abortion.
Cyclefree - May I recommend, as I did earlier, that you look at US public opinion on abortion, at, for example, the Gallup site. For example: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
Please.
That stat has always cheered me, but the perverse incentives of the US system make sure that people who hold the angriest, hardline views on the subject find themselves in positions of power in the GOP.
Indeed. And one of the functions of 45 has been to fuel this tendency with Republicans, while there has been no comparable figure among Democrats.
Of course there was pretty hard edge to Tea Party and other pre-45 manifestations of GOP rightwingery.
The Donald drove this into overdrive, however, thanks to his own well-established media savvy and charisma. PLUS growing political alienation of large swaths of mostly White voters in rust belts and rural areas. Alienation from Democratic Party increasing perceived as uninterested in them, their interests and perspective AND from the system in general.
Although I am not entirely comfortable dealing with morality politics, and I harbour my own occasional doubts on liberal abortion law, the removal of this fundamental human right for women concerns me greatly. I am even further alarmed by Clarence Thomas' subsequent mumblings. Where will this American Taliban madness that you support end?
You are very impressed by the illiberal politics of the fundamentalist Christian Right, but do you not ponder, as someone who values the notion of freedom from political interference, that overturning multiple case law which has allowed unfettered personal freedom is very un-Conservative?
Absolutely disagree with the law change re Roe v Wade but could someone please give me an understanding of why it’s been the leading news story on BBC radio this evening?
It’s really not cool but the UK is not the US and I seriously don’t believe that if there was a change to abortion rules in any other country it would even be mentioned on Radio 2 news bulletins.
I get that the US has massive cultural reach/is past it and irrelevant so whilst bemused by the level of coverage over last few months on the Today programme I don’t see why it’s leading in a country that isn’t affected remotely by it.
Thanks in advance.
Why do you think we aren't affected by it? We have plenty of American posters and many of us in the UK have connections with the USA.
When you say “many” do you think that there are more people in the UK with close family connections with the US than with the EU and therefore if more UK/EU family connections then why do we not have the same level of coverage of changes and opinions over, say abortion, in EU countries on the BBC?
Good question actually. There's the general point that America is lead singer in megaband The West and therefore hogs audience attention. Also - and this could be just me - it's particularly sad and depressing to see female emancipation being rewound in the country where so many of its famous battles were fought and won. Although I guess that 'famous' bit sort of loops back to the 1st point.
Absolutely disagree with the law change re Roe v Wade but could someone please give me an understanding of why it’s been the leading news story on BBC radio this evening?
It’s really not cool but the UK is not the US and I seriously don’t believe that if there was a change to abortion rules in any other country it would even be mentioned on Radio 2 news bulletins.
I get that the US has massive cultural reach/is past it and irrelevant so whilst bemused by the level of coverage over last few months on the Today programme I don’t see why it’s leading in a country that isn’t affected remotely by it.
Thanks in advance.
The usual pattern around the world in recent years has been of more and more legalising abortion and contraception and increasing reproductive rights. The US going backwards is a man-bites-dog story, as well as being in the most powerful country in the world.
Us leads the world in trends and is signalling a reversal of the sexual revolution Remember no abortions means for example women are less likely to sleep around
What exactly is your problem with women "sleeping around"?
As I said he was wrong to do so, as no doubt the pro lifers in his camp from Jacob Rees Mogg to Nadine Dorries will now tell him
Then Boris should tell them to do one. He's perfectly entitled to express a moral view on this issue. And I'd say the same if JRM and Nad were similarly coerced into silence.
With respect you are missing the point. The SC decision removes the protections that allowed these barbaric and repulsive laws to be overturned. There are plenty of people in the US who think that, for instance, being gay is repulsive and may well seek to make it illegal. If they do pass such laws, the SC's reasoning today makes it very hard indeed to declare such laws unconstitutional.
We cannot be confident that there won't be groups in the US who might well seek to make inter-racial relationships unlawful. It was not after all that long ago that this was the case in significant parts of the US.
The significance of today's ruling is that we cannot take for granted rights we thought we had, even if we had them for half a century.
I appreciate that abortion raises moral issues. I could not have one. But I would not tell another woman what she should do with her own body nor force her to carry a child, give birth and then either have to look after the child or give it up for adoption. That is quite wrong. But there are people who do want to control others in matters of personal sexual morality and I fear that they have the wind behind them in the US.
A few decades ago you could have said the same about Ireland, and they ended up legalising abortion decisively in a referendum. If they had been forced to change their laws from outside, it might still be a live culture war issue today.
Although I am not entirely comfortable dealing with morality politics, and I harbour my own occasional doubts on liberal abortion law, the removal of this fundamental human right for women concerns me greatly. I am even further alarmed by Clarence Thomas' subsequent mumblings. Where will this American Taliban madness that you support end?
You are very impressed by the illiberal politics of the fundamentalist Christian Right, but do you not ponder, as someone who values the notion of freedom from political interference, that overturning multiple case law which has allowed unfettered personal freedom is very un-Conservative?
No, allowing the states to decide on it is entirely in accordance with the US constitution.
Absolutely disagree with the law change re Roe v Wade but could someone please give me an understanding of why it’s been the leading news story on BBC radio this evening?
It’s really not cool but the UK is not the US and I seriously don’t believe that if there was a change to abortion rules in any other country it would even be mentioned on Radio 2 news bulletins.
I get that the US has massive cultural reach/is past it and irrelevant so whilst bemused by the level of coverage over last few months on the Today programme I don’t see why it’s leading in a country that isn’t affected remotely by it.
Thanks in advance.
The usual pattern around the world in recent years has been of more and more legalising abortion and contraception and increasing reproductive rights. The US going backwards is a man-bites-dog story, as well as being in the most powerful country in the world.
Us leads the world in trends and is signalling a reversal of the sexual revolution Remember no abortions means for example women are less likely to sleep around
What exactly is your problem with women "sleeping around"?
Blessed be the Fruit
I have no problem with it the woman will if she finds herself pregnant and abortion is illegal
America is generally top toeing towards civil war. As we have often discussed. This SCOTUS ruling is more of an obvious large step on that road
America is one of the two most important countries on earth, it is also the ultimate guarantor of Western freedom. If it is tearing itself apart that IS headline news elsewhere in the western world
Of course they aren’t going to introduce “miscegenation laws”. And any American lawmaker that tried to introduce such a clearly repulsive law would be howled down and driven out of town, ASAFP
@SeaShantyIrish2 has a point. This site can lapse all too easily into anti-Americanism. It is not pretty. Yes America is having a brutal, intense and sometimes ugly debate about abortion - but this is a fundamental moral difficulty. Where does life begin? When do we begin to protect it? This is not a small matter, and they take it more seriously than us
Just because they are having this terrifically thorny debate does not mean that Americans - 99% of whom are decent kind honest people - are about to accept laws banning marriage between different races. It’s nuts
They're not going to introduce anti misegination laws. But if it is logical follow on from this decision that a landmark case about anti misegination would fall on the same argument that seems a reasonable point to make.
The Tory voteshares of 30% and 38% were not far off national polling, it was tactical voting which did for them
Tactical voting on a grand scale. It wouldn't take anything like that to erase the Conservative majority at a GE, even if the Tory vote held up very well - and there's little reason at this juncture to suppose that it will. After all, what has two-and-a-half years of Conservative majority rule done for most of the supporters it managed to win from Labour in the North and Midlands, apart from "get Brexit done," which is now ancient history?
Make them poorer.
I don't discount the possibility of a revival - I won't believe that the Tories are beaten until it actually happens - but they're probably going to have to string out the existence of this Government for as long as possible, get a few extra notional seats on the board with the boundary changes, and then hope by the time we get to 2024 that the economy is slightly less bad and there's enough in the war chest to finance a last gasp giveaway (probably something like a penny off income tax and some fresh bung for the elderly,) before calling an election. The calculus being that this will be far enough away from arguments over the lockdown parties and any mishandling of Covid for voters with short memories and even shorter attention spans to have forgotten and moved on, and feel oh-so-very grateful.
It might work, but I wouldn't be that confident if I were in their place.
It's bollocks. The only issue is that masses of Tories sat on their hands. Voter strike. They won't at a general - when Boris is history.
If Johnson is history before the next GE (and I very much doubt he will be) the Red Wall will be gone for sure.
All those erstwhile Labour voters who voted Conservative in 2019 because they thought Johnson was a bit of a geezer who spoke his mind, will not be backing Johnson's successor.
The biggest movenent to Tories in the red wall happened before Johnson, he was just the water lapping over the wall. Red wall shift to tories is an ongoing process, not an event unique to 2019.
Absolutely disagree with the law change re Roe v Wade but could someone please give me an understanding of why it’s been the leading news story on BBC radio this evening?
It’s really not cool but the UK is not the US and I seriously don’t believe that if there was a change to abortion rules in any other country it would even be mentioned on Radio 2 news bulletins.
I get that the US has massive cultural reach/is past it and irrelevant so whilst bemused by the level of coverage over last few months on the Today programme I don’t see why it’s leading in a country that isn’t affected remotely by it.
Thanks in advance.
Why do you think we aren't affected by it? We have plenty of American posters and many of us in the UK have connections with the USA.
When you say “many” do you think that there are more people in the UK with close family connections with the US than with the EU and therefore if more UK/EU family connections then why do we not have the same level of coverage of changes and opinions over, say abortion, in EU countries on the BBC?
journalists are more comfortable covering stories in english
That’s pretty damning for the BBC surely with the resources it has through the world service and being largely based in London - a multicultural hub of polyglots whom they can employ journalists with degrees from around the world to monitor and report on matters in our neighbours (apparently proximity is most important when it comes to the EU, but language is more important with US, or something).
The BBC even do a pidjin service so language can’t be the issue? Laziness, priorities maybe but RvW does not justify, again however much I disagree with it, the prominence it’s had on the BBC.
Absolutely disagree with the law change re Roe v Wade but could someone please give me an understanding of why it’s been the leading news story on BBC radio this evening?
It’s really not cool but the UK is not the US and I seriously don’t believe that if there was a change to abortion rules in any other country it would even be mentioned on Radio 2 news bulletins.
I get that the US has massive cultural reach/is past it and irrelevant so whilst bemused by the level of coverage over last few months on the Today programme I don’t see why it’s leading in a country that isn’t affected remotely by it.
Thanks in advance.
The usual pattern around the world in recent years has been of more and more legalising abortion and contraception and increasing reproductive rights. The US going backwards is a man-bites-dog story, as well as being in the most powerful country in the world.
Us leads the world in trends and is signalling a reversal of the sexual revolution Remember no abortions means for example women are less likely to sleep around
What exactly is your problem with women "sleeping around"?
Blessed be the Fruit
I have no problem with it the woman will if she finds herself pregnant and abortion is illegal
You seem to feel that is a good thing? Of course. Quality sex education and appropriate contraception would help much more. Are you in favour of them? Also. Wouldn't it help just as much if men "slept around" less?*
*With women of course. Taking and giving cock on a strictly bro basis would solve the abortion issue. If not the population.
America is generally top toeing towards civil war. As we have often discussed. This SCOTUS ruling is more of an obvious large step on that road
America is one of the two most important countries on earth, it is also the ultimate guarantor of Western freedom. If it is tearing itself apart that IS headline news elsewhere in the western world
I do fear this. One reason I'm so keen to see Russia defeated in Ukraine ASAP.
With respect you are missing the point. The SC decision removes the protections that allowed these barbaric and repulsive laws to be overturned. There are plenty of people in the US who think that, for instance, being gay is repulsive and may well seek to make it illegal. If they do pass such laws, the SC's reasoning today makes it very hard indeed to declare such laws unconstitutional.
We cannot be confident that there won't be groups in the US who might well seek to make inter-racial relationships unlawful. It was not after all that long ago that this was the case in significant parts of the US.
The significance of today's ruling is that we cannot take for granted rights we thought we had, even if we had them for half a century.
I appreciate that abortion raises moral issues. I could not have one. But I would not tell another woman what she should do with her own body nor force her to carry a child, give birth and then either have to look after the child or give it up for adoption. That is quite wrong. But there are people who do want to control others in matters of personal sexual morality and I fear that they have the wind behind them in the US.
A few decades ago you could have said the same about Ireland, and they ended up legalising abortion decisively in a referendum. If they had been forced to change their laws from outside, it might still be a live culture war issue today.
From outside? I've never heard the US Constitution regarded as some kind of intrusive foreign power before.
America is generally top toeing towards civil war. As we have often discussed. This SCOTUS ruling is more of an obvious large step on that road
America is one of the two most important countries on earth, it is also the ultimate guarantor of Western freedom. If it is tearing itself apart that IS headline news elsewhere in the western world
I do fear this. One reason I'm so keen to see Russia defeated in Ukraine ASAP.
Given the Russians are winning currently you could be waiting a long time
Cyclefree asked: "I have looked. I get that. How, though, does public opinion help when a law comes to the Supreme Court?"
What the Supreme Court decided was that the issue should not come to the court, but instead should be determined by legislators elected by the people. Or, even directly by the voters, as it was in Washington state, in Referendum 120. So now -- as it was not before this decision -- public opinion is crucial, just as it is in most Euroepan nations.
(In contrast, public opinion should not matter when in comes to freedom of speech in the United States, thanks to the 1st Amendment.)
America is generally top toeing towards civil war. As we have often discussed. This SCOTUS ruling is more of an obvious large step on that road
America is one of the two most important countries on earth, it is also the ultimate guarantor of Western freedom. If it is tearing itself apart that IS headline news elsewhere in the western world
I do fear this. One reason I'm so keen to see Russia defeated in Ukraine ASAP.
To be fair this is dream news for Putin in his efforts to divide the west
America is generally top toeing towards civil war. As we have often discussed. This SCOTUS ruling is more of an obvious large step on that road
America is one of the two most important countries on earth, it is also the ultimate guarantor of Western freedom. If it is tearing itself apart that IS headline news elsewhere in the western world
I do fear this. One reason I'm so keen to see Russia defeated in Ukraine ASAP.
Given the Russians are winning currently you could be waiting a long time
Are they? They haven't even fully captured the Donbass, let alone Kyiv
Although I am not entirely comfortable dealing with morality politics, and I harbour my own occasional doubts on liberal abortion law, the removal of this fundamental human right for women concerns me greatly. I am even further alarmed by Clarence Thomas' subsequent mumblings. Where will this American Taliban madness that you support end?
You are very impressed by the illiberal politics of the fundamentalist Christian Right, but do you not ponder, as someone who values the notion of freedom from political interference, that overturning multiple case law which has allowed unfettered personal freedom is very un-Conservative?
No, allowing the states to decide on it is entirely in accordance with the US constitution.
Imposing abortion on demand US wide was not
But the nanny state interfering in personal freedoms such as what a woman can do with her own body, who one chooses to sleep with, or marry (kites thatThomas is now flying) is the work of Corbynista Labour not Epping Conservatives, surely?
America is generally top toeing towards civil war. As we have often discussed. This SCOTUS ruling is more of an obvious large step on that road
America is one of the two most important countries on earth, it is also the ultimate guarantor of Western freedom. If it is tearing itself apart that IS headline news elsewhere in the western world
I do fear this. One reason I'm so keen to see Russia defeated in Ukraine ASAP.
Given the Russians are winning currently you could be waiting a long time
Ah, this is clearly some new meaning of the word "winning" I was previously unaware of.
Cyclefree - May I recommend, as I did earlier, that you look at US public opinion on abortion, at, for example, the Gallup site. For example: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
Please.
I have looked. I get that. How, though, does public opinion help when a law comes to the Supreme Court?
Despite what recent decisions may seem to suggest - perhaps invalidating NY State gun restrictions even more than overturning RvW - public opinion most definitely has a strong impact on SCOTUS.
Always did & always will, history is replete with examples.
For example, both Plessy v Ferguson AND Brown v Board of Education.
Note that at time of former decision upholding "Jim Crow" laws enacted by Southern states, most White Americans were luke warm at best re: civil rights for Blacks, while majority of White Southerners was strongly opposed.
Fast-forwarding to latter decision overturning PvF and it's "Separate but Equal" doctrine/fantasy, there had been some softening (but not overmuch) among Southern Whites. Big change, however, was the attitudes of Whites in the rest of USA. Who were increasingly unwilling to ignore let alone tolerate the state of affairs down in Dixie. For number of reasons, including fact that Great Migration of early 20th century greatly increased number of Black people - and voters - in the North.
Although I am not entirely comfortable dealing with morality politics, and I harbour my own occasional doubts on liberal abortion law, the removal of this fundamental human right for women concerns me greatly. I am even further alarmed by Clarence Thomas' subsequent mumblings. Where will this American Taliban madness that you support end?
You are very impressed by the illiberal politics of the fundamentalist Christian Right, but do you not ponder, as someone who values the notion of freedom from political interference, that overturning multiple case law which has allowed unfettered personal freedom is very un-Conservative?
No, allowing the states to decide on it is entirely in accordance with the US constitution.
Imposing abortion on demand US wide was not
But the nanny state interfering in personal freedoms such as what a woman can do with her own body, who one chooses to sleep with, or marry (kites thatThomas is now flying) is the work of Corbynista Labour not Epping Conservatives, surely?
No, I am a conservative not a liberal and certainly not a libertarian
Absolutely disagree with the law change re Roe v Wade but could someone please give me an understanding of why it’s been the leading news story on BBC radio this evening?
It’s really not cool but the UK is not the US and I seriously don’t believe that if there was a change to abortion rules in any other country it would even be mentioned on Radio 2 news bulletins.
I get that the US has massive cultural reach/is past it and irrelevant so whilst bemused by the level of coverage over last few months on the Today programme I don’t see why it’s leading in a country that isn’t affected remotely by it.
Thanks in advance.
Why do you think we aren't affected by it? We have plenty of American posters and many of us in the UK have connections with the USA.
When you say “many” do you think that there are more people in the UK with close family connections with the US than with the EU and therefore if more UK/EU family connections then why do we not have the same level of coverage of changes and opinions over, say abortion, in EU countries on the BBC?
Good question actually. There's the general point that America is lead singer in megaband The West and therefore hogs audience attention. Also - and this could be just me - it's particularly sad and depressing to see female emancipation being rewound in the country where so many of its famous battles were fought and won. Although I guess that 'famous' bit sort of loops back to the 1st point.
What were these “famous battles” fought and won in the US? Universal female suffrage in the US was in 1920, a year after Leon’s believe Georgia (not the state).
The US has provided a platform for major female cultural emancipation - as have many countries in different ways but then we are told that the US is a busted flush, has no cultural influence on the world, it’s lost its mojo.
It can’t be both - if the US is no longer the shining beacon of liberty and liberalism for the world then who gives a f what they are doing internally - if it’s the number one story in the UK the clearly the US is still the beacon we look to and worry when it fails those virtues we think it represents.
This looks like it will be quite a bullish assessment of Ukraine's progress in the war against Russia.
"Ben Hodges @general_ben I am looking forward to talking about the war in Ukraine, why the Ukrainians are going to win, and why NATO is now in the most strategically advantageous position vis a vis Russia in the history of the Alliance."
America is generally top toeing towards civil war. As we have often discussed. This SCOTUS ruling is more of an obvious large step on that road
America is one of the two most important countries on earth, it is also the ultimate guarantor of Western freedom. If it is tearing itself apart that IS headline news elsewhere in the western world
I do fear this. One reason I'm so keen to see Russia defeated in Ukraine ASAP.
Given the Russians are winning currently you could be waiting a long time
Are they? They haven't even fully captured the Donbass, let alone Kyiv
Well at best you can say it's a meat grinder now so there will be no quick end to the war
While I appreciate the joke, the problem with arguments like this (that white men can't comment on abortion because they won't need to have abortions) is that it does nothing to address the main argument of anti-choice activists (that aborting a foetus is murdering a child). If you genuinely believe aborting a foetus is murder, it doesn't matter whether you'll personally benefit from the murder or not - it's still murder. The best route for pro-choice activists is to tackle the "murder" aspect of abortion by making the case that foetuses aren't children, rather than assuming their opponents are a bunch of pale, stale, male WASPs who will inevitably die out.
Absolutely disagree with the law change re Roe v Wade but could someone please give me an understanding of why it’s been the leading news story on BBC radio this evening?
It’s really not cool but the UK is not the US and I seriously don’t believe that if there was a change to abortion rules in any other country it would even be mentioned on Radio 2 news bulletins.
I get that the US has massive cultural reach/is past it and irrelevant so whilst bemused by the level of coverage over last few months on the Today programme I don’t see why it’s leading in a country that isn’t affected remotely by it.
Thanks in advance.
The usual pattern around the world in recent years has been of more and more legalising abortion and contraception and increasing reproductive rights. The US going backwards is a man-bites-dog story, as well as being in the most powerful country in the world.
Us leads the world in trends and is signalling a reversal of the sexual revolution Remember no abortions means for example women are less likely to sleep around
What exactly is your problem with women "sleeping around"?
Blessed be the Fruit
I have no problem with it the woman will if she finds herself pregnant and abortion is illegal
Indeed. You support rape victims being forced to raise their rape babies. Just as you supported the Russian troops raping Ukrainian girls the other day.
Absolutely disagree with the law change re Roe v Wade but could someone please give me an understanding of why it’s been the leading news story on BBC radio this evening?
It’s really not cool but the UK is not the US and I seriously don’t believe that if there was a change to abortion rules in any other country it would even be mentioned on Radio 2 news bulletins.
I get that the US has massive cultural reach/is past it and irrelevant so whilst bemused by the level of coverage over last few months on the Today programme I don’t see why it’s leading in a country that isn’t affected remotely by it.
Thanks in advance.
Why do you think we aren't affected by it? We have plenty of American posters and many of us in the UK have connections with the USA.
When you say “many” do you think that there are more people in the UK with close family connections with the US than with the EU and therefore if more UK/EU family connections then why do we not have the same level of coverage of changes and opinions over, say abortion, in EU countries on the BBC?
Good question actually. There's the general point that America is lead singer in megaband The West and therefore hogs audience attention. Also - and this could be just me - it's particularly sad and depressing to see female emancipation being rewound in the country where so many of its famous battles were fought and won. Although I guess that 'famous' bit sort of loops back to the 1st point.
What were these “famous battles” fought and won in the US? Universal female suffrage in the US was in 1920, a year after Leon’s believe Georgia (not the state).
The US has provided a platform for major female cultural emancipation - as have many countries in different ways but then we are told that the US is a busted flush, has no cultural influence on the world, it’s lost its mojo.
It can’t be both - if the US is no longer the shining beacon of liberty and liberalism for the world then who gives a f what they are doing internally - if it’s the number one story in the UK the clearly the US is still the beacon we look to and worry when it fails those virtues we think it represents.
America is generally top toeing towards civil war. As we have often discussed. This SCOTUS ruling is more of an obvious large step on that road
America is one of the two most important countries on earth, it is also the ultimate guarantor of Western freedom. If it is tearing itself apart that IS headline news elsewhere in the western world
I do fear this. One reason I'm so keen to see Russia defeated in Ukraine ASAP.
Given the Russians are winning currently you could be waiting a long time
Ah, this is clearly some new meaning of the word "winning" I was previously unaware of.
I presume you have Mick's IP address.
Alas it would have helped if more western artillery had arrived sooner. Better late than never though.
Cyclefree - May I recommend, as I did earlier, that you look at US public opinion on abortion, at, for example, the Gallup site. For example: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
Please.
I have looked. I get that. How, though, does public opinion help when a law comes to the Supreme Court?
Despite what recent decisions may seem to suggest - perhaps invalidating NY State gun restrictions even more than overturning RvW - public opinion most definitely has a strong impact on SCOTUS.
Always did & always will, history is replete with examples.
For example, both Plessy v Ferguson AND Brown v Board of Education.
Note that at time of former decision upholding "Jim Crow" laws enacted by Southern states, most White Americans were luke warm at best re: civil rights for Blacks, while majority of White Southerners was strongly opposed.
Fast-forwarding to latter decision overturning PvF and it's "Separate but Equal" doctrine/fantasy, there had been some softening (but not overmuch) among Southern Whites. Big change, however, was the attitudes of Whites in the rest of USA. Who were increasingly unwilling to ignore let alone tolerate the state of affairs down in Dixie. For number of reasons, including fact that Great Migration of early 20th century greatly increased number of Black people - and voters - in the North.
You may well be right. Are you based in the US? But if abortion is generally popular with voters how does this fit with today's decision?
This SC judgement shows we are fundamentally European. That doesn't mean we have to be in the EU. Switzerland isn't. But. We just are. Atlanticist fantasies are just that.
Although I am not entirely comfortable dealing with morality politics, and I harbour my own occasional doubts on liberal abortion law, the removal of this fundamental human right for women concerns me greatly. I am even further alarmed by Clarence Thomas' subsequent mumblings. Where will this American Taliban madness that you support end?
You are very impressed by the illiberal politics of the fundamentalist Christian Right, but do you not ponder, as someone who values the notion of freedom from political interference, that overturning multiple case law which has allowed unfettered personal freedom is very un-Conservative?
No, allowing the states to decide on it is entirely in accordance with the US constitution.
Imposing abortion on demand US wide was not
But the nanny state interfering in personal freedoms such as what a woman can do with her own body, who one chooses to sleep with, or marry (kites thatThomas is now flying) is the work of Corbynista Labour not Epping Conservatives, surely?
No, I am a conservative not a liberal and certainly not a libertarian
You are about as much a conservative as micktrains is.
James Oh Brien @mrjamesob · 2h I don't think any broadcasters build a bond with their audience as strong as the ones built by long serving presenters of regional news. They are part of the furniture when you're at home & part of home when you're not. Harry Gration embodied this. Thank you & good night.
I presume one of the consequences of the Supreme Court decision will be, as states line up with their various lines of abortion, we'll see a greater polarisation between the more socially conservative and more liberal states (and within states between more conservative rural areas and more liberal cities).
My very limited experience of this is it is much more nuanced - on the occasions Mrs Stodge and I have been in Las Vegas, for example, we have often encountered people from more socially conservative states who visit "Sin City" for the weekend. It was those people who took the more "relaxed" view of life in Nevada to its greatest extent - almost as though they were "free" for 48 hours before returning to conservative normality on Monday morning.
From our own experience, we had plenty of anecdotal evidence of young women from both the Republic and Ulster coming to England to take advantage of the abortion options here before the laws changed - it's a series of individual and family tragedies but all swept under the carpet in the name of what some considered religiously or morally unacceptable.
Absolutely disagree with the law change re Roe v Wade but could someone please give me an understanding of why it’s been the leading news story on BBC radio this evening?
It’s really not cool but the UK is not the US and I seriously don’t believe that if there was a change to abortion rules in any other country it would even be mentioned on Radio 2 news bulletins.
I get that the US has massive cultural reach/is past it and irrelevant so whilst bemused by the level of coverage over last few months on the Today programme I don’t see why it’s leading in a country that isn’t affected remotely by it.
Thanks in advance.
The usual pattern around the world in recent years has been of more and more legalising abortion and contraception and increasing reproductive rights. The US going backwards is a man-bites-dog story, as well as being in the most powerful country in the world.
Us leads the world in trends and is signalling a reversal of the sexual revolution Remember no abortions means for example women are less likely to sleep around
What exactly is your problem with women "sleeping around"?
Blessed be the Fruit
I have no problem with it the woman will if she finds herself pregnant and abortion is illegal
Indeed. You support rape victims being forced to raise their rape babies. Just as you supported the Russian troops raping Ukrainian girls the other day.
Whoever that guy was it wasn't me, still plenty out there share my views
Although I am not entirely comfortable dealing with morality politics, and I harbour my own occasional doubts on liberal abortion law, the removal of this fundamental human right for women concerns me greatly. I am even further alarmed by Clarence Thomas' subsequent mumblings. Where will this American Taliban madness that you support end?
You are very impressed by the illiberal politics of the fundamentalist Christian Right, but do you not ponder, as someone who values the notion of freedom from political interference, that overturning multiple case law which has allowed unfettered personal freedom is very un-Conservative?
No, allowing the states to decide on it is entirely in accordance with the US constitution.
Imposing abortion on demand US wide was not
But the nanny state interfering in personal freedoms such as what a woman can do with her own body, who one chooses to sleep with, or marry (kites thatThomas is now flying) is the work of Corbynista Labour not Epping Conservatives, surely?
No, I am a conservative not a liberal and certainly not a libertarian
You are a right-wing fundamentalist. You are not a broad-church, small-state, Tory.
Kieron Clarke @kieronishere 💥On Boris Johnson’s future as leader following today’s by-election results, one senior Tory MP described him to me as “an ocean going, gaff-rigged c*nt” …
😬 They added, “we can’t wait to kick his arse out of Downing Street before he brings the whole Conservative Party down”.
Absolutely disagree with the law change re Roe v Wade but could someone please give me an understanding of why it’s been the leading news story on BBC radio this evening?
It’s really not cool but the UK is not the US and I seriously don’t believe that if there was a change to abortion rules in any other country it would even be mentioned on Radio 2 news bulletins.
I get that the US has massive cultural reach/is past it and irrelevant so whilst bemused by the level of coverage over last few months on the Today programme I don’t see why it’s leading in a country that isn’t affected remotely by it.
Thanks in advance.
Why do you think we aren't affected by it? We have plenty of American posters and many of us in the UK have connections with the USA.
When you say “many” do you think that there are more people in the UK with close family connections with the US than with the EU and therefore if more UK/EU family connections then why do we not have the same level of coverage of changes and opinions over, say abortion, in EU countries on the BBC?
journalists are more comfortable covering stories in english
That’s pretty damning for the BBC surely with the resources it has through the world service and being largely based in London - a multicultural hub of polyglots whom they can employ journalists with degrees from around the world to monitor and report on matters in our neighbours (apparently proximity is most important when it comes to the EU, but language is more important with US, or something).
The BBC even do a pidjin service so language can’t be the issue? Laziness, priorities maybe but RvW does not justify, again however much I disagree with it, the prominence it’s had on the BBC.
Which story do you think is of more importance today than Roe vs Wade being overturned by the way?
America is generally top toeing towards civil war. As we have often discussed. This SCOTUS ruling is more of an obvious large step on that road
America is one of the two most important countries on earth, it is also the ultimate guarantor of Western freedom. If it is tearing itself apart that IS headline news elsewhere in the western world
I do fear this. One reason I'm so keen to see Russia defeated in Ukraine ASAP.
Given the Russians are winning currently you could be waiting a long time
Ah, this is clearly some new meaning of the word "winning" I was previously unaware of.
Until last night I would have referred you to a small fringe political party called the “Liberal Democrats” who apparently used a slogan of “Winning here” and bar charts that the Russian army would love to get away with on comparative Rus/UKR losses.
Sadly now they are a victory machine about to sweep the country and are currently at home preparing for power. The Lib Dems that is, not the Russians.
America is generally top toeing towards civil war. As we have often discussed. This SCOTUS ruling is more of an obvious large step on that road
America is one of the two most important countries on earth, it is also the ultimate guarantor of Western freedom. If it is tearing itself apart that IS headline news elsewhere in the western world
I do fear this. One reason I'm so keen to see Russia defeated in Ukraine ASAP.
Given the Russians are winning currently you could be waiting a long time
Ah, this is clearly some new meaning of the word "winning" I was previously unaware of.
4 months of my 3 day war. The invasion has made NATO & EU both enlarge towards Russia.
Absolutely disagree with the law change re Roe v Wade but could someone please give me an understanding of why it’s been the leading news story on BBC radio this evening?
It’s really not cool but the UK is not the US and I seriously don’t believe that if there was a change to abortion rules in any other country it would even be mentioned on Radio 2 news bulletins.
I get that the US has massive cultural reach/is past it and irrelevant so whilst bemused by the level of coverage over last few months on the Today programme I don’t see why it’s leading in a country that isn’t affected remotely by it.
Thanks in advance.
Why do you think we aren't affected by it? We have plenty of American posters and many of us in the UK have connections with the USA.
When you say “many” do you think that there are more people in the UK with close family connections with the US than with the EU and therefore if more UK/EU family connections then why do we not have the same level of coverage of changes and opinions over, say abortion, in EU countries on the BBC?
journalists are more comfortable covering stories in english
That’s pretty damning for the BBC surely with the resources it has through the world service and being largely based in London - a multicultural hub of polyglots whom they can employ journalists with degrees from around the world to monitor and report on matters in our neighbours (apparently proximity is most important when it comes to the EU, but language is more important with US, or something).
The BBC even do a pidjin service so language can’t be the issue? Laziness, priorities maybe but RvW does not justify, again however much I disagree with it, the prominence it’s had on the BBC.
Which story do you think is of more importance today than Roe vs Wade being overturned by the way?
For the UK, Johnson losing two by-elections in one night.
I guess you can argue that that news had been out there all morning and the SC decision broke in our afternoon, so the latter is more 'news', but I still don't think the Beeb can justify the first 14 mins of news at 10 on this decision with a quick canter afterwards on the rest of the day's events.
Another shite editorial decision which helps Johnson.
Kieron Clarke @kieronishere 💥On Boris Johnson’s future as leader following today’s by-election results, one senior Tory MP described him to me as “an ocean going, gaff-rigged c*nt” …
😬 They added, “we can’t wait to kick his arse out of Downing Street before he brings the whole Conservative Party down”.
Absolutely disagree with the law change re Roe v Wade but could someone please give me an understanding of why it’s been the leading news story on BBC radio this evening?
It’s really not cool but the UK is not the US and I seriously don’t believe that if there was a change to abortion rules in any other country it would even be mentioned on Radio 2 news bulletins.
I get that the US has massive cultural reach/is past it and irrelevant so whilst bemused by the level of coverage over last few months on the Today programme I don’t see why it’s leading in a country that isn’t affected remotely by it.
Thanks in advance.
Why do you think we aren't affected by it? We have plenty of American posters and many of us in the UK have connections with the USA.
When you say “many” do you think that there are more people in the UK with close family connections with the US than with the EU and therefore if more UK/EU family connections then why do we not have the same level of coverage of changes and opinions over, say abortion, in EU countries on the BBC?
Good question actually. There's the general point that America is lead singer in megaband The West and therefore hogs audience attention. Also - and this could be just me - it's particularly sad and depressing to see female emancipation being rewound in the country where so many of its famous battles were fought and won. Although I guess that 'famous' bit sort of loops back to the 1st point.
What were these “famous battles” fought and won in the US? Universal female suffrage in the US was in 1920, a year after Leon’s believe Georgia (not the state).
The US has provided a platform for major female cultural emancipation - as have many countries in different ways but then we are told that the US is a busted flush, has no cultural influence on the world, it’s lost its mojo.
It can’t be both - if the US is no longer the shining beacon of liberty and liberalism for the world then who gives a f what they are doing internally - if it’s the number one story in the UK the clearly the US is still the beacon we look to and worry when it fails those virtues we think it represents.
The Great Equality State of Wyoming - where women got the vote in 1869 - says hello.
Also very mixed but early history of emancipation > disenfranchisement > re-emancipation of women in Washington State.
Your other two paragraphs are pretty much spot on.
Hasn't Boris also expressed disappointment and a critical view of the decision?
He has not tweeted anything on it, though if he has said something it is also none of his business.
Human rights in another country are still our business
Including the right of the unborn child then
No, don’t give a fuck about the unborn child
+1 - this law comes from 1775.
Prior to 1960 the first time you could be 100% sure someone was pregnant was at about 18-20 weeks…
As my old vicar (someone who turned down being bishop of London) said - we have to remember that our modern knowledge means many things in the bible just aren’t relevant now.
For instance most people aren’t possessed by demons they are just mentally ill and that illness can be easily treated.
And cancer is one of those things you get - it’s not because God is punishing you for some random misdeed
I presume one of the consequences of the Supreme Court decision will be, as states line up with their various lines of abortion, we'll see a greater polarisation between the more socially conservative and more liberal states (and within states between more conservative rural areas and more liberal cities).
My very limited experience of this is it is much more nuanced - on the occasions Mrs Stodge and I have been in Las Vegas, for example, we have often encountered people from more socially conservative states who visit "Sin City" for the weekend. It was those people who took the more "relaxed" view of life in Nevada to its greatest extent - almost as though they were "free" for 48 hours before returning to conservative normality on Monday morning.
From our own experience, we had plenty of anecdotal evidence of young women from both the Republic and Ulster coming to England to take advantage of the abortion options here before the laws changed - it's a series of individual and family tragedies but all swept under the carpet in the name of what some considered religiously or morally unacceptable.
One thing is some States criminalise travelling for the purpose of having an abortion, so there is no escape. Not only are they forced to continue the pregnancy to birth, they have to pay for it too. No NHS maternity or neonatal care there.
Absolutely disagree with the law change re Roe v Wade but could someone please give me an understanding of why it’s been the leading news story on BBC radio this evening?
It’s really not cool but the UK is not the US and I seriously don’t believe that if there was a change to abortion rules in any other country it would even be mentioned on Radio 2 news bulletins.
I get that the US has massive cultural reach/is past it and irrelevant so whilst bemused by the level of coverage over last few months on the Today programme I don’t see why it’s leading in a country that isn’t affected remotely by it.
Thanks in advance.
Why do you think we aren't affected by it? We have plenty of American posters and many of us in the UK have connections with the USA.
When you say “many” do you think that there are more people in the UK with close family connections with the US than with the EU and therefore if more UK/EU family connections then why do we not have the same level of coverage of changes and opinions over, say abortion, in EU countries on the BBC?
journalists are more comfortable covering stories in english
That’s pretty damning for the BBC surely with the resources it has through the world service and being largely based in London - a multicultural hub of polyglots whom they can employ journalists with degrees from around the world to monitor and report on matters in our neighbours (apparently proximity is most important when it comes to the EU, but language is more important with US, or something).
The BBC even do a pidjin service so language can’t be the issue? Laziness, priorities maybe but RvW does not justify, again however much I disagree with it, the prominence it’s had on the BBC.
Which story do you think is of more importance today than Roe vs Wade being overturned by the way?
For the UK, Johnson losing two by-elections in one night.
I guess you can argue that that news had been out there all morning and the SC decision broke in our afternoon, so the latter is more 'news', but I still don't think the Beeb can justify the first 14 mins of news at 10 on this decision with a quick canter afterwards on the rest of the day's events.
Another shite editorial decision which helps Johnson.
Yes, Johnson by-election defeats feels more like olds than news to me now.
But Roe vs Wade going is genuinely a remember where you were moment, while Johnson has been losing by-elections every few months.
NEW: 50% of Americans oppose the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, including 41% who say they're strongly opposed. 37% support today's decision.
Although I am not entirely comfortable dealing with morality politics, and I harbour my own occasional doubts on liberal abortion law, the removal of this fundamental human right for women concerns me greatly. I am even further alarmed by Clarence Thomas' subsequent mumblings. Where will this American Taliban madness that you support end?
You are very impressed by the illiberal politics of the fundamentalist Christian Right, but do you not ponder, as someone who values the notion of freedom from political interference, that overturning multiple case law which has allowed unfettered personal freedom is very un-Conservative?
No, allowing the states to decide on it is entirely in accordance with the US constitution.
Imposing abortion on demand US wide was not
But the nanny state interfering in personal freedoms such as what a woman can do with her own body, who one chooses to sleep with, or marry (kites thatThomas is now flying) is the work of Corbynista Labour not Epping Conservatives, surely?
No, I am a conservative not a liberal and certainly not a libertarian
You are a right-wing fundamentalist. You are not a broad-church, small-state, Tory.
There are plenty of pro life Tories like me, including in the Cabinet such as Rees Mogg and Dorries.
Though personally I would be closer to the Jeremy Hunt line of seeking to reduce the abortion time limit rather than try and ban it completely as the most realistic option for the UK.
Absolutely disagree with the law change re Roe v Wade but could someone please give me an understanding of why it’s been the leading news story on BBC radio this evening?
It’s really not cool but the UK is not the US and I seriously don’t believe that if there was a change to abortion rules in any other country it would even be mentioned on Radio 2 news bulletins.
I get that the US has massive cultural reach/is past it and irrelevant so whilst bemused by the level of coverage over last few months on the Today programme I don’t see why it’s leading in a country that isn’t affected remotely by it.
This SC judgement shows we are fundamentally European. That doesn't mean we have to be in the EU. Switzerland isn't. But. We just are. Atlanticist fantasies are just that.
Poland is in the EU and already has laws which make abortion mostly illegal. In Ireland abortion was also illegal until a few years ago. Most US States will also probably keep abortion legal despite today's judgement
Absolutely disagree with the law change re Roe v Wade but could someone please give me an understanding of why it’s been the leading news story on BBC radio this evening?
It’s really not cool but the UK is not the US and I seriously don’t believe that if there was a change to abortion rules in any other country it would even be mentioned on Radio 2 news bulletins.
I get that the US has massive cultural reach/is past it and irrelevant so whilst bemused by the level of coverage over last few months on the Today programme I don’t see why it’s leading in a country that isn’t affected remotely by it.
Thanks in advance.
Why do you think we aren't affected by it? We have plenty of American posters and many of us in the UK have connections with the USA.
When you say “many” do you think that there are more people in the UK with close family connections with the US than with the EU and therefore if more UK/EU family connections then why do we not have the same level of coverage of changes and opinions over, say abortion, in EU countries on the BBC?
journalists are more comfortable covering stories in english
That’s pretty damning for the BBC surely with the resources it has through the world service and being largely based in London - a multicultural hub of polyglots whom they can employ journalists with degrees from around the world to monitor and report on matters in our neighbours (apparently proximity is most important when it comes to the EU, but language is more important with US, or something).
The BBC even do a pidjin service so language can’t be the issue? Laziness, priorities maybe but RvW does not justify, again however much I disagree with it, the prominence it’s had on the BBC.
Which story do you think is of more importance today than Roe vs Wade being overturned by the way?
Given that it didn't happen here and has no legal bearing on anything taking place here, someone losing their cat up a tree in Bury St Edmonds is a bigger story in the UK.
Comments
We cannot be confident that there won't be groups in the US who might well seek to make inter-racial relationships unlawful. It was not after all that long ago that this was the case in significant parts of the US.
The significance of today's ruling is that we cannot take for granted rights we thought we had, even if we had them for half a century.
I appreciate that abortion raises moral issues. I could not have one. But I would not tell another woman what she should do with her own body nor force her to carry a child, give birth and then either have to look after the child or give it up for adoption. That is quite wrong. But there are people who do want to control others in matters of personal sexual morality and I fear that they have the wind behind them in the US.
Of course there was pretty hard edge to Tea Party and other pre-45 manifestations of GOP rightwingery.
The Donald drove this into overdrive, however, thanks to his own well-established media savvy and charisma. PLUS growing political alienation of large swaths of mostly White voters in rust belts and rural areas. Alienation from Democratic Party increasing perceived as uninterested in them, their interests and perspective AND from the system in general.
You are very impressed by the illiberal politics of the fundamentalist Christian Right, but do you not ponder, as someone who values the notion of freedom from political interference, that overturning multiple case law which has allowed unfettered personal freedom is
very un-Conservative?
They all knew at the time they voted in the VONC that he was about to lose two massive by-elections.
These people are just stupid.
Imposing abortion on demand US wide was not
America is one of the two most important countries on earth, it is also the ultimate guarantor of Western freedom. If it is tearing itself apart that IS headline news elsewhere in the western world
Make them poorer.
I don't discount the possibility of a revival - I won't believe that the Tories are beaten until it actually happens - but they're probably going to have to string out the existence of this Government for as long as possible, get a few extra notional seats on the board with the boundary changes, and then hope by the time we get to 2024 that the economy is slightly less bad and there's enough in the war chest to finance a last gasp giveaway (probably something like a penny off income tax and some fresh bung for the elderly,) before calling an election. The calculus being that this will be far enough away from arguments over the lockdown parties and any mishandling of Covid for voters with short memories and even shorter attention spans to have forgotten and moved on, and feel oh-so-very grateful.
It might work, but I wouldn't be that confident if I were in their place.
The BBC even do a pidjin service so language can’t be the issue? Laziness, priorities maybe but RvW does not justify, again however much I disagree with it, the prominence it’s had on the BBC.
Of course. Quality sex education and appropriate contraception would help much more.
Are you in favour of them?
Also. Wouldn't it help just as much if men "slept around" less?*
*With women of course.
Taking and giving cock on a strictly bro basis would solve the abortion issue.
If not the population.
What the Supreme Court decided was that the issue should not come to the court, but instead should be determined by legislators elected by the people. Or, even directly by the voters, as it was in Washington state, in Referendum 120. So now -- as it was not before this decision -- public opinion is crucial, just as it is in most Euroepan nations.
(In contrast, public opinion should not matter when in comes to freedom of speech in the United States, thanks to the 1st Amendment.)
Always did & always will, history is replete with examples.
For example, both Plessy v Ferguson AND Brown v Board of Education.
Note that at time of former decision upholding "Jim Crow" laws enacted by Southern states, most White Americans were luke warm at best re: civil rights for Blacks, while majority of White Southerners was strongly opposed.
Fast-forwarding to latter decision overturning PvF and it's "Separate but Equal" doctrine/fantasy, there had been some softening (but not overmuch) among Southern Whites. Big change, however, was the attitudes of Whites in the rest of USA. Who were increasingly unwilling to ignore let alone tolerate the state of affairs down in Dixie. For number of reasons, including fact that Great Migration of early 20th century greatly increased number of Black people - and voters - in the North.
The US has provided a platform for major female cultural emancipation - as have many countries in different ways but then we are told that the US is a busted flush, has no cultural influence on the world, it’s lost its mojo.
It can’t be both - if the US is no longer the shining beacon of liberty and liberalism for the world then who gives a f what they are doing internally - if it’s the number one story in the UK the clearly the US is still the beacon we look to and worry when it fails those virtues we think it represents.
"Ben Hodges @general_ben
I am looking forward to talking about the war in Ukraine, why the Ukrainians are going to win, and why NATO is now in the most strategically advantageous position vis a vis Russia in the history of the Alliance."
https://twitter.com/general_ben/status/1540373370520444929
Abortion would be a free pill available at the 24/7 convenience store if men could get pregnant.
Alas it would have helped if more western artillery had arrived sooner. Better late than never though.
That doesn't mean we have to be in the EU. Switzerland isn't.
But. We just are.
Atlanticist fantasies are just that.
James Oh Brien
@mrjamesob
·
2h
I don't think any broadcasters build a bond with their audience as strong as the ones built by long serving presenters of regional news. They are part of the furniture when you're at home & part of home when you're not. Harry Gration embodied this. Thank you & good night.
My very limited experience of this is it is much more nuanced - on the occasions Mrs Stodge and I have been in Las Vegas, for example, we have often encountered people from more socially conservative states who visit "Sin City" for the weekend. It was those people who took the more "relaxed" view of life in Nevada to its greatest extent - almost as though they were "free" for 48 hours before returning to conservative normality on Monday morning.
From our own experience, we had plenty of anecdotal evidence of young women from both the Republic and Ulster coming to England to take advantage of the abortion options here before the laws changed - it's a series of individual and family tragedies but all swept under the carpet in the name of what some considered religiously or morally unacceptable.
Kieron Clarke
@kieronishere
💥On Boris Johnson’s future as leader following today’s by-election results, one senior Tory MP described him to me as “an ocean going, gaff-rigged c*nt” …
😬 They added, “we can’t wait to kick his arse out of Downing Street before he brings the whole Conservative Party down”.
https://twitter.com/kieronishere/status/1540395307711832071
Sadly now they are a victory machine about to sweep the country and are currently at home preparing for power. The Lib Dems that is, not the Russians.
I remain a master strategist.
https://twitter.com/DarthPutinKGB/status/1540208732289863680
I guess you can argue that that news had been out there all morning and the SC decision broke in our afternoon, so the latter is more 'news', but I still don't think the Beeb can justify the first 14 mins of news at 10 on this decision with a quick canter afterwards on the rest of the day's events.
Another shite editorial decision which helps Johnson.
"As much use as a chocolate fireguard" doesn't begin to cover it.
Also very mixed but early history of emancipation > disenfranchisement > re-emancipation of women in Washington State.
Your other two paragraphs are pretty much spot on.
Prior to 1960 the first time you could be 100% sure someone was pregnant was at about 18-20 weeks…
As my old vicar (someone who turned down being bishop of London) said - we have to remember that our modern knowledge means many things in the bible just aren’t relevant now.
For instance most people aren’t possessed by demons they are just mentally ill and that illness can be easily treated.
And cancer is one of those things you get - it’s not because God is punishing you for some random misdeed
But Roe vs Wade going is genuinely a remember where you were moment, while Johnson has been losing by-elections every few months.
NEW: 50% of Americans oppose the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, including 41% who say they're strongly opposed. 37% support today's decision.
Men: 45% support/43% oppose
Women: 29%/56%
Democrats: 18%/72%
Republicans: 71%/20%
https://t.co/aBmhbby2uD https://t.co/LFzttdlao3
Nearly half of all Americans describe this moment in history as either terrible (36%) or bad (10%).
Terrible: 36%
Bad: 10%
OK: 11%
Good: 10%
Great: 19% https://t.co/APnoVEHeAj
https://twitter.com/YouGovAmerica/status/1540402621051183105
Doesn't pass the sniff test.
Though personally I would be closer to the Jeremy Hunt line of seeking to reduce the abortion time limit rather than try and ban it completely as the most realistic option for the UK.