Comments
Regayov t1_ixaq6a0 wrote
> We all know that supreme courts can get new justices and overturn precedent if they feel like it, we literally just watched it happen.
The part you quoted said that the state Supreme Court and Legislature has affirmed the legal access to abortion. Making it a constitutional amendment would add another layer of protections but one that is largely unnecessary in the short term given the makeup of those two entities.
> They argue that the state Supreme Court has already affirmed the right to an abortion in cases over the past 40 years, and those protections were codified in a landmark state law enacted last January.
So they’re saying “don’t rush, get it right”. > abortion advocates say there is no need to rush through a complicated and monumental amendment in a final, end-of-the-year sprint in order to win legislative approval
That’s not a bad thing.
44moon t1_ixaay9a wrote
yep, and then once they're out of power they'll start dangling the carrot in front of us to drive us to the voting booths again. if they actually accomplish something they can't use its promise to drive voter turnout. and if they actually tried, that would open up the possibility of failure. keep trying to kick that football charlie brown.
Monkeybomber t1_ixdnrtl wrote
Jesus christ, did you even read the article before you went all cynical "both sides are the same"?
"To reach next November's ballot, the measure would have had to win legislative approval. There were two ways to do that. The quick route would have been to have it pass it with three-fifths support of the Legislature next year, a move that would have required strong bipartisan support. Republicans already declared that they had no intention of providing the votes.
That left Democrats with a second, longer route: winning a simple majority in both houses in two consecutive years. That meant they would have needed to win approval by the end of this year. But to do that, the measure would first have had to sit on legislators' desks for 20 days once it was introduced, and then face a public hearing.
That meant a very tight schedule to meet during the holiday season. Sinha, of the ACLU, said it left little time for the careful inspection and debate that such a critical step requires.
"Any time you introduce new language into the constitution, you've got to get it right," he said. "And it requires a careful deliberative process involving legal scholars and constitutional experts to ensure that it will safeguard existing rights without adding restrictions or creating limitations to future protections."
The ACLU has generally been a very strong supporter of abortion rights. So I doubt they're saying this just to play stupid electoral games.
WystanH t1_ixcvzce wrote
> after many conversations with stakeholders
What is a "stakeholder" in this context? Folks who may need an abortion? Did you really talk to half the fucking state? No one I know heard from you.
This is a jaded calculation to run on the threat again and everyone who gets hurt in the meantime can take comfort in the perpetual "strong consideration" and waiting for an "appropriate time."
toughguy375 t1_ixbjlql wrote
This is pathetic. They have enough votes to pass a law in the legislature. They don't need a referendum.
Fallen_Mercury t1_ixeqb75 wrote
I do wish that the article would have explored what, if any, danger there is regarding possible restrictions. Is that a legitimate threat? That would be useful information to include because it would allow readers to weigh the urgency.
This isn't an issue of referendum vs. legislation. It is an issue of timing and resources (well, at least according to Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and Democratic leadership).
The article explains that initiating a referendum would have been difficult and not guarenteed due to Republican opposition.
That leaves going the legislation route, which would come with complications (timing, resources). It's not like they can just gather and vote today and it would be done. It's an intensive process that needs to be done right.
On top of that, the article also cites the more pressing need for access vs. passing this legislation. In other words, having a right is useless if access is restricted (similar to voter disenfranchisement in states that aggressively restrict access to voting).
Objective_Soup_9476 t1_ixd0a9d wrote
If they have to votes to do it they should do it now, we’ve seen where leaving it to court precedent gets us!
New_Stats OP t1_ixa5yka wrote
But abortion advocates say there is no need to rush through a complicated and monumental amendment in a final, end-of-the-year sprint in order to win legislative approval — a first and crucial step before getting it placed on next November's ballot. They argue that the state Supreme Court has already affirmed the right to an abortion in cases over the past 40 years, and those protections were codified in a landmark state law enacted last January.
"While there are, of course, other states that may need to amend their constitution, to create the right to an abortion, New Jersey isn't in that situation," said Amol Sinha, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, on Friday "It wouldn't necessarily create anything new for us."
​
We all know that supreme courts can get new justices and overturn precedent if they feel like it, we literally just watched it happen. We need the right to an abortion, a human right, enshrined in our state constitution.