Australian Abortion Laws

 Thankfully in Australia, we have no issues of judical activism here. The states decide abortion rules via state based legislation. So we have the following rules

NSW - Abortion was illegal until 2019 (though not enforced). Post 2019, available on request before 22 weeks. After 22 weeks, need 2 doctors approval

ACT - Abortion was illegal until 2002. Now available on request before 22 weeks

VIC - Abortion illegal until 2008. Post 2008, legal on request until 24 weeks, after 24 weeks if 2 doctors agree

SA - Abortion illegal until 2021. New law has yet to take effect.

WA - Abortion illegal until 1998. Legal on request up until 20 weeks. After 20 weeks, requires 2 doctors agreeing

NT - Abortion illegal until 2017. Legal upon request until 23 weeks. After 23 weeks, if life in danger

TAS - Abortion illegal until 2013. Legal upon request to 22 weeks. After 22 weeks, requires 2 doctors agreement

So not sure why the yanks are so up in arms. Australia got there in the end. States should decide restrictions based on their parliaments and elected representatives. Not by unelected judges

Alito is nothing if not consistant in his reading of the 14th Amendment

 I was reading through Alito's dissent on the gay marriage case "Obergefell v. Hodges".

He has basically made the same point in that decision as he made in overturning Roe Vs Wade...that gay marriage is not a right that is "deeply rooted in the nations history and tradition" and hence not applicable to the 14th Amendment.

It is clear that Alito does not believe the Supreme Court should be creating new rights and enforcing them. He believes that  the proper place for these rights to be created is in legislation via the peoples elected representatives.

I would agree. Justice Roberts in his dissent of "Obergefell v Hodges" said the very same thing

"Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer. "

Abortion is a contested concept. It isn't a natural right that the framers of the constitution expected the 14th amendment to protect nationally. Hence Roe Vs Wade was a mistake. The judges decided to hold a position instead of upholding the law.

It is way overdue that it was overturned and the restrictions, if any, of abortion delt with via legislation.

Roe Vs Wade - Overturn of Abortion rights

 Well the left has gone mad again about the leak draft of an opinion (reportedly the majority one) which will overturn ROE vs WADE, the Supreme court judgement that so called legalised Abortion. There are so many myths being propagated about this, I just wanted to cut through the hysteria and go to the facts.

Firstly, What was the judgement in ROE vs WADE? It was the the "right to privacy" in the 14th Amendment of the constitution (which is effectively the right to be left alone) means that any state law restricting Abortion had to be balanced with the states interests to make sure the health of Mothers and babies was protected. So a Texan law to restrict abortion to only those circumstances when the mother was in danger meant that the state was interfering with a woman's personal rights and hence was unconstitutional.

The 14th Amendment states

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Now while the judgement struck down the Texan law, it also said that abortion wasn't legal all the time, in any circumstances. The court said that before the embryo was viable, a mother could have an abortion, but after that, when there was a high chance of a baby being delivered, the state could restrict abortion.

This is why there has never been any issue with laws affecting late term abortions....the late term abortion has never been part of the Roe Vs Wade decision. In practice this has meant before 24 weeks, abortion in constitutional, but after 24 weeks, its not as the state has a legitimate interest to restrict abortion.

Which brings us to the judgement today. In Mississippi, there is a law that wants to restrict abortions to before 15 weeks. After 15 weeks, abortion would not be permissible unless the mother was at risk. The state is justifying this by saying that by 15 weeks, the featus has alot of the behaviours of a new born already and resembles a baby.

And it appears the court agrees. Says that Roe vs Wade was a massive reach of judicial activism and that the 14th amendment doesn't mention abortion, or even privacy, so the right shouldn't be protected by the constitution. Also that the right to an abortion is not a "deeply held or historical right" in the US, which is a requirement, which I would probably have to agree with. As a religious country, the right to abortion has no business being a right worthy of protection. Similar to the case of assisted suicide, that the Supreme Court found was also not a protected right, and hence states could restrict it for the public good.

So I think on the basis of law, the Court is correct in overturning Roe vs Wade, and allowing the states themselves to decide how they should restrict it. But it is going to cause no end of grief for the uneducated left wingers who only see their right to use abortion as a contraceptive taken away.

Is posting/liking on social media cheating?

I was listening to Kyle and Jackie O on Friday (28/04/2022) where they were interviewing some US podcasters who run a pod cast called Fresh & Fit Podcast. Seems like a standard male podcast that focusses on dating from a male perspective.

So far, so normal.

Anyway, the thing that caused the grief was the claim, from the podcasters that women in committed relationships should not be on Instagram, and be posting "thirst trap" bikini shots as it is a form of cheating or can lead to cheating.

Yet the podcasters seem to claim that men could still be on Instagram without penalty. It was just women that needed to self police their behaviour.

Cue outrage from Jackie O about the double standard, where women cant post, but men can.

Now obviously this is just one podcasters opinion, but it does lead to some interesting questions.

1. Why do women post bikini pictures on Instagram/social media?

2. What is infidelity in the modern world and does posting scantily clad pictures fit that definition?

3. Are women or men more prone to cheating?

4. Does the transformation from single woman, to serious relationship women require adjustments in social media profiles

5. Do the podcasters have a point.

In regards to question 1, there has been some research as to why women post selfies. Comes down to 4 main reasons, in order

1. Communication (i.e a a picture is worth a thousand words)

2. Attention seeking (get likes/appreciation)

3. Archiving (record a moment)

4. Entertainment (pass the time)

Now in regards to bikini shots, women would be either using it for attention seeking/entertainment (i.e get likes from friends and strangers), or to document a holiday they are on (would fall into Archiving or communication).

So whether posting bikini pics is bad or not is contextual. If it isn't for communication or archival purposes, it is likely to be for male/female attention, which might indicate a red flag in the relationship.

There has been some research to suggest that the greater number of selfies posted, the more negative affect on real life relationships...mainly due to the Jealousy affect of other users likes/reactions as the difference between the heavily curated online presence vs the reality of every day persona. But it is difficult to detect whether the number of selfies influences the relationship or the relationship influences the number of selfies. Likely to be a feedback mechanism involved.

In regards to questions 2,  Infidelity has been defined as a violation of a couples emotional or sexual exclusivity. But what defines that violation depends on the couples own values as well as society norms. For example, a couple in an "open" relationship  might not be concerned about sexual exclusivity, but extremely concerned about any emotional attachments with others.

In regards to a female positing pictures and receiving likes, a lot would depend on their partners acceptance of that behaviour as appropriate. As far as society norms however, most people would say that posting photos is not necessarily cheating, as it is to a broad audience, but direct messaging (DMs) would be. (survey is from 2017)

In regards to Question 3, according to research out of the US, men are more likely to report that they cheat, to the tune of 20% as opposed to women, who report 13%. That could be reporting bias however. Women are also more likely to cheat in the younger years (i.e 18-29 age, they report 11% cheating to 10% for men...the only time women are more likely than men to cheat). That said, young people are less likely to cheat than older adults

So up until age 29, the peak age of women on instagram, there is some evidence to suggest women are more likely to cheat than men, which would indicate some conccerns with instagram photos.

In regards to question 4, socially, women are expected to change when they enter a committed relationship, as are men. Behaviours that were acceptable as a single person are no longer tolerated as a member of a relationship...this can involve drinking, excessive partying, drug use, gambling and other risk taking/extraverted behaviours. It is fair to suggest that less tolerance of certain behaviours would also migrate to the digital world. One of those could include flirtatious behaviour on-line.

So the podcasters do have an element of truth here. It was badly explained, but there is an argument to suggest that posting sexy selfies as a member of a committed relationship is not appropriate for some people. But like everything, it should probably be decided by the two people within those relationships rather than blanket rules.