Apple, Roe, Wade (video)

From "Apple weighs in on Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade" which aired Friday on CNBC:

CNBC's Steve Kovach joins 'Closing Bell' to report on Apple's response to the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, the decision that allowed women access to safe abortion services.

My take: Apple was not alone (see FastCompany's "These tech companies are pledging to pay for abortion travel"). But unlike Google, Meta and Amazon, Apple should be largely spared this...

From Reuters' "U.S. tech industry frets about handing data to states prosecuting abortion" posted Friday:

As state laws limiting abortion kick in after the ruling, technology trade representatives told Reuters they fear police will obtain warrants for customers' search history, geolocation and other information indicating plans to terminate a pregnancy. Prosecutors could access the same via a subpoena, too. The concern reflects how the data collection practices of companies like Alphabet Inc's (GOOGL.O) Google, Facebook parent Meta Platforms Inc (META.O) and Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O) have the potential to incriminate abortion-seekers for state laws that many in Silicon Valley oppose.

42 Comments

  1. Jerry Doyle said:
    It pains me to see corporations take political stances.

    I truly believe big business can and should stay out of the abortion issue fray. Our law is by definition a codification of morality with much of it grounded in Judeo-Christian tradition. People of faith always have brought their interpretations of the Bible to bear on American laws and morals and the issue of abortion is the pinnacle of their interpretation of what is right morally to do.

    There is no truth here on this issue. No way exists for me or any of us to hold our respective truths to be the truth on this issue when everyone else see truth differently.

    Pro-life advocates cannot compromise on this issue. I am reminded of the religious scholar Elaine Pagels who said, “….there’s practically no religion I know of that sees other people in a way that affirms the other’s choice.”

    Religion does not allow for compromise. Followers of the Judeo-Christian faith are expected to live up to God’s edicts and there-in lies the perpetual conflict on this issue: politics involves compromise and religion does not allow compromise.

    Surely, Tim Cook, who grew-up in the Deep South and inside the Bible Belt as I, understands fully all that I have written. I do hope he navigates this issue meticulously so as not to take sides. This is not a social issue, but a deep, abiding humanistic and religious issue where no compromise exists.

    5
    June 25, 2022
    • S Lawton said:
      With all due respect, Jerry, morally my choice would be to have my baby. That is my choice. I don’t have the right to choose for others. With regard to religion, in the Judeo-Christian, we were given free choice, which you want to take away. Educate the woman with options and opportunities and then let her decide.

      11
      June 25, 2022
    • John Konopka said:
      As we all know, the abortion issue is very contentious. I am hearing now that the in the Jewish religion life begins at birth. At about the time of Roe the Southern Baptists were supportive. Some leaders talked about life starting when the child separated from the mother. It took years of persuasion to make this a passionate issue on the right. Reagan himself signed one of the most liberal abortion laws before this became a hot button fund raiser for the right.

      Now roughly 2/3 of Americans support the right to choose. Alito and the others are far right wing Catholics not representative of Americans at large. Amy Barret belongs to right wing cult. These people do not reflect the views of most Americans.

      Moreover, the broad umbrella of abortion services includes many procedures and health care that support the life of the mother and are not strictly intended to stop a pregnancy. These are now outlawed in some states.

      Apple, and other large companies, have a responsibility for the health and well being of their workers. It is not for them to impose a narrow religious view on their workers. I applaud Apple, Google and others for protecting their workers.

      My personal view of the First Amendment is that in private we are free to exercise our religious beliefs any way we wish, as long as we don’t hurt people. In public we are held to a higher moral standard. In public, in the US, we should be able to publicly exercise our religion while respecting the rights of others to believe and act differently. One’s right to express religious beliefs does not include the right to control the behavior of others.

      My personal view on abortion is that legal bans don’t stop it. Legal bans drive it underground making it less safe for women. More women will die because of abortion bans. The right wingers on the Supreme Court have blood on their hands. If you really want to reduce abortions you would educate women, give them contraceptives, provide free pre-natal care, free day care, free preschool and other support for mothers.

      7
      June 25, 2022
      • Rodney Avilla said:
        “One’s right to express religious beliefs does not include the right to control the behavior of others.”

        I believe I hear what you are saying, that one does not have a right to push their religious beliefs on someone else. However, that statement implies that if your beliefs have a religious foundation, then your beliefs are less important or have less rights in public discussions as a society decides what is to be legal and illegal. In such discussions, it usually doesn’t take long for someone, who feels that views being presented have a religious basis, to remind them that their views are not welcome, since “we don’t want to force someone’s religion onto someone else”. So if a senator feels murder is wrong because of religous views, she can’t vote on a Do Not Murder bill? If a judge believes abortion should be legal based on religious beliefs, should he recluse himself on a abortion case? Are my values and norms more or less ‘usable’ in discussions and in voting depending on their basis?
        I agree that no one, whether they be baptist, jewish, atheist, humanist, etc., have a right to control the behavior of others. But everyone, everyone, has a right to be part of the discussion, and have a vote in the process. No one can say, “I’m sorry, but since you have atheistic views, and we don’t want to force atheism onto any else, you can’t vote, or speak up.

        4
        June 26, 2022
        • Robert Stack said:
          “I believe I hear what you are saying, that one does not have a right to push their religious beliefs on someone else. However, that statement implies that if your beliefs have a religious foundation, then your beliefs are less important…”

          With all due respect Rodney, it implies no such thing. And even if it did, you still have no such right to force your religious beliefs on any woman. The brilliance of Roe was that it WAS a compromise, as huge majorities did not want late term abortions and equally huge majorities thought it was acceptable early in pregnancy. Thus granting a constitutional right to abortion for the first trimester of the pregnancy was a well-reasoned decision, as it also took into consideration a woman’s constitutional right to privacy. The decision of this kangaroo SC fails to consider privacy or prohibitions against unreasonable govt search and seizure.

          1
          June 26, 2022
  2. Steven Philips said:
    YOUR religion ENDS at MY body.
    (If not, hopefully, before.)
    We don’t need a theocracy! Next thing you know they’ll be ordering a Crusade!

    10
    June 25, 2022
    • Rodney Avilla said:
      In a theocracy the government dictates what the populace can do and not do. The populace has no say. In a democracy, the people (thru elected representatives) get to decide, which is the intent of the present SC ruling.

      4
      June 25, 2022
  3. Jerry Doyle said:
    Why are commenters addressing their messages to me “personally?” I gave my long held and studied understanding of the abortion issue as embraced by pro-life believers. I live and walk among them. I understand fully how thy view the abortion issue. All I have done is to convey that view to the readers. So please, don’t make this personal and a blowback to me.

    Tim Cook needs to limit Apple’s involvement in the abortion issue to that of an “employee supportive role” while the legislatures, courts and citizens chart their respective paths.

    I have the highest respect for Apple 3.0 emeritus Joseph Bland, but the good man is naive and myopic to believe the abortion issue is an issue that can be addressed through compromise between the opposing parties. True pro-choice believers are not able to compromise their faith when God has spoken His edict to them.

    So please folk, don’t shoot the messenger who brought you the dispatch above on his reason why the abortion issue never will become a settled issue and why Apple and all CEOs need to be cognizant of that fact to chart their respective companies’ paths on how to respond appropriately.

    2
    June 25, 2022
  4. John Butt said:
    The summary of data keepers with big issues, “ companies like Alphabet Inc’s (GOOGL.O) Google, Facebook parent Meta Platforms Inc (META.O) and Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O)” has missed Microsoft, often forgotten that they run Bing in much the same way as Google search.

    1
    June 25, 2022
  5. Robert Stack said:
    All I can say is the Supreme Court just destroyed any remaining legitimacy it may have had with me and the vast majority of Americans. When nominees to what is now clearly a kangaroo court openly lie/deceive during their confirmation hearings about their intent about supposedly settled “precedents” (ask Susan Collins), it’s clear that they have no integrity. Without integrity, they have ZERO legitimacy, and such a judge (or a court in this case) undermines the very rule of law that used to be the foundation of our democracy.

    Letting the states decide the issue? If we had let the states decide, we’d still have slavery in this country, and women still wouldn’t have the right to vote. In many states at least. Shame shame shame on these conspiring liars. As someone who was raised Catholic, I was taught not to lie. I still respect the religious beliefs of others, but I have little tolerance for liars and scammers.

    14
    June 26, 2022
    • Nicholas Watland said:
      “the vast majority of Americans”…. I think you’re about to find out that you’re in the minority this coming November sir…..

      3
      June 26, 2022
  6. Nicholas Watland said:
    The Supreme Court has sent this issue back to the States and the American people where it has always belonged!

    5
    June 26, 2022
  7. Brian Loftus said:
    Roughly 20% of Americans agree with the No abortion except when rape, incest, mother’s life and 20% of Americans agree with abortion on demand up to delivery. The majority, >60% agree with abortion on demand for some time window. The case at hand was 15 weeks which is slightly more liberal than most of Europe.
    The reason we have the 20% of each Americans running policy for our 2 parties is because of our primary system. Let’s watch Alaska for a potential path forward. One jungle primary top 4 go to the final ballot with rank choice voting. This has the potential to bring in moderates from both sides and hopefully end up with a more representative group of representatives. If I could have my magic wand- I would even do rank voting in the primary for at least a few spots but it’s a great start.

    2
    June 26, 2022
  8. Greg Lippert said:
    States ability to block fundamental human rights and impose religious morale codes is unacceptable and part of the separation of church and state.

    If I do not subscribe to your religion, you should not be allowed to impose on me. Keep it to yourself.

    6
    June 26, 2022
    • Rodney Avilla said:
      Maybe we can tell them what criteria to use when voting? (ie., not use any religious principles they inadvertantly picked up when voting). Or if they refuse, we can take away their right to vote. A limited citizenship level perhaps? Or if that sounds too harsh, we can try training their young. Of course need to start at a very young age, preschool, and educate them so that when their parents teach them any ‘religious stuff’, they’ll know that it has no value in public discourse in any governing bodies (schools, city, county, state, country). But do let them know that when non-religious folks pass laws that affect them, that’s ok. That’s democracy.
      Sorry for the sarcasm.

      0
      June 27, 2022
  9. Nicholas Watland said:
    Unfortunately, this excellent blog seems to occasionally devolve into a leftist echo chamber…… Certainly not the reason I subscribed.

    3
    June 26, 2022
    • Steven Philips said:
      Leftist?
      Or rational center?

      3
      June 26, 2022
      • Nicholas Watland said:
        As I said in an earlier comment, you’re going to find out in November….. It should be very interesting….

        2
        June 26, 2022
    • S Lawton said:
      PED posted an article about how Apple intended to react to the SC Dobbs decision. The first comment did not come from the “left”. Others pro and con including your own followed. Should one side be quiet to please you. As much as this is a religious issue it is a woman’s issue. The pro life fight has continued to bring out GOP voters. Now that it is in states hands that dynamic might change. We shall see.

      3
      June 26, 2022
      • Nicholas Watland said:
        “Should one side be quiet to please you”

        Not at all….. I believe in free speech. However, I think most would agree that this site is intended to be a neutral Apple-centric information source. If I want to see commentary related to politics, I will go to the WSJ, Washington Post or New York Times.

        2
        June 26, 2022
  10. Robert Stack said:
    @PED (and everyone else): Sure glad we don’t discuss politics here – at least most of the time! But hey – kudos to all for keeping it mostly civil.

    8
    June 26, 2022

Leave a Reply