Abortion Rights

[Steve of phpBB]

Yup.

[DaveInSeattle]

Self righteous bastards

[Johnnie]

Since when, if ever, does the Supreme Court have leaks to media?

That is also massive for different reasons.

[Johnnie]

[DaveInSeattle]

IANAL, but after reading the leaked draft, by Alito's logic (Hah!) anything not specifically spelled out in the Constitution is fair game now. Meaning gay marriage, obama care, inter-racial marriage, birth control, all of it.

Mother fuckers...

[L-Jam3]

Fucking Alito.

I’m not going to use this space to speculate, but doesn’t overturning Roe mean that a state could prohibit it, or keep it legal, right? Which would mean like it did before: rich people who could get themselves to a pro-choice state would still be able to have the procedure, but the indigent women are shit outta luck. Right? That’s functionally what it’ll be?

Or at least until they pass federal law against it.

And me personally I could honestly never decide where I sat on the issue. My views say that a fetus isn’t a human, not a developed one at least, but it is something alive. My kids’ mom and I experienced three miscarriages before our first, and every one was gut-wrenching. It was something, and while intellectually I could rationalize that likely half of all fertilizations ended not going to term even taking abortions out of the equation, recognizing that fact did nothing to assuage the true grief we experienced. And a significant part of my belief system says that human life is sacred.

But at the same time, something doesn’t sit right with me knowing that a woman would have to carry a baby to term, especially when there’s a huge percentage of the time she’d be the one taking care of it without the father’s help. A baby is a massive life-changing experience, and I (like obviously everyone here) sees the complete hypocrisy by so many on the right that they give a shit until the baby’s out of the womb, then they’re on their own. It’s galling to me that many people who are against abortion (and I find opposition to it a valid belief) would be the last person who would lift a finger to help the baby once it’s born.

I guess putting it out on a page I’d say I’m pro-choice? Like if my own daughter became pregnant (and I literally just shuddered) I would respect whatever decision she made. Reversing Roe would only prevent poorer women from having that choice, and that doesn’t sit right with me at all.

[degenerasian]

I think it's a title for shock value. Supreme Court has voted....

No they haven't. It's a draft and opinions will be added. Alito thinks the votes are there but who knows? Things change as it goes through. The leak now puts pressure on everyone. There will be a push to expand the court tomorrow.

And yes it's federal protection. If repealed, more power to the States.

[brian]

Abortion is legal in the state Constitution of Nevada amongst other states. While I’m obviously not a lawyer this would seem to fall under the category where states can create their own laws (either banning or allowing) since there is no federal law?

[Johnnie]

Edit

[EnochRoot]

This isn't about life; it's about the subjugation of women.

And when you sprinkle in the reality that half the women in this country could not give a fuck about the plight of a woman in a compromised way?

Yeah. Good times.

[Steve of phpBB]

Fucking Alito.

I’m not going to use this space to speculate, but doesn’t overturning Roe mean that a state could prohibit it, or keep it legal, right? Which would mean like it did before: rich people who could get themselves to a pro-choice state would still be able to have the procedure, but the indigent women are shit outta luck. Right? That’s functionally what it’ll be?

Or at least until they pass federal law against it.

And me personally I could honestly never decide where I sat on the issue. My views say that a fetus isn’t a human, not a developed one at least, but it is something alive. My kids’ mom and I experienced three miscarriages before our first, and every one was gut-wrenching. It was something, and while intellectually I could rationalize that likely half of all fertilizations ended not going to term even taking abortions out of the equation, recognizing that fact did nothing to assuage the true grief we experienced. And a significant part of my belief system says that human life is sacred.

But at the same time, something doesn’t sit right with me knowing that a woman would have to carry a baby to term, especially when there’s a huge percentage of the time she’d be the one taking care of it without the father’s help. A baby is a massive life-changing experience, and I (like obviously everyone here) sees the complete hypocrisy by so many on the right that they give a shit until the baby’s out of the womb, then they’re on their own. It’s galling to me that many people who are against abortion (and I find opposition to it a valid belief) would be the last person who would lift a finger to help the baby once it’s born.

I guess putting it out on a page I’d say I’m pro-choice? Like if my own daughter became pregnant (and I literally just shuddered) I would respect whatever decision she made. Reversing Roe would only prevent poorer women from having that choice, and that doesn’t sit right with me at all.

I’m with you. On an intellectual level, I can see the argument that as a quasi-human, a fetus legally is entitled to some protection. But there are a whole lot of women who really really really don’t want the government making that decision, amd that’s ultimately the side I fall on.

[Steve of phpBB]

Abortion is legal in the state Constitution of Nevada amongst other states. While I’m obviously not a lawyer this would seem to fall under the category where states can create their own laws (either banning or allowing) since there is no federal law?

Theoretically. But guess who will get to decide the validity of the upcoming National Abortion Ban Act?

[Johnnie]

[Steve of phpBB]

Yes. This is clearly Pelosi’s fault.

[EnochRoot]

I can't stand that meme. It's so ignorant.

[HaulCitgo]

Democrats just gained 20 seats in Congress. EVERY other political issue just went out the window.

[tennbengal]

Waiting for people to grasp the authoritarian horror of “if it isn’t mentioned in a 250 year old document” it’s fair game.

[HaulCitgo]

I can live with that. I can't live with Christian extremist values being shoved down my throat by a bunch of lawyers who have never practiced law. And my daughter will not live in Georgia. Adios fuckers

[Mulligan]

My biggest gripe is if we supposedly live in a country with freedom of choice, this decision is the exact opposite. We can't have it both ways.

[L-Jam3]

For the non-lawyers:

I semi-joked on the Politics thread a few weeks ago that I didn't expect a GOP Senator to say that a state could limit interracial marriage if it wanted. Roe is based on the right to privacy, one that isn't explicitly in the Constitution. Which is true in the most specific sense, but the last 100+ years of jurisprudence basically said "if the point of a Constitution is to ultimately limit the power of government and preserve the rights of the people, then it would most definitely follow that a person has a right to his own privacy without government intervention." This right to privacy has then been used repeatedly, including the 1968 case Loving v. Virginia, which held that the right to privacy, specifically whether you can marry someone outside your race, was so important and fundamental that a state law prohibiting that would most certainly be against the Constitution and therefore be struck down.

Not only does the Alito draft of the opinion reject the right to privacy at the outset as not in the Constitution, it specifically cites Loving as not being analogous to Roe. From my skimming of the decision, this opens to the door to reversing Loving.

So yeah, there's going to be a state that's going to pass laws forbidding interracial marriage, just to see if it can get all the up to the SC so they could rule on it, and this decision could be used to justify it, as "there's no right to privacy in the Constitution".

And just a side-note. Fuck Amy Coney-Barrett. I know that Kavanaugh is, to say the least, problematic, but at least he was qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Fucking Amy Coney-Barrett was a federal judge for what, two weeks? And now she's going to putting her revisionist views for the next thirty fucking years. God, fuck Amy Coney Barrett.

[A_B]

God, fuck Amy Coney Barrett.

She wishes.

[L-Jam3]

Ugh. That picture of her holding up that book during the confirmation with that smug look on her face. That induces such rage in me. Between the smug look and the fucking hypocrisy in relation to Merrick Garland. Fuck. Now I'm angry.

[mister d]

Yes. This is clearly Pelosi’s fault.

No, nothing is Pelosi's fault. Nothing is Schumer's fault. Nothing is Biden's fault just like nothing was Obama's fault. There is no one to blame for not countering the Republicans (except for non-voters and tepid voters). Just another unpreventable loss on an issue that polls favorably across the entire country.

[The Sybian]

IANAL, but after reading the leaked draft, by Alito's logic (Hah!) anything not specifically spelled out in the Constitution is fair game now. Meaning gay marriage, obama care, inter-racial marriage, birth control, all of it.

Mother fuckers...

This is exactly the definition of "Strict Constructionist" the GOP have been pushing for the past 40+ years. This is what the Federalist Society slow rolls on naive and unsuspecting law students, to indoctrinate them. This is what Scalia always pushed, and the GOP's #1 strategy was to pack the Courts with enough Strict Constructionists to get away with it. This is why it was so important for them to steal Merrick Garland's seat. I know I've ranted a dozen times on this, but IMO this is the greatest threat to our country, and I watched friends and my roommate almost fall for the State's Rights bullshit of the Federalist Society. It was an ambitious movement, and while it took 40 years, it's starting to come through.

They want to dismantle Rights granted by the Courts to ensure they can subjugate us to their backwards ass Biblical beliefs. The sad thing is, the Pro-Life movement was completely generated as a fake culture war movement in the 60s or 70s when the GOP began to realize their belief system couldn't win on it's own, and they needed to create single issue voters out of the religious extremists. Many years ago someone posted a phenomenal documentary about the PR guy hired to create the branding of the Pro-Life movement. He deeply regrets his work and said nobody in the GOP gave a fuck about the issue, but thought they could capture the Catholic and Evangelical votes to get them to vote against their economic interests, so they could pass shit like trickle-down economic policies and tax cuts for the wealthiest.

While this is a giant tipping point that will make all the headlines, the Robert's Court has completely disregarded all the norms and traditions of the Court. They have overturned numerous cases with long-standing precedence by completely ignoring the precedence and just changing the law without explanation. This has never happened, and it's fucking terrifying, as the Court is now a political entity legislating law, rather than doing what it's supposed to, interpreting laws to ensure they are Constitutional. I don't remember what the case was about, but the Court recently overturned past precedence through a "shadow docket," meaning they didn't write an opinion or even hear arguments, they just overturned long standing precedence without explanation. Even Robert's wrote a scathing rebuke on this. I think Roberts is close to flipping and turning on the Conservative Justices. While he is a longtime GOP political hack, he has a deep respect for the history of the Court, and he knows this Court carries his name, and while I disagree with him on almost every political opinion, he at least respects the history and role of the Court. Unfortunately, the Conservatives can outvote him.

[The Sybian]

Democrats just gained 20 seats in Congress. EVERY other political issue just went out the window.

This is my hope. Banning abortion is wildly unpopular across the country. The problem is, the States that will ban abortions probably won't lose many seats. As others said, overturning Roe won't make abortions illegal, but will allow states to pass laws making abortions illegal. I think this is going to cause some major backlash the GOP may not be ready to handle. Dems are burned out from 4 years of Trump, and Biden inspires apathy at best, but this may spark Dem voters back to life. We shall see.

[tennbengal]

They are gonna ban gay marriage next. And then outlaw homosexuality. And if you think I am being alarmist, fuck off. You didn't grow up where I did. You don't know these religious zealots like I do.

[L-Jam3]

Democrats just gained 20 seats in Congress. EVERY other political issue just went out the window.

This is my hope. Banning abortion is wildly unpopular across the country. The problem is, the States that will ban abortions probably won't lose many seats. As others said, overturning Roe won't make abortions illegal, but will allow states to pass laws making abortions illegal. I think this is going to cause some major backlash the GOP may not be ready to handle. Dems are burned out from 4 years of Trump, and Biden inspires apathy at best, but this may spark Dem voters back to life. We shall see.

It's not going to change in the states that want to ban abortion, because those are the same states preventing black Americans from voting.

[mister d]

Its all bad, but that's the part that worries me the most. Unless there's something positive (terminal illness for Alito or Thomas), they think they're safe enough electorally to make this push right now. And by "safe enough electorally", I don't mean "they have the majority of the votes".

[pruitt2]

She is shocked... SHOCKED!

[The Sybian]

They are gonna ban gay marriage next. And then outlaw homosexuality. And if you think I am being alarmist, fuck off. You didn't grow up where I did. You don't know these religious zealots like I do.

I think you are stating the obvious, not being alarmist, but following this shit replaced baseball, basketball and hockey 20+ years ago. This is the first domino, and if the Dems don't strike fear into the populace as to what comes next, they are more inept than I believe, and I believe they are incredibly inept.

[mister d]

Dems will be terrified of the mythical white centrist who is totally voting for them unless they take too firm of a pro-choice stance. They'll be alarmed and concerned and tell you this is why "Blue No Matter Who" matters more than ever, but they're never going to actually fight back.

[DaveInSeattle]

She is shocked... SHOCKED!

But she is "troubled" yet? Have we reached "concerned"?

[mister d]

Once again, I'd like you to all close your eyes and picture a Republican senator in West Virginia who also doesn't vote with the Democrats but doesn't concurrently hold massive rewrite power over every piece of legislation the party even considers. Sounds terrible, right?

[degenerasian]

They are gonna ban gay marriage next. And then outlaw homosexuality. And if you think I am being alarmist, fuck off. You didn't grow up where I did. You don't know these religious zealots like I do.

This 100%. GOP's ground game. They're going to ban abortion and gay marriage without ever mentioning it at a rally or convention.

[L-Jam3]

Once again, I'd like you to all close your eyes and picture a Republican senator in West Virginia who also doesn't vote with the Democrats but doesn't concurrently hold massive rewrite power over every piece of legislation the party even considers. Sounds terrible, right?

I agree with you D, but what exactly would the way the Dems establishment can convince Manchun and Sinema, Luca Brazzi-style, to accede to party-backed legislation and kill the filibuster? I’m not even saying this to be a prick, I’m really serious. What can they do besides withholding campaign funds or primarying their asses?

[mister d]

I can't give you exact mechanics, I have no idea the inner workings of political negotiations/threats/whatever, but if you agree this decision will end up killing thousands of woman, I'd argue you attack inter-party dissenters with the appropriate fury rather than concern, written outrage and fundraising. And you attack those advancing the legislation even harder. But that's not the Dems because, like with every other issue of this magnitude, 90%+ of them can rest knowing their lives exist well above the fallout and that their biggest personal risk would be the fight itself.

[EnochRoot]

I can't give you exact mechanics, I have no idea the inner workings of political negotiations/threats/whatever, but if you agree this decision will end up killing thousands of woman, I'd argue you attack inter-party dissenters with the appropriate fury rather than concern, written outrage and fundraising. And you attack those advancing the legislation even harder. But that's not the Dems because, like with every other issue of this magnitude, 90%+ of them can rest knowing their lives exist well above the fallout and that their biggest personal risk would be the fight itself.

What kind of heaping pile of cynical, circular, whataboutist nonsense is this?

[Steve of phpBB]

I agree with you D, but what exactly would the way the Dems establishment can convince Manchun and Sinema, Luca Brazzi-style, to accede to party-backed legislation and kill the filibuster? I’m not even saying this to be a prick, I’m really serious. What can they do besides withholding campaign funds or primarying their asses?

There is very little a party can do to a Senator when the margins are razor thin.

The Dems can do nothing to Manchin. He holds all the cards. Primarying Manchin would just give the seat to the Republicans. Which doesn't make a difference on many issues (like the filibuster) but makes a difference on others (Justice Jackson, many other non-white non-male judges, multi-trillion dollar Covid relief bills).

The Dems can threaten to primary Sinema, but I don't think she cares that much.

And without them, you simply cannot make "48" be a bigger number than "52".

The Dems need to win Senate seats in states like PA and WI. Which means doing what it takes to get votes from lots of white people in their 50s or older.

[The Sybian]

Once again, I'd like you to all close your eyes and picture a Republican senator in West Virginia who also doesn't vote with the Democrats but doesn't concurrently hold massive rewrite power over every piece of legislation the party even considers. Sounds terrible, right?

I'd agree with you if the balance of the Senate wasn't 50/50. If Manchin switches parties or caucuses with the GOP, they control the Senate. The decide what Bills the Senate votes on and which Bills pass the House and sit ignored. They select the Chair of every committee, they get to block every nominee and Judicial appointment from getting to a vote. So while Manchin and Sinema are colossal fuckwits gumming up the works and blocking the Dems from getting shit done, the Dems still need to keep them in the caucus.

[The Sybian]

I agree with you D, but what exactly would the way the Dems establishment can convince Manchun and Sinema, Luca Brazzi-style, to accede to party-backed legislation and kill the filibuster? I’m not even saying this to be a prick, I’m really serious. What can they do besides withholding campaign funds or primarying their asses?

The Dems need to win Senate seats in states like PA and WI. Which means doing what it takes to get votes from lots of white people in their 50s or older.

Help us, Old White People! You are our only hope!