# Roe vs. Wade overturned



## Chew Toy McCoy

I heard this theory recently. It’s such a hot button platform staple for Republicans that they wouldn’t want it to go away. It’s one of the few remaining “party of” statements they can make with any semblance of integrity. The pro fetus appearance holds a lot of voter value for them. But if Trump gets a second term I’m sure he’ll smash that one into the dirt too, along with all the other traditional Republican values he pisses on.


----------



## lizkat

I can believe it's a desirable issue for the Rs to hang onto for reasons you noted.

But...  Roe v Wade is steadily becoming irrelevant.   Women don't choose abortions because that's actually their preferred method of choice to avoid bringing a dependent into the world.  Especially now that one may have to travel hundreds of miles in the USA even to reach a clinic that still provides abortions.

Women would rather have a way of preventing conception that's safe and convenient.  There are now contraceptives one can even have implanted in the arm for up to three years.  That of course is why the Rs have started to bear down on those choices too:  trying to make it a matter of religious freedom for a clinician or pharmacist to decline to fill birth control prescriptions or to implement measures like insertion of IUDs or the in-arm birth control measures.  And it's why Republicans also oppose workplace health insurance coverage of contraception.

It's not about protecting a fetus from conception forward to birth (when the Republicans figure a delivered child is on its own and is the sole responsibility of the woman who bore it).   It's about undoing gender equality and suppressing a woman's autonomy.

The results of being kept "barefoot and pregnant" are pretty effective at keeping a woman in what Republicans imagine is her place:   dependent throughout all her childbearing years on others legally empowered to define the boundaries and terms of her existence.

Well it's time to throw all those mofos the heck out of office.   If men could be impregnated, abortions would be free by appointment in sterile rooms off the side of barbershops all over the USA.  Not a states' rights issue, either.  Federal mandate, fully funded by the good ol' boys of House and Senate. Believe it.

Seems to me a better idea is let a woman implant a contraceptive in her arm if she doesn't want to bring a child into the world until and unless she's prepared to focus on raising a family.   Her right of the choice can only be beneficial to our public health, economy and so our national security. Look at the effort and money it takes to try in vain to subjugate women in American society.  And for what, really?  For what purpose?  And how's it working out for the nation overall?


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

lizkat said:


> I can believe it's a desirable issue for the Rs to hang onto for reasons you noted.
> 
> But...  Roe v Wade is steadily becoming irrelevant.   Women don't choose abortions because that's actually their preferred method of choice to avoid bringing a dependent into the world.  Especially now that one may have to travel hundreds of miles in the USA even to reach a clinic that still provides abortions.
> 
> Women would rather have a way of preventing conception that's safe and convenient.  There are now contraceptives one can even have implanted in the arm for up to three years.  That of course is why the Rs have started to bear down on those choices too:  trying to make it a matter of religious freedom for a clinician or pharmacist to decline to fill birth control prescriptions or to implement measures like insertion of IUDs or the in-arm birth control measures.  And it's why Republicans also oppose workplace health insurance coverage of contraception.
> 
> It's not about protecting a fetus from conception forward to birth (when the Republicans figure a delivered child is on its own and is the sole responsibility of the woman who bore it).   It's about undoing gender equality and suppressing a woman's autonomy.
> 
> The results of being kept "barefoot and pregnant" are pretty effective at keeping a woman in what Republicans imagine is her place:   dependent throughout all her childbearing years on others legally empowered to define the boundaries and terms of her existence.
> 
> Well it's time to throw all those mofos the heck out of office.   If men could be impregnated, abortions would be free by appointment in sterile rooms off the side of barbershops all over the USA.  Not a states' rights issue, either.  Federal mandate, fully funded by the good ol' boys of House and Senate. Believe it.
> 
> Seems to me a better idea is let a woman implant a contraceptive in her arm if she doesn't want to bring a child into the world until and unless she's prepared to focus on raising a family.   Her right of the choice can only be beneficial to our public health, economy and so our national security. Look at the effort and money it takes to try in vain to subjugate women in American society.  And for what, really?  For what purpose?  And how's it working out for the nation overall?




I have a more simplistic view of it. Aside from possible religious reasons, I don’t think the average politician gives a shit either way. It's all about show for their constituents, and that issue is a big one for some single issue voters. I think it’s probably more the constituents that have the viewpoints you mentioned that are the driving factor. Obviously another big single issue voter issue is gun control. That and reproductive rights will gladly be put in center stage in an election campaign, but I’m willing to bet more times than not a lot less energy is put into either of those things once the person is in office.

I think these issues also take passionate center stage from politicians because neither effects Capitalism. So they can just go at it with each other and nobody’s really losing large sums of money over it.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

lizkat said:


> I can believe it's a desirable issue for the Rs to hang onto for reasons you noted.
> 
> But...  Roe v Wade is steadily becoming irrelevant.   Women don't choose abortions because that's actually their preferred method of choice to avoid bringing a dependent into the world.  Especially now that one may have to travel hundreds of miles in the USA even to reach a clinic that still provides abortions.
> 
> Women would rather have a way of preventing conception that's safe and convenient.  There are now contraceptives one can even have implanted in the arm for up to three years.  That of course is why the Rs have started to bear down on those choices too:  trying to make it a matter of religious freedom for a clinician or pharmacist to decline to fill birth control prescriptions or to implement measures like insertion of IUDs or the in-arm birth control measures.  And it's why Republicans also oppose workplace health insurance coverage of contraception.
> 
> It's not about protecting a fetus from conception forward to birth (when the Republicans figure a delivered child is on its own and is the sole responsibility of the woman who bore it).   It's about undoing gender equality and suppressing a woman's autonomy.
> 
> The results of being kept "barefoot and pregnant" are pretty effective at keeping a woman in what Republicans imagine is her place:   dependent throughout all her childbearing years on others legally empowered to define the boundaries and terms of her existence.
> 
> Well it's time to throw all those mofos the heck out of office.   If men could be impregnated, abortions would be free by appointment in sterile rooms off the side of barbershops all over the USA.  Not a states' rights issue, either.  Federal mandate, fully funded by the good ol' boys of House and Senate. Believe it.
> 
> Seems to me a better idea is let a woman implant a contraceptive in her arm if she doesn't want to bring a child into the world until and unless she's prepared to focus on raising a family.   Her right of the choice can only be beneficial to our public health, economy and so our national security. Look at the effort and money it takes to try in vain to subjugate women in American society.  And for what, really?  For what purpose?  And how's it working out for the nation overall?




Terrific post, and I agree with every single syllable.

In my experience, most of those who class themselves as "pro-life" - or, pro the foetus (naturally, at the expense of the mother), have very little interest in that selfsame foetus once it has been born.

Then, it is the mother's problem, and instead, she is berated for her "lack of responsibility" in getting pregnant in the first place.

Their stance would be a great deal more logical, not to mention compassionate, if they sought to support the women who give birth, with the provision of state financial supports, healthcare, maternity leave, and so on; but, they don't.

This is not about protecting the foetus; this is about controlling, condemning - and punishing - women who are sexually active, especially if they are sexually active outside of the structure of the "formal" family, people such as single mothers, divorcees, and so on.  The recent attempts to roll back access to terminations for children - and others - who have been raped, tells its own story.

As @lizkat points out, if they were truly serious about ensuring that abortion is not something that desperate women reach for, safe, affordable and reliable birth control, contraception, would be made readily available and easily accessed.

But the very fact that those who seek to deny access to abortion, also seek to deny women access to safe, affordable and reliable birth control makes abundantly clear that this is not about abortion, but about punishing and condemning and controlling women for daring to think (or dream) that they can attempt to exercise a degree of autonomy in their sex lives, and hope to do so without negative consequences, a happy state of affairs which has been the lot of men since the dawn of recorded time.


----------



## thekev

lizkat said:


> Well it's time to throw all those mofos the heck out of office.   If men could be impregnated, abortions would be free by appointment in sterile rooms off the side of barbershops all over the USA.  Not a states' rights issue, either.  Federal mandate, fully funded by the good ol' boys of House and Senate. Believe it.




I don't think it would go that way. I think it would stop being such a politically charged issue, and I think you would no longer see pressure on clinics that provide abortion services. You would not see religious views used as a basis of objection toward alternative methods of contraception.

I think the model of who pays for it and what it costs probably would probably remain mostly unchanged though. There are too many counter-examples in other areas when applied to men for me to think that this would somehow be a subsidized thing.

We don't subsidize urology, condoms, or ED medications. According to google, many insurers do not cover ED medications at all. Men are jailed for non-payment of child support. Men can be assigned child support without actual paternity in some states if their spouse is the mother. 

 I suspect it would be treated as elective care. In that case, you have clinics that are largely fee for service. No one judges or cares. No one politicizes government contracts with companies that perform such procedures.

That wouldn't actually be a bad outcome.


----------



## lizkat

thekev said:


> I don't think it would go that way. I think it would stop being such a politically charged issue, and I think you would no longer see pressure on clinics that provide abortion services. You would not see religious views used as a basis of objection toward alternative methods of contraception.
> 
> I think the model of who pays for it and what it costs probably would probably remain mostly unchanged though. There are too many counter-examples in other areas when applied to men for me to think that this would somehow be a subsidized thing.
> 
> We don't subsidize urology, condoms, or ED medications. According to google, many insurers do not cover ED medications at all. Men are jailed for non-payment of child support. Men can be assigned child support without actual paternity in some states if their spouse is the mother.
> 
> I suspect it would be treated as elective care. In that case, you have clinics that are largely fee for service. No one judges or cares. No one politicizes government contracts with companies that perform such procedures.
> 
> That wouldn't actually be a bad outcome.




You make some valid points in that post but let's not forget my hypothetical:  what I said was based on "... if" men could get pregnant.       I am not at all convinced that a still largely male House and Senate would not mandate that health insurance cover not only birth control but termination of men's unwanted pregnancies and make access far easier than how all that is for women in actuality today in the USA.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

lizkat said:


> You make some valid points in that post but let's not forget my hypothetical:  what I said was based on "... if" men could get pregnant.       I am not at all convinced that a still largely male House and Senate would not mandate that health insurance cover not only birth control but termination of men's unwanted pregnancies and make access far easier than how all that is for women in actuality today in the USA.




Agree completely.

My mother - who had been raised as a Catholic - used to joke that if men could get pregnant, contraception and abortion would have been sacraments, not sins.


----------



## User.45

What amazes me about the GOP is this:
they are against abortion, but back policies that actually increase them:

"Using the most recent national data (2005) from all U.S. states with information on sex education laws or policies (N = 48), we show that increasing emphasis on abstinence education is positively correlated with teenage pregnancy and birth rates. This trend remains significant after accounting for socioeconomic status, teen educational attainment, ethnic composition of the teen population, and availability of Medicaid waivers for family planning services in each state. These data show clearly that abstinence-only education as a state policy is ineffective in preventing teenage pregnancy and may actually be contributing to the high teenage pregnancy rates in the U.S"
 Abstinence-Only Education and Teen Pregnancy Rates: Why We Need Comprehensive Sex Education in the U.S 

One major thing we cannot talk enough about:
the primary cause of women not achieving their education potential is teen pregnancy. 

Wanna make your nation smarter? Educate the women. Wanna make it twice as smart? Start actually listening to them.


----------



## Huntn

They are debating RoeVWade in the SCOTUS right now (listening on NPR and MSNBC). Justice Sotomayor Is impressive. She asked the Solicitor General Mississippi what part of his argument is not a religious view. She also asked him about crossing the viability standard, woman having control of their bodies, and the Supreme Court becoming a political entity.

This is a matter of individual women‘s liberty. And the standard of viability means that a fetus before viability is viewed as a potential human being and does not have personhood rights. And if you want to be religious the Bible refers to first breath as a life standard.


----------



## Joe

When I was in HS one of my best friends was 1 of 10 siblings because her parents were hardcore catholic and didn't believe in contraception and of course abortion.  Her parents were busy lol 

Their entire voting history was based on abortion. That is the only reason they voted Republican. And it probably is to this day. I'm not sure. I only still communicate with my friend, not her crazy catholic judgmental family members. She always said she was the rebel of the family because she wasn't brainwashed catholic. It's why we got along so well in HS  

But yeah, I agree with the OP.


----------



## Huntn

JagRunner said:


> When I was in HS one of my best friends was 1 of 10 siblings because her parents were hardcore catholic and didn't believe in contraception and of course abortion.  Her parents were busy lol
> 
> Their entire voting history was based on abortion. That is the only reason they voted Republican. And it probably is to this day. I'm not sure. I only still communicate with my friend, not her crazy catholic judgmental family members. She always said she was the rebel of the family because she wasn't brainwashed catholic. It's why we got along so well in HS
> 
> But yeah, I agree with the OP.



I hope RvW is not over turned, but these days I am a pessimist and imo rightfully so. If it is overturned we are a confirmed christian theocracy. With all of the staggering issues we face as a species, it is completely mind boggling we waste so much energy on this issue.


----------



## Herdfan

Even as a conservative, I have always been pro-choice.  I guess that is because I have never been overly religious.  But my support for it has limits.

I think you should be able to decide by the end of the second trimester.  Which is actually a bit more liberal than some of Europe and other developed countries.

Now this is only for On Request abortions and not for medical reasons such as the mother's life.  At that point the decision should be a medical one, not based on choice.  

Now some states allow up to 28 weeks or fetus viability, but 7 allow for late term with no restrictions.  I am not OK with that.

What limits, if any, do you think should be on abortion.


----------



## Renzatic

Herdfan said:


> Now some states allow up to 28 weeks or fetus viability, but 7 allow for late term with no restrictions. I am not OK with that.




Very, very few people are okay with late term abortions in all but the most extreme of circumstances.


----------



## JayMysteri0

> Sotomayor suggests court wouldn’t ‘survive the stench’ if abortion rights undercut
> 
> 
> Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Wednesday suggested the Supreme Court would not “survive the stench” if the court were to uphold Mississippi’s controversial 15-week abortion ban.Sotomayor, while grillin…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thehill.com





> Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Wednesday suggested the Supreme Court would not “survive the stench” if the court were to uphold Mississippi’s controversial 15-week abortion ban.
> 
> Sotomayor, while grilling the attorney backing the Mississippi law during oral arguments, suggested the court would be perceived as highly politicized were it to undermine the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade and related rulings, and that such a decision would be viewed as merely a reflection of the court’s new lopsided 6-3 conservative majority composition.
> 
> “Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?” she asked. “I don't see how it is possible.”
> 
> The liberal justice’s comments came Wednesday as the court considered the constitutionality of Mississippi 15-week ban, which is among scores of state abortion restrictions that have passed just as the Supreme Court began skewing more conservative with the addition of former President Trump’s three nominees to the bench.




This is a fair question when you consider earlier the group of judges likely to lean into this for partisan / personal reasons, was out earlier in the year whining about how the court is perceived as becoming more political.  Forgetting what will happen if Roe Vs Wade is overturned, and consider what this will empower extremist conservatives to push for with the current makeup.  Bear in mind, when this case first made the rounds MS didn't push for this to over turn Roe Vs Wade, it was only after the the Court's makeup was so altered that they wanted to be in front of the Supreme Court.  That can be for only reason.

The Supreme Court will carry this stench from this point on, because the picks of a two time impeached former president who fomented an insurrection to stay in power tilted the balance.


----------



## quagmire

One of the pro-choice people testifying that if you let states set their own limits then using the current precedent of viability is that you will have states constantly look to reduce the limit is absolutely right. Proof is in the other case the SC is dealing with.... The Texas Law.


----------



## SuperMatt

Roe v Wade is toast. They might not kill it completely - they could just change it from 24 weeks to 16 or something, or require that laws have protections for rape and incest, but the questions from the right-wing justices definitely telegraphed their hands. Their prior statements about _stare decisis_ were 100% the BS we all knew they were at the time.









						Roe v. Wade's future is in doubt after historic arguments at Supreme Court
					

The fate of abortion in the U.S. appears to be on shaky ground as a divided Supreme Court weighs a Mississippi law. A decision in the case is expected by summer.




					www.npr.org
				




Both Alito and Kavanaugh went full speed ahead with fetal rights... which are complete nonsense and are an example of putting their personal religious beliefs before the Constitution.



> But Justice Alito opined that "the fetus has an interest in having a life, and that doesn't change does it?"





> Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who replaced Justice Anthony Kennedy, a more centrist Justice on abortion questions, signaled that he may well be willing to reverse Roe. While nodding to the court's precedents, he said that when it comes to abortion there are two interests--the woman's right to terminate a pregnancy and the interest of fetal life. "The problem is you can't accommodate both interests. You have to pick," he said. "Why should this court be the arbiter rather than Congress, state legislatures, state supreme court's and the people being able to resolve this."




I hope this kills the GOP once and for all. Almost 3/4 of Americans do NOT want abortion banned. If this happens, we’ll need a constitutional amendment to allow it, and to do that, we need people to kick the GOP to the curb and get a 2/3 majority in both chambers, then many states to ratify it. When mothers start dying because they couldn’t get an abortion, it’s going to get ugly.


----------



## Thomas Veil

Well, if I recall correctly the decision isn't supposed to come down until next summer. That would be interesting, because if there was ever an issue to drive women, liberals and young people to the polls, it's gonna be a 6-3 decision to overturn Roe. 

You'd think that would minimize any chance the GOP has of a typical midterm takeover of the House and/or Senate. But I don't know. The gerrymandering that's going on around the country looks, I'm sorry to say, almost foolproof. I hope I'm wrong about that.


----------



## ronntaylor

It's toast because whiners couldn't hold their noses and vote for HRC vs. mango because Bernie!


----------



## JayMysteri0

Rachel Maddow had one of her 20 minute openings that makes you just shake your head in disbelief.  Usually it involves her telling a story and you have no idea where it's going.  This time, because of what was the big news of the day, you have a pretty good idea, only it's hard to believe how she gets from her opening story, to today's news with Supreme Court.

If you have the time, I suggest you give her opening a try playing in the background, because if I explained it you wouldn't believe me.  Instead you'd tell me that I'm trying to make real life sound like an interconnected Marvel Cinematic Universe & I was making up Easter eggs.






Also for Ms. Coney Barrett

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1466097960652054546/


----------



## Huntn

Herdfan said:


> Even as a conservative, I have always been pro-choice.  I guess that is because I have never been overly religious.  But my support for it has limits.
> 
> I think you should be able to decide by the end of the second trimester.  Which is actually a bit more liberal than some of Europe and other developed countries.
> 
> Now this is only for On Request abortions and not for medical reasons such as the mother's life.  At that point the decision should be a medical one, not based on choice.
> 
> Now some states allow up to 28 weeks or fetus viability, but 7 allow for late term with no restrictions.  I am not OK with that.
> 
> What limits, if any, do you think should be on abortion.



As far as a woman‘s choice I’m good with the tradional viability standard which does not rely on technology.


----------



## rdrr

What I cannot believe and makes me question the Democrats ability to hold power, is when we Senator "I believe him" Collins was up for re-election, they couldn't take her seat.   There is something wrong with the party's messaging or focus if they couldn't grab that seat.


----------



## Huntn

rdrr said:


> What I cannot believe and makes me question the Democrats ability to hold power, is when we Senator "I believe him" Collins was up for re-election, they couldn't take her seat.   There is something wrong with the party's messaging or focus if they couldn't grab that seat.



The Democrats ability to hold power is directly related to average citizen expectations and intelligence. We have a LOT of stupid around these days. I understand the Dems message and their intent, but there is only so much that can be done to make stupid hear you.  Make them get a shot to save their lives (based on science, not some manipulative Right Wing pundit) and they cry like ignorant fools, stomp their feet and scream, maybe even want to get their guns and right their imagined wrongs in Stupidville.

For average citizens who want affordable healthcare, reasonable wages, social safety nets, reign in the Corpotacracy, the Democrats/Liberals are a slam dunk, in fact they're the only entity that gives a damn about the welfare of average citizens. The corrupt Right Wing  is playing the long con based on racism, xenophobia, LGBT issues, using false socialism/communism labels to scare the good ole boy dummies.


----------



## Herdfan

Huntn said:


> The Democrats ability to hold power is directly related to average citizen expectations and intelligence. We have a LOT of stupid around these days. I understand the Dems message and their intent, but there is only so much that can be done to make stupid hear you.  Make them get a shot to save their lives (based on science, not some manipulative Right Wing pundit) and they cry like ignorant fools, stomp their feet and scream, maybe even want to get their guns and right their imagined wrongs in Stupidville.
> 
> For average citizens who want affordable healthcare, reasonable wages, social safety nets, reign in the Corpotacracy, the Democrats/Liberals are a slam dunk, in fact they're the only entity that gives a damn about the welfare of average citizens. The corrupt Right Wing  is playing the long con based on racism, xenophobia, LGBT issues, using false socialism/communism labels to scare the good ole boy dummies.




The problem with your theory is that all those things you cite are not what the average American cares about right now.  They may in the future, but right now they care about their wallets and how the prices of gas and groceries are rising.









						I Was the Head of Trust and Safety at Twitter. This Is What Could Become of It.
					

Earlier this month, I chose to leave my position leading trust and safety at Elon Musk’s Twitter. As the company’s



					dnyuz.com


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> The problem with your theory is that all those things you cite are not what the average American cares about right now.  They may in the future, but right now they care about their wallets and how the prices of gas and groceries are rising.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Was the Head of Trust and Safety at Twitter. This Is What Could Become of It.
> 
> 
> Earlier this month, I chose to leave my position leading trust and safety at Elon Musk’s Twitter. As the company’s
> 
> 
> 
> dnyuz.com



Average Americans don’t want reasonable wages and affordable health care? In that case, the GOP really IS the party for them.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> Average Americans don’t want reasonable wages and affordable health care? In that case, the GOP really IS the party for them.




That isn't what I said or what the article said.  

They may want those things, but their top concern is about rising prices.  You know the ones Biden said are transitory only to be contradicted by his  own Fed Chairman.

And contrary to what you may think, there are quite a few Americans who have good jobs and are happy with their healthcare.   

As far as the article, the second concern was education.  And not whether CRT is being taught or not being taught, but the population sees Dems being OK with schools being closed while they see the GOP fighting to keep them open.


----------



## Huntn

Herdfan said:


> The problem with your theory is that all those things you cite are not what the average American cares about right now.  They may in the future, but right now they care about their wallets and how the prices of gas and groceries are rising.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Was the Head of Trust and Safety at Twitter. This Is What Could Become of It.
> 
> 
> Earlier this month, I chose to leave my position leading trust and safety at Elon Musk’s Twitter. As the company’s
> 
> 
> 
> dnyuz.com



And we will deserve what we collectively choose and I will have no sympathy when stupid prevails, apropos. Did I mention many are completely short sided and snarl like caged dogs when prices go up, ignoring their chains, something that’s been in the works for 5 years, but they’ll turn on Biden and forget all about the long con.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> That isn't what I said or what the article said.



Hmm…


Huntn said:


> For average citizens who want affordable healthcare, reasonable wages, social safety nets, reign in the Corpotacracy, the Democrats/Liberals are a slam dunk, in fact they're the only entity that gives a damn about the welfare of average citizens.






Herdfan said:


> The problem with your theory is that all those things you cite are not what the average American cares about right now.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

and  with the facts.  Too many quotables to quote, although I am rather fond of "star spangled boners".


----------



## rdrr

Huntn said:


> The Democrats ability to hold power is directly related to average citizen expectations and intelligence. We have a LOT of stupid around these days. I understand the Dems message and their intent, but there is only so much that can be done to make stupid hear you.  Make them get a shot to save their lives (based on science, not some manipulative Right Wing pundit) and they cry like ignorant fools, stomp their feet and scream, maybe even want to get their guns and right their imagined wrongs in Stupidville.
> 
> For average citizens who want affordable healthcare, reasonable wages, social safety nets, reign in the Corpotacracy, the Democrats/Liberals are a slam dunk, in fact they're the only entity that gives a damn about the welfare of average citizens. The corrupt Right Wing  is playing the long con based on racism, xenophobia, LGBT issues, using false socialism/communism labels to scare the good ole boy dummies.



That is why I said messaging.   The Democrats cannot get their message across to the average person, or below average person.  I wouldn't discount those votes, the Republicans haven't and that is where the Democrats are losing.


----------



## Huntn

rdrr said:


> That is why I said messaging.   The Democrats cannot get their message across to the average person, or below average person.  I wouldn't discount those votes, the Republicans haven't and that is where the Democrats are losing.



And maybe average and below average people get what they deserve, and in the process the country and our democracy gets buggered.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Huntn said:


> And maybe average and below average people get what they deserve, and in the process the country and our democracy gets buggered.




I keep hearing that Republican politicians are being cowards when faced with the more extreme or ignorant elements of their base, but I’m starting to think maybe they are representing those people appropriately. There’s not some politician academy they have to graduate from before they can take office. There’s no law saying they have to be better or more diplomatic, amicable, intelligent, or informed than the people who voted them into office. If you took a group of 10 idiots and one of them is elected their leader that doesn’t mean that person isn’t also an idiot. They’re elected to promote and defend idiots, not to be completely different from them.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Take a look at how the death of Savita Halappanavar was one factor - but a major and highly influential one - in persuading public opinion of the pressing need to overturn (by an overwhelming majority) the constitutional ban on - prohibition of - abortion in Ireland.


----------



## Herdfan

rdrr said:


> That is why I said messaging.   The Democrats cannot get their message across to the average person, or below average person.  I wouldn't discount those votes, the Republicans haven't and that is where the Democrats are losing.




No, their message comes across loud and clear, it just pisses some voters off.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Herdfan said:


> No, their message comes across loud and clear, it just pisses some voters off.




Which message is that? Defund the police/just punitively stop giving them money? Open borders? FREE STUFF? Even as somebody on the left even I can’t think of a Democrat message I received that wasn’t first ground through the right-wing propaganda machine.

But also the Democrats aren't doing themselves any favors by countering that spin with little more than a smug smirk, and as far as people not wed to the Democrat party it seems that words speak louder than actions.


----------



## Edd

rdrr said:


> What I cannot believe and makes me question the Democrats ability to hold power, is when we Senator "I believe him" Collins was up for re-election, they couldn't take her seat.   There is something wrong with the party's messaging or focus if they couldn't grab that seat.



Yeah, I live 20 minutes from Maine and Collins winning re-election blew my mind.  She's shown what she is and Maine has alot of liberals.  That one was weird.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

rdrr said:


> That is why I said messaging.   The Democrats cannot get their message across to the average person, or below average person.  I wouldn't discount those votes, the Republicans haven't and that is where the Democrats are losing.




Both parties in the US are comprised of several coalitions that are often in conflict.

This means that neither party is a monolith, and that the preservation of the electorally successful coalition necessitates the skills of consensus building and compromise, and maintenance of the wobbly coalition (all key skills that are no longer much rated, nor respected in the American body politik and wider political culture).

However, Democrats are supposed to prize - or respect - such skills - and respect the existence of differing perspectives and viewpoints in the party.

But - and this is also interesting - it also means that small, sectional and ideologically driven, interests shouldn't be able to capture the party - either party - (as has been seen to have happened recently with the Republicans under the loathsome Mr Trump) to the extent that this has happened, and to the exclusion (and suppression) of any expression of difference, disagreement or dissent.

Democrats will have to learn some degree of party discipline, - at least where House voting is concerned, the idea that while private views can be expressed publicly, policy requires the application of a degree of voting discipline and a recognition that private views sometimes need to be subordinated to the public, or greater, good - while Republicans may need to re-learn the much derided concept of tolerance of opposing viewpoints within the one party.


----------



## Herdfan

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Which message is that? Defund the police/just punitively stop giving them money? Open borders? FREE STUFF? Even as somebody on the left even I can’t think of a Democrat message I received that wasn’t first ground through the right-wing propaganda machine.
> 
> But also the Democrats aren't doing themselves any favors by countering that spin with little more than a smug smirk, and as far as people not wed to the Democrat party it seems that words speak louder than actions.




Well, I am pretty sure no Republican said Defund the Police until some Progressives did.  The came up with it, so they own it and will get it hung with it.

Open Borders?  - Can you provide any good reason why you have to be either vaccinated/negative test to fly into this country, yet those who cross illegally are given an appearance date and released into the country?  Talk about COVID Stupid.   And I understand there are some very pissed Progressives over the Biden Admin re-implementing Trump's Stay In Mexico policy.  Got to say, I did not see that coming.

Both give free stuff, the Dems just give it to people, the GOP to corporations.

And you hit the nail on the head with the smug smirk.  It is off-putting to to say the least.


----------



## Herdfan

Scepticalscribe said:


> Both parties in the US are comprised of several coalitions that are often in conflict.




Certainly.

But I also think the Dems have more coalitions that might be in opposition to other coalitions than the GOP.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> Open Borders?  - Can you provide any good reason why you have to be either vaccinated/negative test to fly into this country, yet those who cross illegally are given an appearance date and released into the country?



What does COVID have to do with abortion? And this is not an accurate portrayal of what is happening at land borders, but you know that.

Also, you’re just repeating (almost verbatim) a Steve Doocy question, so if you want an answer, search the web for a video of Psaki answering that exact question.

We have a thread for COVID stupidity already; please don’t dump that  in here, thanks.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Herdfan said:


> Well, I am pretty sure no Republican said Defund the Police until some Progressives did.  The came up with it, so they own it and will get it hung with it.
> 
> Open Borders?  - Can you provide any good reason why you have to be either vaccinated/negative test to fly into this country, yet those who cross illegally are given an appearance date and released into the country?  Talk about COVID Stupid.   And I understand there are some very pissed Progressives over the Biden Admin re-implementing Trump's Stay In Mexico policy.  Got to say, I did not see that coming.
> 
> Both give free stuff, the Dems just give it to people, the GOP to corporations.
> 
> And you hit the nail on the head with the smug smirk.  It is off-putting to to say the least.



@Herdfan: Abortion and Covid are two separate topics.

Now, we all (or, most of us) do have strong views on both topics (views that can - perhaps uncomfortably, squirmingly uncomfortably  - straddle, and yes, contradict, where we all think the state should intervene on issues such as masks, and indeed, abortion), but they are two separate and distinct issues.

This European liberal (cough) is of the opinion that abortion should be legal as long as the woman in question needs this - trimesters be damned.

And yes, this European liberal is also of the view that the state should be able to determine where and when (and for how long) masks need to be worn.

Do I contradict myself?

Well, yes, but might I also suggest (or recommend) that one read - or otherwise acquaint oneself with - the wonderful writings of (the superb American writer) Walt Whitman....


----------



## SuperMatt

Scepticalscribe said:


> @Herdfan: Abortion and Covid are two separate topics.
> 
> Now, we all (or, most of us) do have strong views on both topics (views that can - perhaps uncomfortably, squirmingly uncomfortably  - straddle, where we all think the state should intervene on issues such as masks, and indeed, abortion), but they are two separate and distinct issues.
> 
> This European liberal (cough) is of the opinion that abortion should be legal as long as the woman in question needs this - trimesters be damned.
> 
> And yes, this European liberal is also of te view that the state should be able to determine where and when (and for how long) maskes need to be worn.
> 
> Do I contradict myself?
> 
> Well, yes), but might I also suggest (or recommend) that one read - or otherwise acquaint oneself with the wonderful writings of Walt Whitman....



I was just discussing the abortion issue with a woman and she pointed out that a man can get a woman pregnant and walk away from the situation. A woman does not have that luxury.

I was reading another article about the disingenuous legal “reasons” being given by SCOTUS judges, saying that this issue of individual rights (abortion) should be left to the states. Meanwhile, in another case dealing with individual rights they heard last month, the same justices went the opposite way, indicating that gun regulations should NOT be left to the state. Let’s face it. They are 100% political, and all the legal opinions are just flowery language trying to cover up their ideological agendas.

The particulars of the case didn’t matter. Roe died when Trump became president… These justices are destroying the legitimacy of the Supreme Court in order to appease a shrinking minority of hardcore anti-abortion ideologues.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

SuperMatt said:


> I was just discussing the abortion issue with a woman and she pointed out that a man can get a woman pregnant and walk away from the situation. A woman does not have that luxury.



Well, yes, colour me surprised.

In my undergrad days - yes, decades ago - I do recall receiving a moan (it would insult the concept of intelligence to dignify it with the description of an argument) from a male who - well, was attracted to me (as I was to him), but, who also felt (strongly, as is the way of males who "feel" such things) that condoms "inhibited his sensitivity" but who - as is so often the mad, sad, the way of such things - had a mad, irrational, (not his body, after all) distaste (and an equally mad desire to legislate for - hey, fetuses have feelings) for all things abortion.

Ugh.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> What does COVID have to do with abortion? And this is not an accurate portrayal of what is happening at land borders, but you know that.





Scepticalscribe said:


> @Herdfan: Abortion and Covid are two separate topics.




Ummm........  Not really sure how to respond to this.  

But I was simply answering this post.  



Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Which message is that? Defund the police/just punitively stop giving them money? Open borders? FREE STUFF? Even as somebody on the left even I can’t think of a Democrat message I received that wasn’t first ground through the right-wing propaganda machine.
> 
> But also the Democrats aren't doing themselves any favors by countering that spin with little more than a smug smirk, and as far as people not wed to the Democrat party it seems that words speak louder than actions.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> I was reading another article about the disingenuous legal “reasons” being given by SCOTUS judges, saying that this issue of individual rights (abortion) should be left to the states. Meanwhile, in another case dealing with individual rights they heard last month, the same justices went the opposite way, indicating that gun regulations should NOT be left to the state. Let’s face it. They are 100% political, and all the legal opinions are just flowery language trying to cover up their ideological agendas.




Although the 10th Amendment has been pretty much gutted by SCOTUS over the decades, guns are part of Federal Law and should be controlled by the Federal Government.


----------



## Huntn

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> I keep hearing that Republican politicians are being cowards when faced with the more extreme or ignorant elements of their base, but I’m starting to think maybe they are representing those people appropriately. There’s not some politician academy they have to graduate from before they can take office. There’s no law saying they have to be better or more diplomatic, amicable, intelligent, or informed than the people who voted them into office. If you took a group of 10 idiots and one of them is elected their leader that doesn’t mean that person isn’t also an idiot. They’re elected to promote and defend idiots, not to be completely different from them.



Exactly, all of the reasonable and reputable Republicans retired or were flushed in the areas they represented a long time ago to be replaced by ignorant, anti-democratic, win at all costs sinister clowns like Jordon, Green, and a cast of 1000s (federal and state). Just look at all the characters wearing Rs, they are there precisely because of the base that elected them. They represent the majority of people who bothered to vote in their districts, and unfortunately the rural areas out number the cities in most States. And with most of the States hard core cheating- gerrymandering, without some sort of upheaval, liberal causes are a lost cause in this country.


----------



## User.45

SuperMatt said:


> What does COVID have to do with abortion? And this is not an accurate portrayal of what is happening at land borders, but you know that.
> 
> Also, you’re just repeating (almost verbatim) a Steve Doocy question, so if you want an answer, search the web for a video of Psaki answering that exact question.
> 
> We have a thread for COVID stupidity already; please don’t dump that  in here, thanks.



Run-of-the-mill attempt to hijack a topic that is uncomfortable for him.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> Although the 10th Amendment has been pretty much gutted by SCOTUS over the decades, guns are part of Federal Law and should be controlled by the Federal Government.



It was a point of comparison to show that the court only cares about “States’ rights” when it comes to restricting the abortion rights of women. Gun rights was just the most recent case about states’ rights for this SCOTUS (1 month ago). I don’t want to get into the weeds on guns here. There are threads for that.


----------



## User.45

SuperMatt said:


> It was a point of comparison to show that the court only cares about “States’ rights” when it comes to restricting the abortion rights of women.



TBH I'm getting confused by the number of opinion pieces I've read about this topic and the more opinions I read the more turned off I get about the law, because it's such a subjective thing. As you're saying the states rights vs. federal debate is tiresome and has been contorted for short term gains. Why do people lack a consistent value system in this country?!


----------



## Herdfan

P_X said:


> Why do people lack a consistent value system in this country?!




People change, new people are born, old people die.  Mores change.

Fifty years ago the LGBT movement would have been/was banished to dark alleys.  Now is it mainstream.  That would not have happened had the values of the populace and the populace itself not shifted.

In your case, interracial marriage was very much taboo fifty years ago, now it is barely noticed.


----------



## SuperMatt

P_X said:


> TBH I'm getting confused by the number of opinion pieces I've read about this topic and the more opinions I read the more turned off I get about the law, because it's such a subjective thing. As you're saying the states rights vs. federal debate is tiresome and has been contorted for short term gains. Why do people lack a consistent value system in this country?!



For years, the GOP has promised their voters they will nominate Justices that will overturn Roe v Wade. Each of these nominated justices then goes before the Senate and lies their ass off, claiming they would *gasp* NEVER allow their personal feelings/beliefs interfere with the law. Now they have a 6-3 majority and will overturn it, just like they promised.

Here’s a really good piece by Linda Greenhouse, where she calls it what it is: gaslighting.









						Opinion | The Supreme Court Gaslights Its Way to the End of Roe
					

The only question is, how will they explain it?




					www.nytimes.com
				






> I will give the gaslighting prize to Justice Kavanaugh and his suggestion that the court should simply adopt a position of “neutrality” with respect to abortion. Abortion is a contentious issue with important interests on both sides, he said to Solicitor General Prelogar. “Why should this court be the arbiter rather than Congress, the state legislatures, state supreme courts, the people being able to resolve this?” he said. “And there will be different answers in Mississippi and New York, different answers in Alabama than California because they’re two different interests at stake and the people in those states might value those interests somewhat differently.”
> 
> Justice Kavanaugh painted a soothing description of a down-the-middle resolution, but Solicitor General Prelogar, for one, wasn’t fooled. “The nature of fundamental rights is that it’s not left up to state legislatures to decide whether to honor them or not,” she responded.


----------



## Herdfan

P_X said:


> Run-of-the-mill attempt to hijack a topic that is uncomfortable for him.




Yet you completely ignore the fact I was replying to @Chew Toy McCoy's post.  He brought that up to begin with.


----------



## Thomas Veil

Herdfan said:


> ...Fifty years ago the LGBT movement would have been/was banished to dark alleys.  Now is it mainstream.  That would not have happened had the values of the populace and the populace itself not shifted.
> 
> In your case, interracial marriage was very much taboo fifty years ago, now it is barely noticed.




And if Roe v. Wade is in imminent danger of being reversed, so are those other rights. Popular values shifts don't carry the weight they used to. Based on what we're seeing now, I seriously wouldn't be surprised if ten or twenty years down the road another shift begins to "restore morals" to the US by making interracial marriage and LGBTQ self-identification and behavior illegal.


----------



## SuperMatt

Thomas Veil said:


> And if Roe v. Wade is in imminent danger of being reversed, so are those other rights. Popular values shifts don't carry the weight they used to. Based on what we're seeing now, I seriously wouldn't be surprised if ten or twenty years down the road another shift begins to "restore morals" to the US by making interracial marriage and LGBTQ self-identification and behavior illegal.



Gotta love the insinuation that mores “just changed” as if the civil rights marches never happened, or the gay rights movement was just a figment of our imagination.

Rights were *earned* through decades of fighting for them. That’s why it’s truly disgusting to see the Supreme Court go against the popular will and ban abortion because THEIR PERSONAL BELIEFS are that life begins at conception. Only 19% of people think abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. The right to abortion is overwhelmingly popular, and these extreme ideologues are about to overturn it.

This has NOTHING to do with mores or popular opinion and *everything* to do with the GOP out-maneuvering the Democrats with judicial nominees while also getting a bit of “luck” when some justices died at the perfect moment for the opportunistic McConnell. He has NO problem stepping over a dead body to get his way.


----------



## Herdfan

Thomas Veil said:


> And if Roe v. Wade is in imminent danger of being reversed, so are those other rights. Popular values shifts don't carry the weight they used to. Based on what we're seeing now, I seriously wouldn't be surprised if ten or twenty years down the road another shift begins to "restore morals" to the US by making interracial marriage and LGBTQ self-identification and behavior illegal.




Every 100 years there is a whole new set of people walking the planet.

But ask yourself this, what is the largest and fastest growing religion?  And what do they think of LGBT rights?



SuperMatt said:


> Gotta love the insinuation that mores “just changed” as if the civil rights marches never happened, or the gay rights movement was just a figment of our imagination.
> 
> Rights were *earned* through decades of fighting for them. That’s why it’s truly disgusting to see the Supreme Court go against the popular will and ban abortion because THEIR PERSONAL BELIEFS are that life begins at conception. Only 19% of people think abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, and only 32% think it should be illegal in SOME circumstances. The right to abortion is overwhelmingly popular, and these extreme ideologues are about to overturn it.
> 
> This has NOTHING to do with mores or popular opinion and *everything* to do with the GOP out-maneuvering the Democrats with judicial nominees while also getting a bit of “luck” when some justices died at the perfect moment for the opportunistic McConnell. He has NO problem stepping over a dead body to get his way.




Then I have to ask, why is this even an issue for the courts?

Why didn't the Dems pass a federal law back in either 1993 with Clinton or 2009 with Obama?  Clinton was close to 60 Senators and Obama had 60.  Both had the House.  This could have/should have been put to rest a long time ago.


----------



## Thomas Veil

To be fair, I didn't think that was insinuated. Pretty much everyone accepts that those movements, marches, etc., are what _drove_ those values changes among US voters.

I agree 101% that it's disgusting that the expected SC ruling is going to go against what a solid majority of US citizens believe--not to mention _stare decisis_ law. With Mitch McConnell acting as tenth justice.


----------



## Thomas Veil

Herdfan said:


> Every 100 years there is a whole new set of people walking the planet.
> 
> But ask yourself this, what is the largest and fastest growing religion?  And what do they think of LGBT rights?



What foreigners think of those rights is irrelevant. As for Muslims _in_ the United States, many of them are part of that majority that approves of keeping Roe v. Wade.



Herdfan said:


> Why didn't the Dems pass a federal law back in either 1993 with Clinton or 2009 with Obama?  Clinton was close to 60 Senators and Obama had 60.  Both had the House.  This could have/should have been put to rest a long time ago.



Close to 60? The horseshoes analogy applies. 60? Even that is not a solid enough number to do the right thing, as Manchin and Sinema are proving even now.


----------



## Herdfan

Thomas Veil said:


> What foreigners think of those rights is irrelevant. As for Muslims _in_ the United States, *many of them are part of that majority that approves of keeping Roe v. Wade.*




Sorry, got to ask for a source for that........


----------



## Thomas Veil

And I'd have to ask for a source that proves that _not even one_ Muslim in the US approves of abortion rights.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> Every 100 years there is a whole new set of people walking the planet.
> 
> But ask yourself this, what is the largest and fastest growing religion?  And what do they think of LGBT rights?



You never miss a chance to show off your anti-Muslim bigotry. Wake up to reality.









						Majority of American Muslims Now Support LGB People
					

A majority of American Muslims accept lesbian, gay and bisexual people as part of society, according to new findings from Pew Research Center, marking a dramatic shift in attitudes over the past decade.




					www.hrc.org


----------



## Herdfan

Thomas Veil said:


> And I'd have to ask for a source that proves that _not even one_ Muslim in the US approves of abortion rights.




I did your work for you:









						Religious Landscape Study
					

Explore the geographic distribution and demographics of America's major religious groups.




					www.pewforum.org
				






SuperMatt said:


> You never miss a chance to show off your anti-Muslim bigotry. Wake up to reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of American Muslims Now Support LGB People
> 
> 
> A majority of American Muslims accept lesbian, gay and bisexual people as part of society, according to new findings from Pew Research Center, marking a dramatic shift in attitudes over the past decade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.hrc.org




Reality is that is only in the US.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> I did your work for you:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religious Landscape Study
> 
> 
> Explore the geographic distribution and demographics of America's major religious groups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.pewforum.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reality is that is only in the US.



What is your problem with Muslims?


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> What is your problem with Muslims?




In general, nothing.  One of my daughter's best swim friends was Muslim.  She spent the night here and my daughter at her house many times.  We had many dinners at away meets with her family.  I consider their dad a good friend.  Even have a funny story about when their youngest got into the bacon. 

I do have a problem with those who seek to harm us using Islam as the basis.  Sorry if that is not PC, but it is what it is and I will not apologize.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> In general, nothing.  One of my daughter's best swim friends was Muslim.  She spent the night here and my daughter at her house many times.  We had many dinners at away meets with her family.  I consider their dad a good friend.  Even have a funny story about when their youngest got into the bacon.
> 
> I do have a problem with those who seek to harm us using Islam as the basis.  Sorry if that is not PC, but it is what it is and I will not apologize.



Do you have a problem with people seeking to do harm using Christianity as the basis? I’ve never seen you say you dislike a politician for being a “Christian sympathizer” - only for being a “Muslim Sympathizer.” What I’m seeing is straight-up anti-Muslim bigotry, which has been a big problem in America ever since 9/11.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> Do you have a problem with people seeking to do harm using Christianity as the basis?




Yes.  I think this whole religious right movement against abortion is going to hurt a lot of people.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Herdfan said:


> Well, I am pretty sure no Republican said Defund the Police until some Progressives did.  The came up with it, so they own it and will get it hung with it.
> 
> Open Borders?  - Can you provide any good reason why you have to be either vaccinated/negative test to fly into this country, yet those who cross illegally are given an appearance date and released into the country?  Talk about COVID Stupid.   And I understand there are some very pissed Progressives over the Biden Admin re-implementing Trump's Stay In Mexico policy.  Got to say, I did not see that coming.
> 
> Both give free stuff, the Dems just give it to people, the GOP to corporations.
> 
> And you hit the nail on the head with the smug smirk.  It is off-putting to to say the least.





Defund the police was/is a stupid slogan and they do need to own it because they coined it, but every time they try to explain it means divert some funds to other services that the police aren't really equipped or trained for the right goes "Shut your pie hole!  We're sticking with 'defund the police' at face value.  La lalalalla aaa lalala I'm not listening to you!  lal alallalall ala la".

"Open borders" predates covid and even if covid didn't happen it would still be constantly trukpeted by the right despite the fact that nobody on the left (with the power) is advocating open borders.  It's the same thing as 'defund the police' but also with the distinct difference that there has never been a protest march with people chanting "open borders!".  It's a complete fabrication by the right and they will never concede that there are many levels of differences between executing or imprisoning every person who steps over the border uninvited and handing them all a fast track pass to our tax dollars.  They'll only say that everybody on the left wants the latter.  

Both Democrats and Republicans give free stuff to corporations and the rich.  Democrats try to give more free stuff to lower than rich classes but that largely gets blocked by Republicans.  So the wins just continue for the rich and corporations.  The Democrats attempting to level the playing field by going after the rich and corporations is on par with telling the poor they are going to have to pay their fair share by paying $0.15 more a year in taxes.  Oh the suffering!


----------



## SuperMatt

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Defund the police was/is a stupid slogan and they do need to own it because they coined it, but every time they try to explain it means divert some funds to other services that the police aren't really equipped or trained for the right goes "Shut your pie hole!  We're sticking with 'defund the police' at face value.  La lalalalla aaa lalala I'm not listening to you!  lal alallalall ala la".



I have some things to say but I will move them over to an appropriate thread….

Post in thread 'Police Brutality'
https://talkedabout.com/threads/police-brutality.1214/post-76717


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> Yes.  I think this whole religious right movement against abortion is going to hurt a lot of people.



And yet you voted for Trump who explicitly promised to nominate judges that would overturn Roe v Wade. Congrats.









						Trump: I'll appoint Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion case
					

Trump says he wants abortion legality to be decided by individual states, while Clinton vows to defend abortion rights.




					www.cnbc.com
				












						The presidential debates haven't asked any direct questions about abortion — until now
					

And it led to a fascinating, revealing exchange between Trump and Clinton.




					www.vox.com


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> And yet you voted for Trump who explicitly promised to nominate judges that would overturn Roe v Wade. Congrats.



Sometimes compromises have to be made.  It sucks, but it is what it is with our 2-party system and no legitimate other choices.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> Sometimes compromises have to be made.  It sucks, but it is what it is with our 2-party system and no legitimate other choices.



Many anti-abortion voters said the same thing about Trump’s anti-Muslim, anti-Mexican, xenophobic, and misogynistic rhetoric. Trump focused a lot more on the hateful rhetoric than on the abortion issue.

IMHO, it’s hard to believe everybody that claims “well I had to hold my nose and vote for him anyway.” He beat out every other GOP nominee in the primaries. They had similar policy positions other than the openly xenophobic, racist stuff… so that was the differentiator.


----------



## SuperMatt

I am watching Meet the Press and Republican Senator Mike Braun from Indiana is going full-on “States Rights” with the abortion question. No matter how much Chuck Todd presses him on what his state will do to change the abortion laws in his state, he just refuses to answer. I think Republican politicians are petrified that they will get destroyed in 2022 when abortion becomes a crime in many states.

It makes zero sense to have abortion rights different in every state in this country.


----------



## Thomas Veil

Herdfan said:


> I did your work for you:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religious Landscape Study
> 
> 
> Explore the geographic distribution and demographics of America's major religious groups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.pewforum.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reality is that is only in the US.



Not even sure why that whole issue came up. We're talking about abortion in the US.



SuperMatt said:


> I think Republican politicians are petrified that they will get destroyed in 2022 when abortion becomes a crime in many states.



Maybe they're scared, but I don't think they have reason to be.

It _used_ to be the prevailing thought that overturning Roe v. Wade would lead to the party's doom. I hate to be this pessimistic, but the country's going to be so gerrymandered I don't think that's nearly as likely as it once was.

We're barreling ahead into a faux democracy where one party wins all the time and the other one exists only to give the illusion of choice.


----------



## Herdfan

Thomas Veil said:


> We're barreling ahead into a faux democracy where one party wins all the time and the other one exists only to give the illusion of choice.




I am sure you are referring to the GOP.  Ironic since the WH, House and Senate are all controlled by the Dems.



SuperMatt said:


> I think Republican politicians are petrified that they will get destroyed in 2022 when abortion becomes a crime in many states.




That should make you happy in a sense.  Dems add to their majorities and you get BBB.


----------



## Thomas Veil

Herdfan said:


> I am sure you are referring to the GOP.  Ironic since the WH, House and Senate are all controlled by the Dems.



Sure. _Now._

Given the way the GOP is rigging things for subsequent elections--extreme gerrymandering, hyperpartisan officials running to become the vote certifiers in states, state legislatures all too willing to set up competing slates of electors, a SCOTUS firmly in GOP hands, and Mitch McConnell ready to kill everything via the filibuster from Jan. 2023 on--I don't see a genuine democracy anywhere on the horizon.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> I am sure you are referring to the GOP.  Ironic since the WH, House and Senate are all controlled by the Dems.
> 
> 
> 
> That should make you happy in a sense.  Dems add to their majorities and you get BBB.



1. He’s talking about the future, not the present. *You can’t hand-wave away the problem of gerrymandering* because Democrats (barely) got control of the federal government as a backlash to one of America’s worst presidents in history. All signs point to GOP Senate and House in 2022… and many states have set up gerrymandering to the point where 45% of the vote (or less in some cases) would allow a majority in the statehouse. That is NOT democracy.

2. Not going to count chickens before they hatch. Dems took this issue for granted too long and now women’s rights and health are at risk. Maybe this will lead to federal abortion laws or a constitutional amendment… but maybe not (see also gerrymandering above). And this thread is not about “build back better” or COVID… it’s about Roe v Wade.


----------



## Huntn

Herdfan said:


> I am sure you are referring to the GOP.  Ironic since the WH, House and Senate are all controlled by the Dems.




This is an illusion, the level of control and I predict based on energetic patriotic gerrymandering, in 2022 the Democratic majority (largest single group) will no longer be in a position to win elections.  (I’d be thrilled to be wrong about this).


----------



## Renzatic

Huntn said:


> This is an illusion, the level of control and I predict based on energetic patriotic gerrymandering, in 2022 the Democratic majority (largest single group) will no longer be in a position to win elections.  (I’d be thrilled to be wrong about this).




According to 538, the gerrymandering has actually slightly benefited the Democrats thus far, with them gaining a 6 extra seats vs. the Republican's 2.


----------



## SuperMatt

Huntn said:


> This is an illusion, the level of control and I predict based on energetic patriotic gerrymandering, in 2022 the Democratic majority (largest single group) will no longer be in a position to win elections.  (I’d be thrilled to be wrong about this).



I don’t understand why Manchin and Sinema aren’t on board with the voting rights bills. If they want to oppose everything else, whatever. But if nothing is done at a federal level to control voting restrictions and gerrymandering, Democrats have no future. Democrats comprise a majority of Americans. But Republicans keep power by manipulation of the system. We need to fix the system so that it is TRULY “of the people, by the people, for the people” as it was intended to be.


----------



## SuperMatt

Renzatic said:


> According to 538, the gerrymandering has actually slightly benefited the Democrats thus far, with them gaining a 6 extra seats vs. the Republican's 2.



That’s not exactly how it is working out though (from 538):



> At this point, redistricting has created six new Democratic-leaning seats nationally, two new Republican-leaning seats and five fewer highly competitive seats. However, because many of those newly blue seats are already held by Democrats, it’s actually Republicans who have gained a handful of House seats through the redistricting process so far. Republicans have also converted light-red districts into safer seats in states like Indiana, Oklahoma and Utah.












						What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State
					

An updating tracker of proposed congressional maps — and whether they might benefit Democrats or Republicans in the 2022 midterm elections and beyond




					projects.fivethirtyeight.com


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> I don’t understand why Manchin and Sinema aren’t on board with the voting rights bills. If they want to oppose everything else, whatever. But if nothing is done at a federal level to control voting restrictions and gerrymandering, Democrats have no future. *Democrats comprise a majority of Americans.* But Republicans keep power by manipulation of the system. We need to fix the system so that it is TRULY “of the people, by the people, for the people” as it was intended to be.




No they don't.  That is patently false.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> No they don't.  That is patently false.



When it comes to identifying with or registering for a party, you are correct. 40+% of America self-identify as independents now, and less than 30% identify with Dems, and the same for the GOP.

What I should have said is that* Democrats get more votes than Republicans*, every presidential election going back to 2008. The point is that the Democrats are getting more votes nationwide and in many states, but due to gerrymandering, that majority of votes doesn’t translate to majority representation in government. In 2018, at least 5 states had minority rule by Republicans:




As you can see, the most egregious is Wisconsin, but all 5 states are led by a government that does NOT  represent the will of the people.

Another trend we see is that higher turnout - more votes for Democrats. That’s another indication that the Democrats are more appealing to voters. So if you go by identifying with or registering for a party, neither party has a majority. But more people have been *voting* Democrat than Republican for well over a decade.


----------



## Thomas Veil

SuperMatt said:


> Good point. 40+% of America self-identify as independents now, and less than 30% identify with Dems, and the same for the GOP.
> 
> What I should have said is that a majority of voters vote for Democrats, every presidential election going back to 2008. The point is that the Democrats are getting more votes nationwide and in many states, but due to gerrymandering, that majority of votes doesn’t translate to majority representation in government. In 2018, at least 5 states had minority rule by Republicans:
> 
> View attachment 10213
> As you can see, the most egregious is Wisconsin, but all 5 states are led by a government that does NOT  represent the will of the people.



It does vary slightly. According to this source, 31% identify as Democrats, 25% as Republicans.


----------



## SuperMatt

Thomas Veil said:


> It does vary slightly. According to this source, 31% identify as Democrats, 25% as Republicans.



I saw this note on the (very helpful) link you provided:



> Additionally, polling showed that 50% are either "Democrats or Democratic leaners" and 39% are either "Republicans or Republican leaners" when Independents are asked "do you lean more to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party?"[3]



I also forgot to post the link to where I found the above chart:



			https://files.elfsightcdn.com/c98035dd-59ef-4b06-8e5b-c8d4dd555d9d/7f88292d-d6df-4f1c-9f0c-5f52e9d61a9e.pdf


----------



## SuperMatt

Here is an extremely illuminating op-ed written by a pro-life advocate. In it you can see that the movement was never about saving fetal lives, but rather about keeping women at home, raising children, out of the workforce and public life in general.









						Opinion | I Couldn’t Vote for Trump, but I’m Grateful for His Supreme Court Picks (Published 2021)
					

What might the Republican Party look like in a post-Roe America?




					www.nytimes.com
				




Possibly the most telling quote:



> But today’s Democratic Party — though rightly intent to provide robust economic support to struggling families — seems also intent to contract out the nurturing of infants and toddlers to “caregivers” rather than attempt to ensure, as their predecessors did, the kind of economic security that enabled (especially) mothers to care for their young children themselves.




So, even if you have the child, the anti-abortion folks aren’t happy: they want women to stay at home instead of going back to work and using daycare. This kind of view is a century (or more) out of date. I guess now that abortion is likely to be illegal, their next step will be to make it illegal for the mothers to go back to work after having kids... maybe just ban women from working altogether?


----------



## SuperMatt

The Supreme Court AGAIN refuses to put a stay on the Texas abortion law. They will hear the challenge though, probably so they can have at least 2 cases in which they assert that Roe v Wade is officially dead.

They aren’t even pretending to care about precedent, the Constitution, or the rule of law anymore. The conservative justices straight-up lied to America in their Senate hearings. They all decided to get rid of Roe v Wade, and they pretended to care about _stare decisis_ during the hearings because it’s Latin and made them look smart.

Abortion will be illegal and the government is going to require states to give money to religious schools. So much for the constitution; these extreme justices are just using it to wipe their feet on.









						Supreme Court lets Texas abortion ban remain in effect, but allows providers to challenge state law
					

The Supreme Court on Friday left in place Texas’ ban on most abortions, offering only a glimmer of daylight for clinics in the state to challenge the nation’s most restrictive abortion law.




					www.baltimoresun.com


----------



## Thomas Veil

It is impossible to overstate what a terrible precedent this sets, in so many ways…including putting a political _imprimatur_ on vigilante legal harassment.


----------



## SuperMatt

Thomas Veil said:


> It is impossible to overstate what a terrible precedent this sets, in so many ways…including putting a political _imprimatur_ on vigilante legal harassment.



I guess I can hope that they are going to block that provision of the Texas bill, but if they were going to do so, why wouldn’t they have blocked it in the short term? A bill that affects millions of lives and overturns 50 years of precedent should be blocked immediately, PERIOD. These justices are making a mockery of our entire system of government.

PACK THE COURT.


----------



## Thomas Veil

It's getting closer to that all the time.


----------



## Huntn

I have the feeling that this is just another Right Wing  scam, they will beat down RvW until it is no longer effective, but they will look at you with a straight face and say _see we still have abortion rights. _


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

In response outraged CA governor Newsom is planning to implement similar legislation with gun control laws.  Know somebody who is breaking them?  Get a 10k bounty for turning them in, although I'd argue you'd be putting yourself in more danger than with somebody having an abortion.  If they are breaking gun control laws then they probably aren't the type to just go "good catch!" in response.


----------



## Alli

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> In response outraged CA governor Newsom is planning to implement similar legislation with gun control laws.  Know somebody who is breaking them?  Get a 10k bounty for turning them in, although I'd argue you'd be putting yourself in more danger than with somebody having an abortion.  If they are breaking gun control laws then they probably aren't the type to just go "good catch!" in response.



Next up, vigilante traffic cops. Report people for speeding and rolling through stop signs.

We’re screwed.


----------



## SuperMatt

One thing I’m unclear about after trying to read the Texas law. The state guarantees you $10,000 and your legal fees if you successfully sue somebody who performed an abortion. Does that money come from the person you sued? What if they can’t cover it? Imagine somebody performs an abortion and gets sued by hundreds of people. Will the state pay $10K to each one? Will they cover everybody’s legal fees? If all clinics started providing services tomorrow followed by thousands of lawsuits, would these guaranteed payouts bankrupt the state of Texas?


----------



## JayMysteri0

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1473731492085911552/


----------



## JayMysteri0

When THESE guys want to hijack your cause



> White Supremacist Group Joins Chicago Anti-Abortion Rally
> 
> 
> Patriot Front members showed up with shields(?) at Saturday's March for Life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jezebel.com





> The white supremacist group Patriot Front attended Saturday’s March for Life in Chicago carrying a banner reading “strong families make strong nations” — some very casual authoritarian propaganda. Independent journalists estimated the group to be about 50 people. Some anti-abortion marchers heckled them for hijacking their event; others gave the shielded men in navy jackets, white neck gaiters, and fashy khakis a nice thumbs up.




Really?  Shields at an anti abortion rally.  Is that a metaphor or supposed to be a show of force against an attack that hasn't happened at such rallies?  Hey, strong menz at a rally about women not getting a legal right or say about their bodies.  That sounds about on brand for that crowd.  



> According to audio leaked to The Daily Dot in December, a man who is presumed to be Patriot Front founder Thomas Rousseau said that anti-abortion groups welcome them. “These people at the March for Life events have really come to support us over the years and because of the last year’s cancellations of these events, we are expecting even larger crowds of supportive individuals,” he said.
> 
> Group members left the area in cars with taped-over license plates.






> The group’s manifesto calls for the formation of a white ethnostate. In 2018, the independent media outlet Unicorn Riot reported on leaked audio recordings from the group’s Discord servers which indicated that rape is acceptable to achieve the ethnostate of their dreams (emphasis theirs):
> 
> _Recorded conversations between members show an obsession with firearms, a non-stop tirade of racist, sexist and otherwise abusive language, and a desire to take action in the real world. Patriot Front members are also told that raping women is acceptable, *“as long as you’re raping, like, people in your own race”* and describe how in their ideal society, *“ethnostate rape gangs”* would be allowed to freely target unmarried white women who did not adhere to *“traditional values.”* _
> 
> Abortion bans only further their goals of turning pregnancies by rape into babies.





Yeaaahhhh, rrrright...


----------



## AG_PhamD

SuperMatt said:


> One thing I’m unclear about after trying to read the Texas law. The state guarantees you $10,000 and your legal fees if you successfully sue somebody who performed an abortion. Does that money come from the person you sued? What if they can’t cover it? Imagine somebody performs an abortion and gets sued by hundreds of people. Will the state pay $10K to each one? Will they cover everybody’s legal fees? If all clinics started providing services tomorrow followed by thousands of lawsuits, would these guaranteed payouts bankrupt the state of Texas?




I imagine it would be from the person performing the abortion. It’s my understanding they can also sue anyone who aided in the abortion-
does that mean the secretary at planned parenthood, the medical wholesaler who provided supplies, the electricity utility, etc? 

It’s also my understanding anybody can sue. I don’t get how a 3rd party totally unrelated to anyone involved could have standing to sue, let alone receive compensation. 

I’m in the “safe, legal, and rare” camp- every measure should be taken to help avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place- access to education, birth control, morning after pill, etc as well as ensuring available adequate child support for those might want to have the baby but don’t have the means to support it. But if a woman wants an abortion, it should be an available option. 

My concern with banning abortions is we’ll go back in time to when women have “back-alley”, unsafe abortions, which could lead to death or disability of the women. In the best case scenario, women will just go out of state and I’m sure there will be programs to make that happen. They will happen regardless of the law. So they might as well be done safely and in the least emotionally traumatic way possible.


----------



## Thomas Veil

AG_PhamD said:


> and I’m sure there will be programs to make that happen.



But that still means anyone helping could be sued. If blue states set up such  programs, even the states can be sued directly. If it’s women’s rights groups, they can be sued too. For the latter, $10K + legal fees X multiple lawsuits = death by a thousand cuts.


----------



## Huntn

AG_PhamD said:


> I imagine it would be from the person performing the abortion. It’s my understanding they can also sue anyone who aided in the abortion-
> does that mean the secretary at planned parenthood, the medical wholesaler who provided supplies, the electricity utility, etc?
> 
> It’s also my understanding anybody can sue. I don’t get how a 3rd party totally unrelated to anyone involved could have standing to sue, let alone receive compensation.
> 
> I’m in the “safe, legal, and rare” camp- every measure should be taken to help avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place- access to education, birth control, morning after pill, etc as well as ensuring available adequate child support for those might want to have the baby but don’t have the means to support it. But if a woman wants an abortion, it should be an available option.
> 
> My concern with banning abortions is we’ll go back in time to when women have “back-alley”, unsafe abortions, which could lead to death or disability of the women. In the best case scenario, women will just go out of state and I’m sure there will be programs to make that happen. They will happen regardless of the law. So they might as well be done safely and in the least emotionally traumatic way possible.



I’ll add that women have dominion over their bodies, that fetuses do not have personhood rights until they can exist outside the womb without technology (historical standard even in the Bible).

This Texas law is a result of rightwing “Pseudo-Christian“ assholes who think they can redefine the law into any ridiculous bull shit they can make up that serves their perceived grip on power.

Oh yes (example) _because you are against abortion you have a legal right _(as written into their bankrupt law) _to sue anyone who assists /enables an abortion, including driving them to the doctor’s office_ (accomplice) because your moral standards have been harmed.

This is theocracy territory and it’s in the same corrupt and lying ball park, as taking the legitimate results of an election, and putting the outcome up to a political vote (_Naw, I don’t like that outcome_) based on personal preference and political allegiance.


----------



## SuperMatt

Huntn said:


> I’ll add that women have dominion over their bodies, that fetuses do not have personhood rights until they can exist outside the womb without technology (historical standard even in the Bible).
> 
> This Texas law is a result of rightwing “Pseudo-Christian“ assholes who think they can redefine the law into any ridiculous bull shit they can make up that serves their perceived grip on power.
> 
> Oh yes (example) _because you are against abortion you have a legal right _(as written into their bankrupt law) _to sue anyone who assists /enables an abortion, including driving them to the doctor’s office_ (accomplice) because your moral standards have been harmed.
> 
> This is theocracy territory and it’s in the same corrupt and lying ball park, as taking the legitimate results of an election, and putting the outcome up to a political vote (_Naw, I don’t like that outcome_) based on personal preference and political allegiance.



I have posted some tirades against the Supreme Court on the issue of freedom. I am not a lawyer, so maybe I’m missing the true legal argument... although the dissents from the moderate and liberal justices make me think I’m not too far off base.

When it comes to people not wanting a vaccine, the current court is all about freedom. 
But when it comes to women not wanting to bear a child, freedom goes out the window.

When it comes to people not wanting to bake cakes for gay couples, it’s about the bakers’ religious freedom.
But when it comes to banning Muslims from coming to America, religious freedom goes out the window.

If the argument was pro-freedom (or anti-freedom) more consistently, ok then - sometimes people would be unhappy, but at least the rulings would be consistent. As it is, the court seems to favor partisanship and tribalism as superior to the law.

To me, the anti-vax and anti-abortion decisions are the most telling of the court’s hypocrisy. Forcing somebody to get a vaccine (although as mentioned before they had a choice to get tested instead) was considered by this court as a medical procedure that could not be undone. And yes, you could get some uncomfortable symptoms for a few days. As for abortion, why don’t they consider forcing a woman to take an unwanted pregnancy to term as an even bigger problem? There are health risks to giving birth, and the mother has a legal and financial obligation to the child for 18 years, as opposed to a day or two of mild symptoms from the vaccine. And yet they only protect “freedom” in the case of vaccines.


----------



## Huntn

SuperMatt said:


> I have posted some tirades against the Supreme Court on the issue of freedom. I am not a lawyer, so maybe I’m missing the true legal argument... although the dissents from the moderate and liberal justices make me think I’m not too far off base.
> 
> When it comes to people not wanting a vaccine, the current court is all about freedom.
> But when it comes to women not wanting to bear a child, freedom goes out the window.
> 
> When it comes to people not wanting to bake cakes for gay couples, it’s about the bakers’ religious freedom.
> But when it comes to banning Muslims from coming to America, religious freedom goes out the window.
> 
> If the argument was pro-freedom (or anti-freedom) more consistently, ok then - sometimes people would be unhappy, but at least the rulings would be consistent. As it is, the court seems to favor partisanship and tribalism as superior to the law.
> 
> To me, the anti-vax and anti-abortion decisions are the most telling of the court’s hypocrisy. Forcing somebody to get a vaccine (although as mentioned before they had a choice to get tested instead) was considered by this court as a medical procedure that could not be undone. And yes, you could get some uncomfortable symptoms for a few days. As for abortion, why don’t they consider forcing a woman to take an unwanted pregnancy to term as an even bigger problem? There are health risks to giving birth, and the mother has a legal and financial obligation to the child for 18 years, as opposed to a day or two of mild symptoms from the vaccine. And yet they only protect “freedom” in the case of vaccines.



Ok, I should not just pick on Christians, it‘s human beings who are the real culprits when they pick and choose their hypocritical one way standards for a variety of reasons. Many humans are guilty of this, yet, when it comes to the USA built on seperation of church and state, unfortunately it is those of the Christian persuasion (not all of them, or even most of them?)  that is not only trying to tear down that seperation, but when they argue about religious freedom, it’s really just one-way Christian freedom, _my freedom for something I would not grant you _(like a Muslim or Church of Satan Display in town square). What is the worst is when they pick and choose just the parts of their fantasy book to shove down our throats while ignoring the parts that don’t suit them.

This tendency can really be observed in today’s GOP who cowtow to Christianity, the move to tout patriotism and love of the Constitution while maneuvering to dismantle the cornerstones of our Constitution such as democratic elections, as if no one would notice or they think we are too stupid to notice.


----------



## JayMysteri0

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1485388774007791617/


----------



## SuperMatt

I guess this is probably the best thread for this news:

Justice Gorsuch is going to speak at an event hosted by the Federalist Society.



			https://wapo.st/3HAA2Nm
		

(paywall removed)

The right-wing members of the court have been making speeches over the past year or so about how they’re offended that everybody thinks they are political ideologues. Maybe if they didn’t speak at political events with *Mike Pence*, *Kayleigh McEnany,* and *Ron DeSantis*... we could take them seriously.

In his defense:


> But Mike Davis, one of Gorsuch’s former law clerks and the founder of the Article III Project, an organization that worked to confirm conservative judges during the Trump years, dismissed the criticisms and defended his former boss. Davis argued that Gorsuch and other justices often participate in events similar to the Federalist Society’s conference.
> “They are discussing overcriminalization, access to justice, separation of powers, and serving as a law clerk,” Davis said of Gorsuch’s banquet conversation. “The only politicians Justice Gorsuch plans to meet in Florida are the robotic presidents at Magic Kingdom.”




For context, if you recall, Amy Coney Barrett spoke at a right-wing event, where she unleashed this whopper:



> Justices have sought to dismiss the notion that the court is facing a crisis of public perception. Last September, Justice Amy Coney Barrett rejected claims that the high court is partisan during a speech at the University of Louisville’s McConnell Center — an event in which she was introduced by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who pushed through her Senate confirmation in 27 days.
> “*My goal today is to convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks*,” said Barrett, a Trump choice and conservative justice.




Yeah, being introduced by Mitch McConnell is NOT the way to get people to take THAT message seriously.

Let’s face it; the court is stacked with far-right conservatives, and although they claim to be impartial, their actions show the opposite. Add in their speeches at these political events where they say “I’m not political” and they are obviously just thumbing their nose at everybody that isn’t a member of the right-wing.


----------



## SuperMatt

Colombia has just de-criminalized abortion up to 24 weeks.

They are moving forward; America is moving backwards.

The Christian version of the Taliban is taking more and more control of America every day.

It is shameful, in my opinion.









						Top Colombia court decriminalizes abortion until 24 weeks of gestation
					

Judges on Colombia's constitutional court voted on Monday to decriminalize abortion until 24 weeks of gestation, the court said in a statement, in a victory for abortion rights groups which sued to have the procedure removed from the penal code.




					www.reuters.com


----------



## Huntn

SuperMatt said:


> Colombia has just de-criminalized abortion up to 24 weeks.
> 
> They are moving forward; America is moving backwards.
> 
> The Christian version of the Taliban is taking more and more control of America every day.
> 
> It is shameful, in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Top Colombia court decriminalizes abortion until 24 weeks of gestation
> 
> 
> Judges on Colombia's constitutional court voted on Monday to decriminalize abortion until 24 weeks of gestation, the court said in a statement, in a victory for abortion rights groups which sued to have the procedure removed from the penal code.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.reuters.com



It’s cultural poverty in the US, just wondering how contagious it really is?


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## SuperMatt

The American judiciary is becoming a joke.









						Texas Supreme Court Shuts Down Final Challenge to Abortion Law
					

The ruling says state officials have no authority to enforce the law, which empowers private citizens: “We cannot rewrite the statute.”




					www.nytimes.com
				



(paywall removed)



> On Friday, the justices of the Texas Supreme Court, *all Republicans,* said that those officials did not, in fact, have any power to enforce the law, “either directly or indirectly,” and so could not be sued.
> 
> The justices said the law had effectively tied their hands. They agreed that the state’s licensing officials had the authority to discipline providers for violating other abortion restrictions. “But we conclude that the Heartbeat Act expressly provides otherwise,” the court said, using the title of S.B. 8.
> 
> “The act’s emphatic, unambiguous and repeated provisions” declare that a private civil action is the “exclusive” method for enforcing the law, the justices wrote. They added, “These provisions deprive the state-agency executives of any authority they might otherwise have to enforce the requirements through a disciplinary action.”




So, if you just write a law a certain way, the courts say they aren’t even allowed to make a ruling? And don’t forget, some SCOTUS justices are ready to go the same way when it comes to this abortion law AND state legislative maps and voting rules. Basically, the state legislature can do whatever they want, regardless of the state or federal constitution, and judges aren’t allowed to do anything about it? They’re ruling themselves right out of their jobs. May as well just shutter the judicial branch of government entirely.


----------



## fooferdoggie

SuperMatt said:


> So, if you just write a law a certain way, the courts say they aren’t even allowed to make a ruling? And don’t forget, some SCOTUS justices are ready to go the same way when it comes to this abortion law AND state legislative maps and voting rules. Basically, the state legislature can do whatever they want, regardless of the state or federal constitution, and judges aren’t allowed to do anything about it? They’re ruling themselves right out of their jobs. May as well just shutter the judicial branch of government entirely.



and we are seeing them try to pass laws to stop people going across state lines for abortions. the absolute control the GOP wants on others is mazing and fully against what they preach.


----------



## Huntn

SuperMatt said:


> The American judiciary is becoming a joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Supreme Court Shuts Down Final Challenge to Abortion Law
> 
> 
> The ruling says state officials have no authority to enforce the law, which empowers private citizens: “We cannot rewrite the statute.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (paywall removed)
> 
> 
> 
> So, if you just write a law a certain way, the courts say they aren’t even allowed to make a ruling? And don’t forget, some SCOTUS justices are ready to go the same way when it comes to this abortion law AND state legislative maps and voting rules. Basically, the state legislature can do whatever they want, regardless of the state or federal constitution, and judges aren’t allowed to do anything about it? They’re ruling themselves right out of their jobs. May as well just shutter the judicial branch of government entirely.






fooferdoggie said:


> and we are seeing them try to pass laws to stop people going across state lines for abortions. the absolute control the GOP wants on others is mazing and fully against what they preach.



Conservatives in the court are in on the scheme. The plan/sham is to undermine the system for their political agenda, and then claim they are being lawful.  Talk about officially endorsed  vigilantism, allowing/ encouraging private citizens to sue as part of so called law enforcement is reprehensible, besides the premise, step 2 is to include  $$ rewards for spying on and turning in your neighbors  American Style Freedom…


----------



## SuperMatt

Huntn said:


> Conservatives in the court are in on the scheme. The plan/sham is to undermine the system for their political agenda, and then claim they are being lawful.  Talk about officially endorsed  vigilantism, allowing/ encouraging private citizens to sue as part of so called law enforcement is reprehensible, besides the premise, step 2 is to include  $$ rewards for spying on and turning in your neighbors the American Way…



I have to say, it makes little to no sense for the judiciary to say “yep you figured out a way to write a new class of laws that we literally cannot rule on at all.” Being joined at the hip to the GOP is the only thing that makes sense, but with lifetime appointments in many courts, it doesn’t compute (for me) that they would toss their power away so easily. So, a bunch of judges in Texas (who are elected I believe) - yes, it makes sense for them to ignore the constitution to favor their party (as appalling as that is). The SCOTUS ruling that the Texas anti-abortion law can stay in effect while they make up their minds, on the other hand...


----------



## Renzatic

Huntn said:


> Conservatives in the court are in on the scheme. The plan/sham is to undermine the system for their political agenda, and then claim they are being lawful.  Talk about officially endorsed  vigilantism, allowing/ encouraging private citizens to sue as part of so called law enforcement is reprehensible, besides the premise, step 2 is to include  $$ rewards for spying on and turning in your neighbors the American Way…




There is a way around these laws, though it'd take a concentrated effort to do so.

Since the conservatives have now set precedence for the matter, anyone is now allowed to make up any law they see fit, and no one can use the verbiage of the Constitution to curtail it. We can make allowing people to sue civilly for things they've said on Facebook, sue gun stores for contributing to gun violence. You could even find a way to sue some churches with only a bit of effort.

The sky is now the limit, and we're all vigilantes for our little personal pet causes. We need everyone in office to make law similar to the Texas bill for every single culture war issue out there, then overwhelm the courts with tons upon tons of frivolous lawsuits.

Make them regret what they wished for by using their own weapons against them. If they want to legally circumvent people's Constitutional rights for what they consider a worthy cause, then it's everyone else's job to pave the road to hell with their good intentions.


----------



## SuperMatt

Renzatic said:


> There is a way around these laws, though it'd take a concentrated effort to do so.
> 
> Since the conservatives have now set precedence for the matter, anyone is now allowed to make up any law they see fit, and no one can use the verbiage of the Constitution to curtail it. We can make allowing people to sue civilly for things they've said on Facebook, sue gun stores for contributing to gun violence. You could even find a way to sue some churches with only a bit of effort.
> 
> The sky is now the limit, and we're all vigilantes for our little personal pet causes. We need everyone in office to make law similar to the Texas bill for every single culture war issue out there, then overwhelm the courts with tons upon tons of frivolous lawsuits.
> 
> Make them regret what they wished for by using their own weapons against them. If they want to legally circumvent people's Constitutional rights for what they consider a worthy cause, then it's everyone else's job to pave the road to hell with their good intentions.



What will happen is that when a “liberal” law is passed using such a mechanism? I predict the SCOTUS will reverse itself, nullifying the conservative laws on the books too. But by that time, they will have already overturned Roe v Wade, so most of the laws using that scheme won’t be needed to send us back to the Middle Ages.


----------



## Renzatic

SuperMatt said:


> What will happen is that when a “liberal” law is passed using such a mechanism? I predict the SCOTUS will reverse itself, nullifying the conservative laws on the books too. But by that time, they will have already overturned Roe v Wade, so most of the laws using that scheme won’t be needed to send us back to the Middle Ages.




The thing is, they can't outright nullify Roe v Wade without undermining the very integrity of the court itself. As is, they can at least skate along, pretending stare decisis is still a thing they take seriously.


----------



## SuperMatt

Renzatic said:


> The thing is, they can't outright nullify Roe v Wade without undermining the very integrity of the court itself. As is, they can at least skate along, pretending stare decisis is still a thing they take seriously.



The pretense of “stare decisis” ended the minute the confirmation process was over for the conservative justices, IMHO. John Roberts, the same justice who declared he wouldn’t be a judicial activist, has overturned laws passed by overwhelming majorities in the Congress… Citizens United, Voting Rights, anything dealing with localities passing their own gun restrictions… you name it. Overturning a past SCOTUS ruling? That’s nothing compared to the laws he has overturned. I bet Roe v Wade is overturned soon.


----------



## JayMysteri0

One reason?

Enough asshats just decided 'f' Roe Vs Wade

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1514638398002184196/


----------



## JayMysteri0

Well this thread won’t age well,


----------



## GermanSuplex

This massive, long-sought and hard fought victory for republicans (if the court goes through with it) may be the boost of energy democrats need for the midterms. Of course, any victory by democrats will be written off as proof of voter fraud, but it should still be the goal anyways.

More proof the EC is trash. More proof our senate setup is outdated. Minority of the votes - twice - and three Supreme Court picks and millions of people doubting the integrity of elections.

Now this. Democrats need to turn out in droves, it won’t get better on its own.


----------



## ronntaylor

GermanSuplex said:


> This massive, long-sought and hard fought victory for republicans (if the court goes through with it) may be the boost of energy democrats need for the midterms.



A lot of loud noise from so-called progressives about how Dems haven't done anything and will do nothing. The constant whining ain't helping. In fact, it's assisting the other side. It's almost as if they don't want things to get better. They would have nothing to complain about then.


----------



## Joe

Welcome to Gilead! 

I know in Texas you can drop off your unwanted baby or kid at a fire station and they won't charge you with a crime. 

People should just start dropping off their babies at the fire station. Let them deal with it. Let the folks who pretend they care about the babies, yet never adopt them deal with it.


----------



## Deleted member 215

How did this leak get out? Has there ever been a SCOTUS draft leak in the past?


----------



## SuperMatt

TBL said:


> How did this leak get out? Has there ever been a SCOTUS draft leak in the past?



This is the first in a while. Interesting historical note: the Roe v Wade decision was leaked to the press.



			https://wapo.st/379GMVd
		

(paywall removed)

Probably a clerk for one of the justices.


----------



## SuperMatt

The Supreme Court has confirmed that it is a leak, but points out it is only a draft. Here is the statement:



> Yesterday, a news organization published a copy of a draft opinion in a pending case. Justices circulate draft opinions internally as a routine and essential part of the Court’s confidential deliberative work. Although the document described in yesterday’s reports is authentic, it does not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case.
> 
> Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., provided the following statement:
> 
> To the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the Court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed. The work of the Court will not be affected in any way.
> 
> We at the Court are blessed to have a workforce — permanent employees and law clerks alike — intensely loyal to the institution and dedicated to the rule of law. Court employees have an exemplary and important tradition of respecting the confidentiality of the judicial process and upholding the trust of the Court. This was a singular and egregious breach of that trust that is an affront to the Court and the community of public servants who work here.
> 
> I have directed the Marshal of the Court to launch an investigation into the source of the leak.


----------



## rdrr

How is Collins going to fair through this?  I know she still has 4+ years on her term left, and most likely will retire next election.  However, I think there should be calls for her resignation.


----------



## Cmaier

This could be fixed immediately. Pack the court.


----------



## Cmaier

rdrr said:


> How is Collins going to fair through this?  I know she still has 4+ years on her term left, and most likely will retire next election.  However, I think there should be calls for her resignation.



She’s apparently expressed shock that such a thing could happen.


----------



## JayMysteri0

SuperMatt said:


> The Supreme Court has confirmed that it is a leak, but points out it is only a draft. Here is the statement:



https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1521494553877962754/
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1521494557237653505/

Somebody thought this was momentous enough, that it had to get out early, and they are right.



rdrr said:


> How is Collins going to fair through this?  I know she still has 4+ years on her term left, and most likely will retire next election.  However, I think there should be calls for her resignation.






Cmaier said:


> She’s apparently expressed shock that such a thing could happen.




Lucy Van Collins & Murkowski, will as you say act surprised & try the victim card out.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1521523259996524544/

No one of course is going to buy that shit.  Everyone saw it coming, and the two have played this game far too many times in the past.  They had no credibility then while trying to beg for some, and now have shown they never deserved any at all.  Let's be honest, at this point, they don't give a shit.  They just hope the blowback won't dog them incessantly while they try to slither their way thru rest of their terms knowing full well the effects of their actions / inactions will have on other women for a lifetime and more.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1521312566059929600/


----------



## ronntaylor

It's too late. In fact, years too late. The court will not be packed. The Dems do not have control of Congress with the Senate at 50/50 and at least one Dem ready to sabotage their own party depending on the issue. Sinema, Manchin and Kelly may as well be Rethugicans on certain issues.

The filibuster is here for the foreseeable future. The Supreme Court will be destroying long-standing precedents for many years to come. And we have no guarantee that the next Presidential election won't be a total con job by the GOP. Either through extreme voter suppression. Or by rigging the outcome in GOP statehouses after the fact.

But "Bernie or Bust" and "There's no difference between Dems and the GOP" and "voting doesn't matter!"


----------



## Edd

rdrr said:


> How is Collins going to fair through this?  I know she still has 4+ years on her term left, and most likely will retire next election.  However, I think there should be calls for her resignation.



I've said this before but, living 20 minutes from the Maine border and having many friends there, her winning last time blew my mind.  She'd shown that she'd rarely stand up to her party, even though she's one of the saner GOP members.  It was time for her to go and that was a lost opportunity.


----------



## JayMysteri0

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1521327462612979714/


----------



## JayMysteri0

ronntaylor said:


> It's too late. In fact, years too late. The court will not be packed. The Dems do not have control of Congress with the Senate at 50/50 and at least one Dem ready to sabotage their own party depending on the issue. Sinema, Manchin and Kelly may as well be Rethugicans on certain issues.
> 
> The filibuster is here for the foreseeable future. The Supreme Court will be destroying long-standing precedents for many years to come. And we have no guarantee that the next Presidential election won't be a total con job by the GOP. Either through extreme voter suppression. Or by rigging the outcome in GOP statehouses after the fact.
> 
> But "Bernie or Bust" and "There's no difference between Dems and the GOP" and "voting doesn't matter!"



https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1521310392311558144/

The important thing that stood out to me while listening to coverage of this as it broke on Rachel Maddow, was her pointing out a key phrase thrown in.  That this ruling applies to abortion only.  Meaning the court is fully aware of how conservatives will try to apply this to anything & everything they can to take us back to a "Leave it to Beaver" type of Americana.

It was one thing to sort of have hope in the Supreme Court to be the sane non politicized part of gov't.  But once the whining about how they are viewed started & Clarence "Uncle" Thomas began showing his ass, we knew adding the last two White mannequins was taking us where we didn't need to go.

Ask yourself why it's so important to conservatives that a fetus is of more importance than a child or adult.
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1521300759031296000/


----------



## ronntaylor

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1521494560442040322/


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

I agree with the opinion that this has very little to do with the actual abortion.  It has to do with the right being packed with a bunch of incels, insecure men terrified by women and the power they have.  They want women to be subservient and second class on every possible level and to punished when they are not.  This also explains why they couldn't give less of a shit after a child is born.  The punishment for being sexually active is to carry it to term and then be weighed down with a lifetime of commitment or guilt.


----------



## ronntaylor

ronntaylor said:


> It's toast because whiners couldn't hold their noses and vote for HRC vs. mango because Bernie!



Not a surprise.


----------



## Joe

I hope the Bernie or Bust bros are happy.


----------



## AG_PhamD

As a moderate I think this is a very bad decision. I’m not a huge proponent of abortion generally, but I think it should be available and accessible, ideally last resort within 3 months or so unless there extenuating circumstances, as most European countries have decided.

The timing of this strategically for the republicans seems incredibly stupid. Way to energize the left and probably affect many independents/moderates voting decisions. 

I’m don’t believe most anti-abortion activists are men looking to “control” women’s bodies. I don’t believe the statistics suggest that when according to Pew 42% of men and 37% of women believe abortion should be “illegal in all/most cases”. There are probably some crazy men who want power over women, but I think most truly see abortion as murder. At the same time, I don’t believe most those that choose to have abortions don’t see abortion as a seriously considered decision- like a procedure with ramifications no more significant than a haircut. 

The emotional impact of abortions are rarely talked about. Many women do experience  a period of sadness, grief,  sometimes regret/second guessing, etc but also a sense of relief- usually it’s a very complex set of emotions. Most eventually conclude they made the best choice at the time. There are some women (and men) who have lasting emotional problems, but usually have underlying risk factors. Having resources to support all women regardless of their choice is important. 

I don’t have data readily available from the past few years, but as of 2017 abortions are at an all time low (13.5 per 1000), lower than 1973 levels (16.3 per 1000), with a height around 1980 at nearly 30. I suspect that had a lot to do largely in part with making prophylactic options more available and accessible. 

Ensuring easy and affordable access to prophylactic tools such as condoms, birth control, morning after pill, as well as education. Additionally, having quality child support and family services to those who might want to complete their pregnancy is also vital. If all these options were readily available, maybe less abortions would be required and maybe it would be less of a hot topic issue. 

What I would really like to see is Plan B be available OTC (meaning no Rx required) with 100% insurance coverage. Here is Massachusetts, MassHealth (medicaid) will pay for it, but only with an Rx. The contraceptive has to be taken within 72hrs (sooner the better)… getting an appointment to get a prescription within 72hrs isn’t always going to be doable. I just checked my private insurance, they want a $20-50 copay which is basically more than OTC cost. 

What’s disgusting to me is if you go to CVS or Walgreens, they’ll charge $50 for the brand name Plan-B and usually $40 for the generic Levonorgestrel. If you go to Walmart or Amazon you can buy Levonorgestrel for $10, sometimes less. 

That aside, accidental, unwanted, and life threatening pregnancies still occur and abortion should be available.


----------



## Eric

Hillary called it back in 2018...


----------



## Eric

Cmaier said:


> This could be fixed immediately. Pack the court.



Agreed. Biden won't do it though and his window is about to close as the keys to both houses will be given back to Republicans for the next two years. A step like this takes balls and that's something Democrats lack, Republicans get ahead because they don't give a shit about what others think and they act, we could all learn something from them in that aspect.


----------



## Joe

Eric said:


> Agreed. Biden won't do it though and his window is about to close as the keys to both houses will be given back to Republicans for the next two years. A step like this takes balls and that's something Democrats lack, Republicans get ahead because they don't give a shit about what others think and they act, we could all learn something from them in that aspect.




Democrats annoy me because they have no balls. Republicans lie, cheat, and steal their way to wins all while pretending to be the party of family values. And democrats want to play nice with them. You can't play nice with these mofos.


----------



## SuperMatt

Eric said:


> Agreed. Biden won't do it though and his window is about to close as the keys to both houses will be given back to Republicans for the next two years. A step like this takes balls and that's something Democrats lack, Republicans get ahead because they don't give a shit about what others think and they act, we could all learn something from them in that aspect.



It cannot be done by presidential fiat. It requires an act of Congress. To do that, they’d need 10 Republicans to sign on, or else change Manchin and Sinema’s minds on ending the filibuster.

There are plenty of Democrats who would do it. But with such a thin majority, there’s no way to get past Sinema and Manchin’s opposition. Republicans didn’t get everything they wanted either when they had slim majorities. That’s why Mitch adopted the tactic of just blocking everything. Blocking stuff is easy, and it makes his constituents feel like he's doing something.

What legislation have Republicans actually passed since the Trump tax cut?


----------



## ronntaylor

Eric said:


> Agreed. Biden won't do it though






Joe said:


> Democrats annoy me because they have no balls.



Reality check: Dems can't get rid of the filibuster with Manchin and a current 50/50 Senate. They are not the GOP and won't resort to the cheating and lying and strong-arming that is the hallmark of the GOP. Just reality. They need to keep control of the House and add 2+ seats in the Senate. To do that they will have to overcome the shenanigans of the GOP the last couple decades. Tough when whiners and uninterested parties do nothing to help. Well, to help their supposed side.


----------



## Cmaier

SuperMatt said:


> It cannot be done by presidential fiat. It requires an act of Congress. To do that, they’d need 10 Republicans to sign on, or else change Manchin and Sinema’s minds on ending the filibuster.
> 
> There are plenty of Democrats who would do it. But with such a thin majority, there’s no way to get past Sinema and Manchin’s opposition. Republicans didn’t get everything they wanted either when they had slim majorities. That’s why Mitch adopted the tactic of just blocking everything. Blocking stuff is easy, and it makes his constituents feel like he's doing something.
> 
> What legislation have Republicans actually passed since the Trump tax cut?




The “tax cut” raised my taxes, so let’s not call it that.


----------



## Eric

SuperMatt said:


> It cannot be done by presidential fiat. It requires an act of Congress. To do that, they’d need 10 Republicans to sign on, or else change Manchin and Sinema’s minds on ending the filibuster.
> 
> There are plenty of Democrats who would do it. But with such a thin majority, there’s no way to get past Sinema and Manchin’s opposition. Republicans didn’t get everything they wanted either when they had slim majorities. That’s why Mitch adopted the tactic of just blocking everything. Blocking stuff is easy, and it makes his constituents feel like he's doing something.
> 
> What legislation have Republicans actually passed since the Trump tax cut?



It all starts with a president willing to step up to the plate, something Biden (and to be fair most Democrats) are unwilling to do. Obama did it with the Affordable Care Act to his credit but by and large Democrats are weak when it comes to this. Like them or not, Republicans jump in line lock step for the most part, even going back to Bush Jr and the Iraq war. When they put their minds to something (even if it's to cock block) they get it done.

Could they have gotten it done during this Congress? I agree probably not but they would've at least taken a stand in solidarity and united the party in many other ways.


----------



## SuperMatt

Eric said:


> It all starts with a president willing to step up to the plate, something Biden (and to be fair most Democrats) are unwilling to do. Obama did it with the Affordable Healthcare Act to his credit but by and large Democrats are weak when it comes to this. Like them or not, Republicans jump in line lock step for the most part, even going back to Bush Jr and the Iraq war. When they put their minds to something (even if it's to cock block) they get it done.
> 
> Could they have gotten it done during this Congress? I agree probably not but they would've at least taken a stand in solidarity and united the party in many other ways.



A fact that has bearing on the discussion: The Democrats had enough votes to override a filibuster when they passed the Affordable Care Act. It passed the Senate 60-39.

If you don’t have the votes, you can’t get things done. Unless Manchin and Sinema agree to eliminate the filibuster, we just have to deal with the frustration.


----------



## Cmaier

SuperMatt said:


> A fact that has bearing on the discussion: The Democrats had enough votes to override a filibuster when they passed the Affordable Care Act. It passed the Senate 60-39.
> 
> If you don’t have the votes, you can’t get things done. Unless Manchin and Sinema agree to eliminate the filibuster, we just have to deal with the frustration.




If Manchin and Sinema can’t protect fundamental rights, what’s the point of calling them democrats? Disown them and start the long slow process of eventually electing enough actual Democrats to get stuff done.


----------



## lizkat

Joe said:


> Democrats annoy me because they have no balls. Republicans lie, cheat, and steal their way to wins all while pretending to be the party of family values. And democrats want to play nice with them. You can't play nice with these mofos.




Agreed.  Still, I'm not convinced the Dems (or the Rs either!) should try to pack the high court.  All that does really is exacerbate the partisan feelings that make either the American left or the right at any given time figure that the court is hopelessly biased towards views of the opposition.

What has definitely become more biased as time has gone on is certainly the judicial confirmation process.  Maybe we should start by sorting that out a bit before tinkering with the structure of our Supreme Court.

If Congress can't even improve on its own rules for advice and consent to the judicial nominations made by a US President,  I don't see how packing a court will be a constructive move.

What I mean by that is not to suggest that we change how the process itself is designed.  I mean for the pols of the Senate to get a grip and set aside their godforsaken insistence on trying to destroy judicial independence.

How does it help the USA to have hyperpartisan hearings for the seating of a new associate justice of SCOTUS to join those already seated on a bench of 15, or 19, or 129 such figures?

Saying _F it, just pack the court_ is so tempting.  But the grass is not really any greener on the other side of that line.



Spoiler: the TL;DR



Start rant.

We're still who we are, citizens disunited by deliberate hardball partisanship engaged in by the national and state leadership of both major parties and now long since filtered down to county level.

What we have been trained to want is so much winning, and it doesn't matter if we're fighting over a sweater on sale on Black Friday or a "conservative" or "liberal" associate justice of SCOTUS.

What does that even mean any more?  The right is no way conservative, and the left is certainly not liberal. We need to quit buying into all this hyperpartisan crap.   The media are no help either: most of the decisions made by the Supreme Court are actually 9-0 calls, but news media don't often enough remind us of that fact.

Yeah.  The constitution is not all that unclear, and it's the lawmaking that leaves loopholes the size of a cargo plane:  Congress doesn't have the integrity to take a stand on anything without putting in a little fine print,  in case next year they have to be against what they were for this year, or vice versa...  and anyway,  how pass any laws at all when the whole idea is for one side to win and the other side to lose what we the people have been led to believe has to be a zero sum game?!

End rant.



Even Chief Justice Roberts has noted that Congress doesn't write clear laws.  How does packing a court either way fix that?  It won't.

We need to start electing more moderates to the Senate instead of effectively drumming them out of both major parties by letting the most money decide who gets the loudest voices.  More listening and less top-decibel transmission are how the USA will finally exit a totally destructive era of "culture wars" incited in the 90s by the likes of Pat Buchanan.

America doesn't need to be "taken back" to any time or by anyone.  We need to put one foot in front of the other and show up together for whatever needs to be done.  It's all right in front of us.  Been there all along.

Ranked choice voting might help us get there, time to give it a real chance and meanwhile work on turning out the vote.  Time for apathy is over.

On this particular issue:  vote for someone who thinks Roe v Wade had the right idea but wasn't clear enough. Start the ball rolling towards legislation to that effect.   Even people who are against abortion themselves --for whatever reason-- are not all in favor of making that decision for another woman in different circumstances.


----------



## Cmaier

lizkat said:


> Agreed.  Still, I'm not convinced the Dems (or the Rs either!) should try to pack the high court.  All that does really is exacerbate the partisan feelings that make either the American left or the right at any given time figure that the court is hopelessly biased towards views of the opposition.
> 
> What has definitely become more biased as time has gone on is certainly the judicial confirmation process.  Maybe we should start by sorting that out a bit before tinkering with the structure of our Supreme Court.
> 
> If Congress can't even improve on its own rules for advice and consent to the judicial nominations made by a US President,  I don't see how packing a court will be a constructive move.
> 
> What I mean by that is not to suggest that we change how the process itself is designed.  I mean for the pols of the Senate to get a grip and set aside their godforsaken insistence on trying to destroy judicial independence.
> 
> How does it help the USA to have hyperpartisan hearings for the seating of a new associate justice of SCOTUS to join those already seated on a bench of 15, or 19, or 129 such figures?
> 
> Saying _F it, just pack the court_ is so tempting.  But the grass is not really any greener on the other side of that line.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: the TL;DR
> 
> 
> 
> Start rant.
> 
> We're still who we are, citizens disunited by deliberate hardball partisanship engaged in by the national and state leadership of both major parties and now long since filtered down to county level.
> 
> What we have been trained to want is so much winning, and it doesn't matter if we're fighting over a sweater on sale on Black Friday or a "conservative" or "liberal" associate justice of SCOTUS.
> 
> What does that even mean any more?  The right is no way conservative, and the left is certainly not liberal. We need to quit buying into all this hyperpartisan crap.   The media are no help either: most of the decisions made by the Supreme Court are actually 9-0 calls, but news media don't often enough remind us of that fact.
> 
> Yeah.  The constitution is not all that unclear, and it's the lawmaking that leaves loopholes the size of a cargo plane:  Congress doesn't have the integrity to take a stand on anything without putting in a little fine print,  in case next year they have to be against what they were for this year, or vice versa...  and anyway,  how pass any laws at all when the whole idea is for one side to win and the other side to lose what we the people have been led to believe has to be a zero sum game?!
> 
> End rant.
> 
> 
> 
> Even Chief Justice Roberts has noted that Congress doesn't write clear laws.  How does packing a court either way fix that?  It won't.
> 
> We need to start electing more moderates to the Senate instead of effectively drumming them out of both major parties by letting the most money decide who gets the loudest voices.  More listening and less top-decible transmission are how the USA will finally exit a totally destructive era of "culture wars" incited in the 90s by the likes of Pat Buchanan.
> 
> America doesn't need to be "taken back" to any time or by anyone.  We need to put one foot in front of the other and show up together for whatever needs to be done.  It's all right in front of us.  Been there all along.
> 
> Ranked choice voting might help us get there, time to give it a real chance and meanwhile work on turning out the vote.  Time for apathy is over.
> 
> On this particular issue:  vote for someone who thinks Roe v Wade had the right idea but wasn't clear enough. Start the ball rolling towards legislation to that effect.   Even people who are against abortion themselves --for whatever reason-- are not all in favor of making that decision for another woman in different circumstances.




How could the federal government legislate abortion rights? Where does the constitution let them do that? It ain’t the commerce clause.  It ain’t the 14th amendment (the supreme court’s draft opinion cuts off that avenue).  It would seem to have to be done by constitutional amendment.  Which is why the only real choice is to take care of it at SCOTUS.


----------



## SuperMatt

Cmaier said:


> How could the federal government legislate abortion rights? Where does the constitution let them do that? It ain’t the commerce clause.  It ain’t the 14th amendment (the supreme court’s draft opinion cuts off that avenue).  It would seem to have to be done by constitutional amendment.  Which is why the only real choice is to take care of it at SCOTUS.



Abortion was a constitutionally protected right for the last 50 years. And then suddenly it’s not?

Neither you nor I are arbiters of the constitution. What I can say is that Congress CAN pass a law protecting the right to abortion nationwide. Would the Supreme Court uphold such a law? We’d have to wait and see. Their current argument seems to be that it’s up to the states because Congress has no national law. That would change if there were a National law.


----------



## Cmaier

SuperMatt said:


> Abortion was a constitutionally protected right for the last 50 years. And then suddenly it’s not?
> 
> Neither you nor I are arbiters of the constitution. What I can say is that Congress CAN pass a law protecting the right to abortion nationwide. Would the Supreme Court uphold such a law? We’d have to wait and see. Their current argument seems to be that it’s up to the states because Congress has no national law. That would change if there were a National law.




Well they can pass a law about anything, but that doesn’t make it constitutIonal. And the constitution grants congress the right to pass laws only relating to certain things (interstate commerce, defense, international issues, issues relating to protectorates, issues relating to certain amendments, etc.).  The only hook anyone has identified is the 14th amendment.  But the draft opinion we are all bitching about expressly states that the 14th amendment doesn’t cover the right to abortion.  So my question, again, is where in the constitution is there any text that would allow congress to pass a law relating to abortion?  The draft opinion is carefully worded to sweep the legs out of any attempt, like the WHPA.  

The SCOTUS argument is _not_ that it is up to the states because congress has no national law. The SCOTUS argument is that there is nothing in the constitution which grants such a right, and therefore there is no basis to overturn state laws to the contrary (because states are supreme absent enumerated rights in the constitution or federal laws passed to codify those rights).


----------



## lizkat

Cmaier said:


> How could the federal government legislate abortion rights? Where does the constitution let them do that? It ain’t the commerce clause.  It ain’t the 14th amendment (the supreme court’s draft opinion cuts off that avenue).  It would seem to have to be done by constitutional amendment.  Which is why the only real choice is to take care of it at SCOTUS.





Yeah, well a constitutional amendment starts with legislation.   

Bring legislation.  It fails.  Revise, bring it again.  It fails.  Revise, bring it again.  It passes.   Start the ratification process.  It can take a long time.  We have as long as the earth doesn't fry meanwhile.

An amendment will be ratified eventually because women in America do actually have the vote, and so do their doctors, spouses, partners, parents...  enough of whom are equally in favor of a woman's right to choose TO SOME DEGREE, for some reasonable period of time after conception and before viability.

A total ban on abortion forever in America is a pipe dream,  even notwithstanding laws that states are passing right now in eager anticipation of the overturn of Roe v Wade.

In the meantime of a gone and unclear Roe v Wade protection, and assorted state bans,  we will become what?  Well, a nation of abortion-law scofflaws,  because there's no way every woman seeking an abortion in a state that outlaws abortion can afford the average 220-odd mile trip to a state with a clinic.

But there's also no way to force every woman to forego an abortion if she has decided not to carry to term.  Americans had already been there and proven that well before 1973.   People flew to Sweden or took a cab up Park Avenue or rode the bus to Camden, NJ.  Some died, most didn't, and most don't regret their decision. 

So what's next?  Banning morning-after pills?   Banning the Democratic Party?  The Republicans have landed in overreach territory already.   Installing a high court that flips Roe v Wade off the books is not going to do them any favors in the long run, even if they manage to flip both house of Congress during the 2022 midterms.  And they should be careful what they wish and scheme for with respect to 2024.

All the Dems who were yawning their way to the midterms are fully awake now, just as some clerk on the high court intended, although it's unclear yet which partisan or personal view may have motivated that clerk.


----------



## Cmaier

lizkat said:


> Yeah, well a constitutional amendment starts with legislation.
> 
> Bring legislation.  It fails.  Revise, bring it again.  It fails.  Revise, bring it again.  It passes.   Start the ratification process.  It can take a long time.  We have as long as the earth doesn't fry meanwhile.
> 
> An amendment will be ratified eventually because women in America do actually have the vote,…




Unfortunately based on my experience with family members and their neighbors who live in states like Pennsylvania and the Carolinas, women *are* voting against choice.


----------



## Eric

Cmaier said:


> Unfortunately based on my experience with family members and their neighbors who live in states like Pennsylvania and the Carolinas, women *are* voting against choice.



Here's some polling data on that from ABC News:









						With Supreme Court poised to reverse Roe, most Americans support abortion rights: POLL
					

Majorities of Americans support upholding Roe v. Wade, and say abortion should be legal in all or most cases.




					abcnews.go.com


----------



## lizkat

Cmaier said:


> Unfortunately based on my experience with family members and their neighbors who live in states like Pennsylvania and the Carolinas, women *are* voting against choice.




Fortunately more women are pro choice than not.  And fortunately there are plenty men who are also pro choice.   The numbers slide around from year to year but about 70% of Americans overall don't want Roe v Wade overturned in its entirety. 

And sure, the SCOTUS can ignore that.  Nine folks in black robes can ditch the thing...  at the peril of the Roberts Court's legacy.   Maybe it's too late for Roberts to save that court's reputation.  I wouldn't bank on it though.


----------



## Deleted member 215

Republicans have always prioritized Supreme Court nominations more than Democrats. Some of them vote just to increase the chances of more conservative justices being appointed (a strategy that played out more successfully than many of them could've imagined). Democrats never seemed to care. Guess they should've cared more.


----------



## SuperMatt

A reminder of what some justices said during their confirmation hearings:

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1521449170309193730/


----------



## GermanSuplex

Cmaier said:


> She’s apparently expressed shock that such a thing could happen.




Kind of like how she must have been shocked after Trump didn’t “learn his lesson”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ouimetnick

I'm sure shaky Susan Collins is tRoUbLeD about this. I wish the Democratic Party would return to its roots. AOC, Bernie and others like them are such a turn off and are ruining the party. People like my parents are more likely to vote republican due to the Democratic Party turning to socialism. Yet the Republican Party is turning into a fascist party with Trump, DeSantis, etc.

Imagine if democrats stayed focused on the issues that impact the majority of the population instead of pronouns, gender identity, "men" having babies, and wiping out ALL college debt that someone willingly took out a loan for. I can tell you that most of my friends don't care about the gender identity, pronouns, etc, they care about everyday life.

What if the democrats focused on inflation, crime, drugs, etc. What if republicans focused on all of those, but in good faith w/o trying to "own the libs"? Our country would be a better place.

I'm sure if democrats were focused on appealing to the majority of the population, these things wouldn't have happened.


----------



## SuperMatt

ouimetnick said:


> I'm sure shaky Susan Collins is tRoUbLeD about this. I wish the Democratic Party would return to its roots. AOC, Bernie and others like them are such a turn off and are ruining the party. People like my parents are more likely to vote republican due to the Democratic Party turning to socialism. Yet the Republican Party is turning into a fascist party with Trump, DeSantis, etc.
> 
> Imagine if democrats stayed focused on the issues that impact the majority of the population instead of pronouns, gender identity, "men" having babies, and wiping out ALL college debt that someone willingly took out a loan for. I can tell you that most of my friends don't care about the gender identity, pronouns, etc, they care about everyday life.
> 
> What if the democrats focused on inflation, crime, drugs, etc. What if republicans focused on all of those, but in good faith w/o trying to "own the libs"? Our country would be a better place.
> 
> I'm sure if democrats were focused on appealing to the majority of the population, these things wouldn't have happened.



Sorry, where is it you are getting the idea that Democrats are focused on personal pronouns or men having babies? Can you point to certain politicians using it on the campaign trail? How about bills introduced?

Or is this all just regurgitation of Fox News talking points, which accuse Democrats of focusing on these things, when it’s actually right-wing talking heads that are fixated on them?


----------



## Herdfan

ronntaylor said:


> The filibuster is here for the foreseeable future.




So let's say the Dems removed the filibuster.  And pass a law codifying the right to an abortion.  

What would stop the GOP from using a filibusterless Senate to simply reverse it?


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> So let's say the Dems removed the filibuster.  And pass a law codifying the right to an abortion.
> 
> What would stop the GOP from using a filibusterless Senate to simply reverse it?



They would have to win the House and the White House too. And such a law is only supported by 1/4 of Americans, so they’d have to take a chance on something unpopular in order to appease part of their base. It’s a political loser.

Many democracies don’t have a filibuster and somehow they manage just fine.


----------



## Yoused

If SCotUS rules to allow states to prohibit temination in all cases, the RW religious freaks will be almost satisfied, which means their motivation to go vote for the person who will save babies has been rinsed away. Some will shout that we need a human-life-amendment, to protect every single fetus across the nation, but I suspect that such a rallying cry will not have much traction – Roe has been upended, what more do you want?

And the nutcase justices are not ignorant of this concern. As much as they are insulated in their positions from politics and public opinion, they would still prefer to have the country controlled by nutcases. Hence, this draft was leaked as a feeler: there are other RW drafts that frame a slightly different opinion, and the nutcase justices want to sign on to the opinion that will least throttling effect on their preferred party.

Thus, the issued ruling may ultimately converge on a different document, just to keep the country from losing too much precious batshittery due to the fundy fanatics not feeling as compelled to go vote for nutcases.


----------



## Eric

Funny how Republicans are more upset at the leak than they are defending their positions on it. I get the SCOTUS will likely still overturn it but right now their backs are against the wall and they deserve to be called out on it.


----------



## Cmaier

Eric said:


> Funny how Republicans are more upset at the leak than they are defending their positions on it. I get the SCOTUS will likely still overturn it but right now their backs are against the wall and they deserve to be called out on it.




Remember the entire first year of the Trump presidency? The problem was never that Trump was doing crazy things and incompetent - it was always “those damned lawbreaking leakers!”


----------



## Yoused

Cmaier said:


> Remember the entire first year of the Trump presidency? The problem was never that Trump was doing crazy things and incompetent - it was always “those damned lawbreaking leakers!”



Remember how the head of the EPA was getting all that super security in his office so that no one could find out what he was doing?


----------



## Cmaier

Yoused said:


> Remember how the head of the EPA was getting all that super security in his office so that no one could find out what he was doing?



Yeah, he had that cone of silence installed.  Another weirdo.


----------



## Clix Pix

I find it appalling that anyone would even seriously contemplate going back to the days when women died or were seriously injured undergoing sometimes self-administered "coat-hanger abortions" or at the hands of others during abortions in mysterious back-alley rooms or other undisclosed locations which were unclean or not suited to performing any sort of medical intervention on anyone.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Heard the Senate is going to vote on codifying abortion rights.  Doesn’t mean it will pass but this should be the first of voting on many initiatives, vote away at each major initiative in BBB.  Even if none of it passes it will have every member on record on exactly what they are for or against. This would be a win for Democrats and a horrifying prospect for Republicans.  But I fully expect blanket corruption to keep this from ever happening.  

Remind me again, exactly what it is we’re trying to fight to preserve.


----------



## Yoused

Cmaier said:


> Another weirdo.



You are being charitable. That kind of MO suggests to me that he has venal sociopathic tendencies bordering on (if not well into) criminality. On the other hand, my opinion is suspect, since I regard Reagan as a criminal who was about the worst choice the country could have made at the time.


----------



## ouimetnick

SuperMatt said:


> Sorry, where is it you are getting the idea that Democrats are focused on personal pronouns or men having babies? Can you point to certain politicians using it on the campaign trail? How about bills introduced?
> 
> Or is this all just regurgitation of Fox News talking points, which accuse Democrats of focusing on these things, when it’s actually right-wing talking heads that are fixated on them?



A good majority of my high school classmates are liberal democrats and that's their primary focus unfortunately. If they along with like minded people focused on the real issues, perhaps we'd be better along as a country.

As I've said before, I don't have cable news. No Faux, CNN, MSNBC, NewsMax, etc. Just local stations broadcasting from Boston. Right wing talking heads are also obsessed with things like pregnant man emojis and testicle tanning (ask Cucker Tarlson)


----------



## dukebound85

SuperMatt said:


> Abortion was a constitutionally protected right for the last 50 years. And then suddenly it’s not?
> 
> Neither you nor I are arbiters of the constitution. What I can say is that Congress CAN pass a law protecting the right to abortion nationwide. Would the Supreme Court uphold such a law? We’d have to wait and see. Their current argument seems to be that it’s up to the states because Congress has no national law. That would change if there were a National law.



the states right argument will be forgotten when the GOP moves to ban abortion entirely


----------



## dukebound85

ouimetnick said:


> A good majority of my high school classmates are liberal democrats and that's their primary focus unfortunately. If they along with like minded people focused on the real issues, perhaps we'd be better along as a country.
> 
> As I've said before, I don't have cable news. No Faux, CNN, MSNBC, NewsMax, etc. Just local stations broadcasting from Boston. Right wing talking heads are also obsessed with things like pregnant man emojis and testicle tanning (ask Cucker Tarlson)



“High school classmates”

ok then.


----------



## JayMysteri0

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1521463131297431554/

And...

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1521452927373783043/


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> Abortion was a constitutionally protected right for the last 50 years. And then suddenly it’s not?
> 
> Neither you nor I are arbiters of the constitution. What I can say is that Congress CAN pass a law protecting the right to abortion nationwide. Would the Supreme Court uphold such a law? We’d have to wait and see. Their current argument seems to be that it’s up to the states because Congress has no national law. That would change if there were a National law.




Why does 50 years matter?


I assume everyone knows the current President voted FOR a Constitutional Amendment to make it actually constitutionally illegal?


----------



## Herdfan

Yoused said:


> If SCotUS rules to allow states to prohibit temination in all cases, the RW religious freaks will be almost satisfied,* which means their motivation to go vote for the person who will save babies has been rinsed away. *Some will shout that we need a human-life-amendment, to protect every single fetus across the nation, but I suspect that such a rallying cry will not have much traction – Roe has been upended, what more do you want?
> 
> And the nutcase justices are not ignorant of this concern. As much as they are insulated in their positions from politics and public opinion, they would still prefer to have the country controlled by nutcases. Hence, this draft was leaked as a feeler: there are other RW drafts that frame a slightly different opinion, and the nutcase justices want to sign on to the opinion that will least throttling effect on their preferred party.
> 
> Thus, the issued ruling may ultimately converge on a different document, just to keep the country from losing too much precious batshittery due to the fundy fanatics not feeling as compelled to go vote for nutcases.




You are assuming that abortion is the only thing that will drive them to the polls.  I assure you, it is not.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> You are assuming that abortion is the only thing that will drive them to the polls.  I assure you, it is not.



He didn’t say that.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Clix Pix said:


> I find it appalling that anyone would even seriously contemplate going back to the days when women died or were seriously injured undergoing sometimes self-administered "coat-hanger abortions" or at the hands of others during abortions in mysterious back-alley rooms or other undisclosed locations which were unclean or not suited to performing any sort of medical intervention on anyone.





But that's what Jesus wants.  Just ask his followers.  He said it right after he said worship the rich and hate and punish the poor.  I probably should have paid attention more back when I went to church because none of this is really ringing a bell.  Who am I to argue with those who bet the entire ranch on his teachings.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

ouimetnick said:


> A good majority of my high school classmates are liberal democrats and that's their primary focus unfortunately. If they along with like minded people focused on the real issues, perhaps we'd be better along as a country.
> 
> As I've said before, I don't have cable news. No Faux, CNN, MSNBC, NewsMax, etc. Just local stations broadcasting from Boston. Right wing talking heads are also obsessed with things like pregnant man emojis and testicle tanning (ask Cucker Tarlson)





I didn’t want to believe hyper woke culture was a thing, but I am somewhat sheltered as most of my work and personal interactions are with people at least in their 40’s with a couple “kids” in their 30’s. My 53 year old cousin recently corrected me though. There’s a wider age range at his work and he said the younger they are the more they are obsessed by things like pronouns.

This really lessened my faith in the younger generation. One side thinks democracy is the enemy and the other, pronouns. Both completely ignorant to what is at stake. But they aren’t completely alone. A good percentage of older people either think authoritarianism is the bright future winning ticket or they are in complete denial of the guardrails being removed despite being slapped with evidence on a near daily basis. The right isn’t the only side that denies facts.


----------



## Alli

Joe said:


> Welcome to Gilead!
> 
> I know in Texas you can drop off your unwanted baby or kid at a fire station and they won't charge you with a crime.
> 
> People should just start dropping off their babies at the fire station. Let them deal with it. Let the folks who pretend they care about the babies, yet never adopt them deal with it.



There’s a wonderful series of books called Unwind. In this reality, parents who don’t want their babies can “stork” them. They leave them on the porch of a much better off family and that family has to keep them.

Maybe instead of leaving infants at the fire station, they should be dropped off at the homes of Cruz and Abbott, and all the other horrible TX pols.


----------



## Alli

SuperMatt said:


> A reminder of what some justices said during their confirmation hearings:
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1521449170309193730/



Which also suggests they all lied to the Senate *while under oath*. Either they should all be impeached, or there should be no more hearings on SCOTUS nominations.


----------



## SuperMatt

What is the GOP plan to cover the increased costs in caring for unwanted babies?

God.



> *Amna Nawaz:*
> Let me ask you about what resulted in experts say unwanted pregnancies, right? What about those kids? Kids in Arkansas, I think one in five right now, live in poverty. And the foster care system is already overwhelmed after the last two years. . What's the state's plan for those kids?
> *Leslie Rutledge:*
> Well, we are going to love those kids and we're going to give them great educational opportunities.
> *Amna Nawaz:*
> But how will you care for them?
> *Leslie Rutledge:*
> I had heard from a woman earlier who thanked – who thanked me for my stand on the Supreme Court issue because she said she and her husband were able to adopt four children many years ago whose parents did not want them. And had abortion been available, then those children would not have been living and thriving.
> And so, we are going to take care of the children in the state of Arkansas.
> *Amna Nawaz:*
> If I may, just from a resources standpoint, just from a resources standpoint, your system is overwhelmed. You had a 14 percent increase in the last two years of kids in the foster care system, too many kids, over 4,400, and not enough families to take them in. Is there a plan in place?
> *Leslie Rutledge:*
> Well, certainly, there is. And that's why I am serving as the attorney general and running to be the next lieutenant governor of Arkansas and supporting my dear friend, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, as the next governor, because we're going to make sure that we have the resources necessary to take care of our kids and give them the education that they need, to make sure that we take care of those in foster care.
> I have worked in the foster care system. What those children need our love. What they don't need is someone putting a price tag on their life.
> What is their life worth to them? Absolutely everything.
> What is it worth to God? Absolutely everything. God intended for that life to begin at conception. He didn't intent for that life to have a nominal price tag on it, put on that child's head from some liberal who says it costs too much for that human life.









That ought to work out nicely.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

SuperMatt said:


> What is the GOP plan to cover the increased costs in caring for unwanted babies?
> 
> God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That ought to work out nicely.





The elevation of states' rights will destroy the “united” states. I say we split up and then we can wheel that blue state federal funded tit they’ve been sucking on back across the border. “The lord will provide. Go pray the gay away. Ta.”


----------



## SuperMatt

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> The elevation of states' rights will destroy the “united” states. I say we split up and then we can wheel that blue state federal funded tit they’ve been sucking on back across the border. “The lord will provide. Go pray the gay away. Ta.”



The paralysis of Congress is also part of the issue. States’ rights apply most strongly when there is no applicable federal legislation.


----------



## ouimetnick

dukebound85 said:


> “High school classmates”
> 
> ok then.



Those are folks 25-26 that voted for Biden and are upset because he isn't forgiving their student loans like he said he would. They are the ones who love Bernie and are more likely to sit out the next election. It's a super woke chunk of people and ignoring them isn't going to make them disappear unfortunately.


----------



## Yoused

That is the difficulty the D (or any sane & reasonable) Party has with younger voters. "_I want it *now*!_" When there are real challenges to accomplishing a goal, they might be better off issuing vague feel-good pablum, as is SOP for the Rs, rather than outlining policy goals that are simply not on the attainable horizon.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

I have questions about something that seems to get read over without even flinching. Exactly how much incest is going on in this country? Apparently enough to give it a specific mention in this debate. “In cases of rape *OR* incest” That insinuates there’s a lot of consensual incest going on, or at a minimum “not legitimate rape”. WTF to all that. Do we have demographics on these incest practitioners? I feel like there’s going to be a lot more of that on the right than the left’s elite satanic baby eaters.


----------



## SuperMatt

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> I have questions about something that seems to get read over without even flinching. Exactly how much incest is going on in this country? Apparently enough to give it a specific mention in this debate. “In cases of rape *OR* incest” That insinuates there’s a lot of consensual incest going on, or at a minimum “not legitimate rape”. WTF to all that. Do we have demographics on these incest practitioners? I feel like there’s going to be a lot more of that on the right than the left’s elite satanic baby eaters.



The percentages are quite low. So you’re not saving millions of fetuses by blocking abortion access to the victims. It’s inhuman to *force* a rape and/or incest victim to give birth.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

SuperMatt said:


> The percentages are quite low. So you’re not saving millions of fetuses by blocking abortion access to the victims. It’s inhuman to *force* a rape and/or incest victim to give birth.




I'm pro-choice, but I think that's an odd distinction.  Again, like there's a lot of consensual incest going on within general incest.


----------



## Eric

Between the SCOTUS justices on record lying during their confirmation hearings and this leaking out it's put their backs against the wall.

Republicans Suddenly Don't Want To Talk About Banning Abortion​








						Republicans Suddenly Don't Want To Talk About Banning Abortion
					

An epic victory at the Supreme Court was no cause for celebration among Senate conservatives on Tuesday.




					www.huffpost.com


----------



## ouimetnick

Curious to why Supreme Court justices need to go though any confirmation hearing. If what they say during those meetings with senators and publicly at their confirmation hearings ends up being ignored when they are actual justices and no easy way to remove them from the bench, what’s the point?


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

A few hot takes from progressives and/or people who know US history didn’t start the day Trump took office.

Not entirely to blame, but….

Blame the ego of Ruth Bader Ginsburg for refusing to retire under Obama and believing she would do it under President Hillary.

Blame Democrats for largely giving lip service to protections when they could have actually done something about it, specifically making it federal law when Obama had a super majority. This is one of many examples of Democrats assuming they had their traditional base in the bag no matter what they did/didn’t do, abandoned them and moved on to trying to win over moderate Republicans.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

ouimetnick said:


> Curious to why Supreme Court justices need to go though any confirmation hearing. If what they say during those meetings with senators and publicly at their confirmation hearings ends up being ignored when they are actual justices and no easy way to remove them from the bench, what’s the point?





It's almost as if a major branch of the government that isn't elected to office, largely operates in secret, has no term limits, and isn't held accountable might be a bad thing.


----------



## lizkat

Eric said:


> Between the SCOTUS justices on record lying during their confirmation hearings and this leaking out it's put their backs against the wall.
> 
> Republicans Suddenly Don't Want To Talk About Banning Abortion​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Suddenly Don't Want To Talk About Banning Abortion
> 
> 
> An epic victory at the Supreme Court was no cause for celebration among Senate conservatives on Tuesday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com




Yeah if the leak came from the right in hopes of nailing down the four conservatives who had sided with Alito in the original vote,  there was some pretty insulated if partisan bubble-thought going on there.  

There was no way the Rs would have wanted overturn of Roe v Wade to become an issue to compete with their laundry list of anti-Biden screeds during campaigns for the 2022 midterm elections.

The Republican Party's plan was to go with Trump's candidates where he'd made endorsements if it looked like his picks could win,  and otherwise slam Biden on the economy, deal in generalities about lefties being socialists and soft on immigration, street crime and yada yada...  with "culture wars" left to the likes of Tucker Carlson, who pegs away at that all the time anyway, so the GOP hoped he could just be counted on to keep the base riled up enough to at least remember to check their voter registrations.​
In other words "hot button" issues were to be subsumed in local campaigns to "how's your wallet doing with Biden at the helm?"  but now the only topic is Roe v Wade and related spinoffs like "did Trump's court picks lie to US Senators during their confirmation hearings?".

John Roberts must be ready to tear out his hair, especially if the justices had decided --since that first draft--  to narrow the opinion and leave Roe v Wade dangling at cliffside for awhile yet.

I believe that Roberts will have tried to persuade one or more of the Trump-picked justices to join him in voting to do exactly that.   If he was successful, who knows whether the leak of the draft will now cause another rethinking of the case and related final opinions.


----------



## Eric

lizkat said:


> *Yeah if the leak came from the right in hopes of nailing down the four conservatives who had sided with Alito in the original vote,  there was some pretty insulated if partisan bubble-thought going on there. *
> 
> There was no way the Rs would have wanted overturn of Roe v Wade to become an issue to compete with their laundry list of anti-Biden screeds during campaigns for the 2022 midterm elections.
> 
> The Republican Party's plan was to go with Trump's candidates where he'd made endorsements if it looked like his picks could win,  and otherwise slam Biden on the economy, deal in generalities about lefties being socialists and soft on immigration, street crime and yada yada...  with "culture wars" left to the likes of Tucker Carlson, who pegs away at that all the time anyway, so the GOP hoped he could just be counted on to keep the base riled up enough to at least remember to check their voter registrations.​
> In other words "hot button" issues were to be subsumed in local campaigns to "how's your wallet doing with Biden at the helm?"  but now the only topic is Roe v Wade and related spinoffs like "did Trump's court picks lie to US Senators during their confirmation hearings?".
> 
> John Roberts must be ready to tear out his hair, especially if the justices had decided --since that first draft--  to narrow the opinion and leave Roe v Wade dangling at cliffside for awhile yet.
> 
> I believe that Roberts will have tried to persuade one or more of the Trump-picked justices to join him in voting to do exactly that.   If he was successful, who knows whether the leak of the draft will now cause another rethinking of the case and related final opinions.



If that's the case it would appear they miscalculated egregiously. I heard a local attorney on the news, who is authorized to argue to the SCOTUS, say that he's not sure how it is now but they used to release the same draft in several different forms and would move things like an apostrophe or a comma on each to note which copy came from which source. Interesting, if something like that is still applicable they have a good chance of determining where it came from.


----------



## rdrr

SuperMatt said:


> The percentages are quite low. So you’re not saving millions of fetuses by blocking abortion access to the victims. It’s inhuman to *force* a rape and/or incest victim to give birth.



What they are really saying is the only time you have a right to control your own body, is someone has to violate it first.


----------



## SuperMatt

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> A few hot takes from progressives and/or people who know US history didn’t start the day Trump took office.
> 
> Not entirely to blame, but….
> 
> Blame the ego of Ruth Bader Ginsburg for refusing to retire under Obama and believing she would do it under President Hillary.
> 
> Blame Democrats for largely giving lip service to protections when they could have actually done something about it, specifically making it federal law when Obama had a super majority. This is one of many examples of Democrats assuming they had their traditional base in the bag no matter what they did/didn’t do, abandoned them and moved on to trying to win over moderate Republicans.



Don’t such people ever get tired of blaming Democrats for the bad things done by Republicans? It’s like they are looking for an excuse to vote GOP even with the terrible things done by that Party.

“Democrats aren’t doing enough” is nonsense. Try actually voting more of them in so they can get a sizable majority. Or... whine and stay home and/or vote for the Trump crowd. Seems like many are choosing the latter. I hope this terrible ruling will be the impetus for them to pursue the former instead.


----------



## ronntaylor

SuperMatt said:


> “Democrats aren’t doing enough” is nonsense.



Especially when the vast majority of Dems are voting for progressive legislation. They're being thwarted by Manchin and Sinema, with Kelly occasionally piping in. Same when Obama was president being thwarted by so-called Blue Dog Dems. I guess everyone forgets the fracture they caused back then. Dems have never been a monolith and for so-called progressives to not see this is mind blowing.

And while I wanted Ginsburg to retire once Obama won a 2nd term, I don't recall anyone calling for Kennedy to similarly resign. And he did so when it was clear that Mango was going to replace him with a right wing ideologue. Not to mention all the shady shit surrounding his retirement (his son, Deutche Bank, the Russians, etc).


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

SuperMatt said:


> Don’t such people ever get tired of blaming Democrats for the bad things done by Republicans? It’s like they are looking for an excuse to vote GOP even with the terrible things done by that Party.
> 
> “Democrats aren’t doing enough” is nonsense. Try actually voting more of them in so they can get a sizable majority. Or... whine and stay home and/or vote for the Trump crowd. Seems like many are choosing the latter. I hope this terrible ruling will be the impetus for them to pursue the former instead.




It took both sides to get us here. It’s not like everybody in Germany in the 30’s went “Things are really going great, but you know what? I really hate Jews.” I honestly don’t know the details of why the Weirmar Republic let things get so bad, but I don’t think anybody could say they did everything possible to prevent the popularity and rise of Hitler. A lot of what they did do was stand around in disbelief which I feel a lot of people on the left are currently doing.

If this draft (or ultimate) decision turns out to be a big nothing burger on voting decisions then we’re in a lot of trouble. To many this is considered the holy grail of the far-right agenda. If it passes without much of a cost to the Republicans then what’s to stop them from doing everything else on their wishlist.


----------



## SuperMatt

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1522250874143260673/

Not a good look...


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

SuperMatt said:


> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1522250874143260673/
> 
> Not a good look...






I found the security system they use when the right gets mad.









You can probably get it cheaper at Amazon.


----------



## lizkat

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> I found the security system they use when the right gets mad.




Yeah, gee.  For an incipient insurrection, some tinfoil barrier gates.   For free speech, well...  eight foot fences, just in case.,


----------



## Renzatic

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Blame Democrats for largely giving lip service to protections when they could have actually done something about it, specifically making it federal law when Obama had a super majority. This is one of many examples of Democrats assuming they had their traditional base in the bag no matter what they did/didn’t do, abandoned them and moved on to trying to win over moderate Republicans.




If there is one great casualty of the culture war, it's America's collective understanding that, no matter who's policies you ultimately support, politicians will always be politicians, and should always be treated as if they're stupid, hyperactive children in an antiques store.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Renzatic said:


> If there is one great casualty of the culture war, it's America's collective understanding that, no matter who's policies you ultimately support, politicians will always be politicians, and should always be treated as if they're stupid, hyperactive children in an antiques store.




Going through decades, I don't know if anybody can claim major continuous victories other than the rich.  The rest of us get bandaids and excuses for failure.


----------



## Renzatic

I've found my new political hero.


----------



## fooferdoggie

Renzatic said:


> I've found my new political hero.



great now QAnon will run with it. Marjorie trailer grease will be talking about this.


----------



## JayMysteri0

The damn walls against cruelty & stupidity are quickly crumbling
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1522373126197194757/



> Louisiana bill would allow murder charges for abortions; opponents call it 'barbaric'
> 
> 
> As the United States braces for the possible overturning of Roe v. Wade and an end to the constitutional protection of abortion rights, Louisiana lawmakers are advancing legislation that would bolster their ability to criminally punish doctors and individuals who violate the state’s abortion...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.wwno.org




Let's be clear, this has major religious motivations, even though we have that pesky separation of church & state.



> The bill's author was joined by a large crowd of supporters from religious organizations, including representatives from an association of more than 1,600 Baptist churches in Louisiana.
> 
> Chris Kaiser, advocacy director of the ACLU of Louisiana, said the legislation gave him “grave concern” of how a post-Roe Louisiana would treat women who attempt to exercise control of their reproductive health care.
> 
> “HB813 is a barbaric bill that would subject people to murder prosecutions, punishable by life without parole, for having abortions,” Kaiser said.





> Opponents of the bill said its broad scope would also criminalize in vitro fertilization, intrauterine birth control devices (IUDs) and emergency contraception as well.
> 
> “Louisiana already has a trigger law that would outlaw abortion and subject providers to penalties if Roe is overturned,” Kaiser said. “Proponents of this legislation say that’s not enough. They want to send people to prison for life.”


----------



## fooferdoggie

JayMysteri0 said:


> The damn walls against cruelty & stupidity are quickly crumbling
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1522373126197194757/
> 
> 
> 
> Let's be clear, this has major religious motivations, even though we have that pesky separation of church & state.



man this is over thew top crazy control of woman. total power grab with no thought of the people they represent. only the minority religious extremists.


----------



## JayMysteri0

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1521939605616041985/

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1521878813369581569/


----------



## SuperMatt

The court is political, full of unelected people with no term limits. The former Senate Majority leader lied, cheated, and changed the rules repeatedly to force ideologues onto the court.

The leak has fully exposed this body for what it is: a far-right legislative body. The killing of voting rights wasn’t a constitutional interpretation. It was a naked power play by the party of white supremacists, knowing that white people will soon no longer be the majority in America. The leak of this opinion (written in February) dispels the myth that the court actually discusses this stuff for the full term and comes to a decision. This case was decided almost immediately, and Alito got to work trying to justify it.









						Opinion | The Supreme Court Has Been Leaking for Years
					

Whatever legitimacy it had retained was sacrificed in the drive to build the majority that seems poised to overturn Roe v. Wade.




					www.nytimes.com
				



(paywall removed)



> No discussion of the Supreme Court’s legitimacy, or lack thereof, is complete without mention of the fact that its current composition is the direct result of our counter-majoritarian institutions. Only once in the past 30 years — in the 2004 election — has anything like a majority of the American electorate voted for a president who promised a conservative Supreme Court. The three members who cemented this particular conservative majority — Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett — were nominated by a president who lost the popular vote and were confirmed by senators representing far fewer than half of all Americans.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Using Alito's logic I guess we can expect every gun owner to register with a well-regulated militia or turn their guns in.  The 2nd amendment doesn't explicitly say you can own a gun to defend yourself under any circumstance, hunt, or for target practice.


----------



## SuperMatt

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Using Alito's logic I guess we can expect every gun owner to register with a well-regulated militia or turn their guns in.  The 2nd amendment doesn't explicitly say you can own a gun to defend yourself under any circumstance, hunt, or for target practice.



There is no logic to it. When it comes to the 2nd amendment, the interpretation in your first sentence WAS the accepted interpretation up until the late 20th century.






						United States v. Miller - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




The “militia” part of the 2nd amendment has been whited-out by the conservatives since then.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Per the usual psychotic break from reality into alternative facts land, Kellyanne Conway said she doesn’t want “old white guy” Chuck Schumer telling her what she can do with her body. I suppose it wouldn’t help telling her that she just endorsed keeping Roe vs Wade in place.


----------



## fooferdoggie

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Per the usual psychotic break from reality into alternative facts land, Kellyanne Conway said she doesn’t want “old white guy” Chuck Schumer telling her what she can do with her body. I suppose it wouldn’t help telling her that she just endorsed keeping Roe vs Wade in place.



seems she is happy with the old white turtle doing it though.


----------



## SuperMatt

Just in case you were wondering if Susan Collins was lying about supporting abortion rights all this time…



			Senator Susan Collins says she is opposed to Democrats’ bill aimed at protecting abortion rights
		


She puts it to rest once and for all. She never supported abortion rights. It was a lie to get elected.


----------



## SuperMatt

Clarence Thomas would like Americans to stop bullying him. Also, stupid Americans are addicted to rulings that protect their freedoms. They need to learn to shut up and accept whatever Clarence decides is best for them.



			After abortion leak, Justice Thomas warns Supreme Court can't be 'bullied'


----------



## Alli

rdrr said:


> What they are really saying is the only time you have a right to control your own body, is someone has to violate it first.



Not even then. None of these crazy states are making exceptions for rape. It’s a lose lose scenario for women.


----------



## SuperMatt

Here’s some historical information about Sir Matthew Hale, who was cited 9 times in Samuel Alito’s opinion. Apparently this is what Justice Alito yearns for in America.








> Hale was responsible for such arguments as the fact that witches must be real because there were laws against them and that it was impossible for a husband to rape his wife. And, of course, he was vehemently against abortion.
> 
> Hale was responsible for the 1662 judgement that sent two women accused of witchcraft to their deaths. The case would serve as inspiration for the Salem witch trials. His ideas on rapeless marriage were the law of the land in England until 1991 and have continued to be cited in court as recently as 2009.












						Meet Sir Matthew Hale, the 17th century misogynist that Justice Alito mentioned 9 times in his leaked SCOTUS opinion | Boing Boing
					

On The Reid Out, Joy Reid introduces us to a lovely English chap from the 17th century named Sir Matthew Hale. A barrister, judge, and jurist, Hale was responsible for such arguments as the fact th…




					boingboing.net


----------



## JayMysteri0

I'm... I'm... I'm going to need help wrapping my head around this fuckery



> ‘Domestic Supply of Infants’ – Truth or Fiction?
> 
> 
> Readers spotted a purported reference to a "domestic supply of infants" by Justice Alito in the footnotes of the leaked Roe draft in May 2022.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.truthorfiction.com



https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1522737305710067715/
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1522947498976763904/
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1522955562912153601/
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1522779034337173509/


----------



## JayMysteri0

I'm still floored by this
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1522920391844499456/

That anyone would actually use this, print this, and think they should be considered an authority on anything but fucking evil.

From Barrett I kind of expected this kind of f'n asswards back religious dogma, but having it hidden in plain sight with Alito just blows my mind.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1522982509675532290/

Kind of makes me look at the previous administration's penchant for stripping infants & children from people trying to enter, in a whole new light.



> Trump officials send migrant babies, toddlers to 'tender age' shelters
> 
> 
> Lawyers and medical providers who have visited the South Texas shelters described playrooms of crying preschool-age children in crisis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nbcnews.com


----------



## Yoused

meanwhile,

*Justice Clarence Thomas said people must “live with outcomes we don’t agree with” or the judiciary would be threatened, citing recent Supreme Court events as “one symptom of that.” … at the 11th Circuit Judicial Conference in Atlanta on Friday, Thomas said he was growing concerned about declining respect for governmental institutions and the rule of law.*​
says the lump whose wife tried so very hard to force us to not live with the outcome of the '20 election


----------



## SuperMatt

Yoused said:


> meanwhile,
> 
> *Justice Clarence Thomas said people must “live with outcomes we don’t agree with” or the judiciary would be threatened, citing recent Supreme Court events as “one symptom of that.” … at the 11th Circuit Judicial Conference in Atlanta on Friday, Thomas said he was growing concerned about declining respect for governmental institutions and the rule of law.*​
> says the lump whose wife tried so very hard to force us to not live with the outcome of the '20 election



Haha NOW he is concerned? Not when white supremacists *literally* stormed the Capitol in hopes of overturning a presidential election? But when popular opinion turns sour on him personally.

And the absurdity of him not seeing that he is partially to blame for people not respecting the institution he is part of really adds to the humor.


----------



## Cmaier

Yoused said:


> meanwhile,
> 
> *Justice Clarence Thomas said people must “live with outcomes we don’t agree with” or the judiciary would be threatened, citing recent Supreme Court events as “one symptom of that.” … at the 11th Circuit Judicial Conference in Atlanta on Friday, Thomas said he was growing concerned about declining respect for governmental institutions and the rule of law.*​
> says the lump whose wife tried so very hard to force us to not live with the outcome of the '20 election




The first clause is very telling.  He feels it is a given that the judiciary should not be threatened.  People must live with egregious outcomes, because otherwise 9 privileged people wearing weird robes might not get the respect they think they deserve.

Reality is that the constitution doesn’t even say that the Supreme Court gets to make these kind of decisions. The constitution doesn’t say that the supreme court gets to decide whether state laws are consitutional or not.  The reason they get to do this is because the Supreme Court decided it has that authority, and the people were willing to go along.  It will be interesting to see how far the people will go along. I suspect pretty far.   But, as I said before, there’s a quick fix available if the democrats in the senate would stick together.


----------



## Renzatic

Cmaier said:


> Reality is that the constitution doesn’t even say that the Supreme Court gets to make these kind of decisions. The constitution doesn’t say that the supreme court gets to decide whether state laws are consitutional or not.




SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter in of all things judicial, and it is there job to determine whether any particular laws adhere to Constitutional standards. As far as the basics of this case goes, it is their job.

The problem is that SCOTUS is rather arbitrarily taking an entirely different stance on an issue it's seen countless times in the past, and seems to be poised to do so primarily for ideological reasons, rather than legally sound ones. If they could at least provide a good reason to explain why the individual states have a vested interest in maintaining a woman's pregnancy, and that previous interpretations of the 14th Amendment as it pertains to abortion have been grossly misrepresented for the last 50 odd years, then at least they could have some defense against the inevitable backlash.

...but they don't. Their argument is that they don't like abortion, and everyone else has been wrong about it up til now, and if the people of the United States don't like it, then they can just suck an egg.


----------



## Cmaier

Renzatic said:


> SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter in of all things judicial, and it is there job to determine whether any particular laws adhere to Constitutional standards. As far as the basics of this case goes, it is their job.



My point was simply that it’s their job because they SAY it is their job.  This is something they decided in Marbury v. Madison.  The Constitution does not grant them this job. 

And it is lost on them, apparently, that they are using a power found nowhere in the constitution to declare that women don’t have rights that are not expressly written in the constitution.


----------



## Renzatic

Cmaier said:


> My point was simply that it’s their job because they SAY it is their job. This is something they decided in Marbury v. Madison. The Constitution does not grant them this job.




I thought that case had the opposite effect, and determined that SCOTUS could determine whether state laws were constitutional or not.

...guess I gotta read stuff now.

Okay, after a quick read, Marbury v. Madison did ultimately lead to granting SCOTUS with the power of judicial review, but the case itself was primarily a federal issue, having nothing to do with any state laws. The court being allowed to do the same at the state level wasn't a concern, with it's jurisdiction for such has been something that's never been entirely legally defined, but has been taken for granted since.



> And it is lost on them, apparently, that they are using a power found nowhere in the constitution to declare that women don’t have rights that are not expressly written in the constitution.




Them claiming it's not specifically a right because it's not specifically mentioned in the Constitution would be a violation of the 9th Amendment.

The thing that makes it so complicated is that there's practically nothing concerning abortions in the constitution, federalist papers, or various legal documents of the day, so it's ALL open for interpretation and reinterpretation. In this case, they're trying to frame it more as a small government maneuver, claiming it's a state issue, and the federal government has no Constitutional standing to enforce it, what with the 14th being misinterpreted all these years.

...though WHY it's been misinterpreted, and WHY theirs is now the correct one is left hanging entirely.


----------



## Cmaier

Renzatic said:


> I thought that case had the opposite effect, and determined that SCOTUS could determine whether state laws were constitutional or not.
> 
> ...guess I gotta read stuff now.




Yes. That’s what that case said. But the power to declare laws unconstitutional is the power to declare them constitutional.  And my point is that they don’t question their right to do that. But the same argument that they use to say that women don’t have the right to choose (it’s not spelled out in the constitution) means they shouldn’t have the right to determine the constitutionality of laws.


----------



## Renzatic

Cmaier said:


> Yes. That’s what that case said. But the power to declare laws unconstitutional is the power to declare them constitutional.  And my point is that they don’t question their right to do that. But the same argument that they use to say that women don’t have the right to choose (it’s not spelled out in the constitution) means they shouldn’t have the right to determine the constitutionality of laws.




I edited my post, by the way. Read up on it. 

Should've just waited for the response.


----------



## Cmaier

Renzatic said:


> I edited my post, by the way. Read up on it.
> 
> Should've just waited for the response.



As you note, *state* laws is an even more touchy situation. Heck, the constitution doesn’t even say that things like the bill of rights apply to state laws.  The SCOTUS has used its (not written in the Constitution) ability to interpret state laws to decide that various amendments apply to state laws, in a series of cases that covered these one by one.  

And while I agree with their conclusion, again, the point is that you can’t, on the one hand, say that ”states can do whatever they want unless the constitution expressly states otherwise” and also say “but because we wear robes we can exercise powers that the constitution doesn’t expressly give us.”  And the implications of “it has to be expressly written” should mean that, for example, California can declare all religions illegal. After all, the first amendment only says what congress can do, not what states can do.   New York can declare it illegal for republicans to write editorials, by the same logic.   Cruel and unusual punishment? Sounds good! Constitution, unless it expressly says something applies to the states, doesn’t apply to the states!

Interracial marriage? No more in Texas!  You liked separate but equal? Why not?! Let’s bring that back, after all, the constitution is quiet on that.


----------



## Renzatic

Cmaier said:


> And while I agree with their conclusion, again, the point is that you can’t, on the one hand, say that ”states can do whatever they want unless the constitution expressly states otherwise” and also say “but because we wear robes we can exercise powers that the constitution doesn’t expressly give us.”




Yeah, it leaves us with a situation where we can say "BUT IT'S ESTABLISHED LAW" for things we like, but we can always turn around, and claim it's unconstitutional the moment it starts losing favor. It's the double edged sword of not requiring SCOTUS to be beholden to stare decisis. If they were, they wouldn't have been able to reverse obviously bad decisions, like Dred Scott, but it also leaves us vulnerable to situations like this.

If the last few years have proven anything to me, it's that America is particularly vulnerable to zealots and ideologues. Everything works swimmingly when we have pragmatic leadership at the helm. But the moment we don't...


----------



## JayMysteri0

Remember what I said about the damn walls breaking?

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1523047482665668608/



> IUDs, Plan B Likely Illegal in Missouri Post-Roe
> 
> 
> IVF and miscarriages could be complicated as well
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.riverfronttimes.com





> A Republican Senate candidate endorsed by Peter Thiel is campaigning on an apparent anti-birth control platform
> 
> 
> Blake Masters pledged to vote for judges who believe Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey were wrongly decided.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.businessinsider.com





> Idaho Republican Leader Says He'd Consider Banning Morning-After Pills and IUDs
> 
> 
> The Republican Party insists they "DO NOT want to take away contraception." But some lawmakers are admitting the quiet part out loud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jezebel.com




From supreme court nominees to politicians, the lies have all been with one thing in mind.


----------



## SuperMatt

JayMysteri0 said:


> Remember what I said about the damn walls breaking?
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1523047482665668608/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From supreme court nominees to politicians, the lies have all been with one thing in mind.



Marsha Blackburn indicated (during the Ketanji Brown Jackson hearing) that the Supreme Court ruling allowing contraception in the name of privacy was wrongly decided.

It appears that these anti-contraception bills are based on that belief. Since they got Roe overturned, they think they can completely remove the right to privacy.









						Blackburn denounces Supreme Court contraception ruling from 1965
					

The more prominent Republicans criticize the Supreme Court’s Griswold v. Connecticut ruling on contraception access, the more the public should care.




					www.msnbc.com
				




The Republicans believe this is all part of a culture war and that they are winning. It’s not a culture war. It’s fascism against Democracy… and Democracy is on the ropes.


----------



## fooferdoggie

SuperMatt said:


> Marsha Blackburn indicated (during the Ketanji Brown Jackson hearing) that the Supreme Court ruling allowing contraception in the name of privacy was wrongly decided.



ya well lets make her medical record public shall we? come on show is how it will work.


----------



## SuperMatt

The SNL cold open lambasted the Supreme Court with a sketch set in the 13th century…


----------



## Yoused

Cmaier said:


> Heck, the constitution doesn’t even say that things like the bill of rights apply to state laws.



*Article IV § 2*
_The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._​
This clause, along with section two of Article VI and section one of 14A, basically places state law under the umbrella of the Constitution and its amendments. To suggest that state law should, based on a strict _verbatim et literatim_ reading, not be required to pass constitutional muster is just downright silliness.

What way be even more troubling a subsequent line is Article IV,
_No Person held to Service or Labor in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or Labor, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labor may be due._​
which is, yes, where slavery was literally enshrined in the Constitution, but "held to service" could in theory become warped into serving the country by bearing its children. A state could claim that, by law, it holds its pregnant women to service, as is protected under Article IV and cannot be terminated in another state. Which is the paranoid, dystopian, _Handmaid's Tale_ outlook – but we already have a Supreme Court justice straight out of that book, and there is no way to guess what limits there might be on their insanity.


----------



## Cmaier

Yoused said:


> *Article IV § 2*​_The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._​
> This clause, along with section two of Article VI and section one of 14A, basically places state law under the umbrella of the Constitution and its amendments. To suggest that state law should, based on a strict _verbatim et literatim_ reading, not be required to pass constitutional muster is just downright silliness.
> 
> What way be even more troubling a subsequent line is Article IV,
> _No Person held to Service or Labor in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or Labor, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labor may be due._​
> which is, yes, where slavery was literally enshrined in the Constitution, but "held to service" could in theory become warped into serving the country by bearing its children. A state could claim that, by law, it holds its pregnant women to service, as is protected under Article IV and cannot be terminated in another state. Which is the paranoid, dystopian, _Handmaid's Tale_ outlook – but we already have a Supreme Court justice straight out of that book, and there is no way to guess what limits there might be on their insanity.



I agree with you! But as for the first part, you just interpreted the constitution to determine that state law is under the umbrella of the constitution. It doesn’t state that, but it’s a reasonable interpretation of the effect. Which is why the Supreme Court, using power not expressly granted to it under the constitution, made a series of similar interpretations in a series of opinions over the years.  

Which goes back to my point - the Supreme Court is happy to add things to the constitution quite often. But now it’s pretending it can’t do that.


----------



## SuperMatt

Cmaier said:


> I agree with you! But as for the first part, you just interpreted the constitution to determine that state law is under the umbrella of the constitution. It doesn’t state that, but it’s a reasonable interpretation of the effect. Which is why the Supreme Court, using power not expressly granted to it under the constitution, made a series of similar interpretations in a series of opinions over the years.
> 
> Which goes back to my point - the Supreme Court is happy to add things to the constitution quite often. But now it’s pretending it can’t do that.



The clause specifically deals with ”privileges and immunities.“ When state laws attempt to take rights away from people, this clause explicitly prevents that. So at least when it comes infringing upon “privileges and immunities” - state law is explicitly under the umbrella of the constitution. There are other mentions of federal supremacy in the constitution too, such as the commerce clause, or prohibiting states from treating residents and nonresidents differently.


----------



## Cmaier

SuperMatt said:


> The clause specifically deals with ”privileges and immunities.“ When state laws attempt to take rights away from people, this clause explicitly prevents that. So at least when it comes infringing upon “privileges and immunities” - state law is explicitly under the umbrella of the constitution. There are other mentions of federal supremacy in the constitution too, such as the commerce clause, or prohibiting states from treating residents and nonresidents differently.



Being under the umbrella of the constitution does not expressly mean that a particular clause or amendment applies to states. Again, the Supreme Court itself said that the constitution does NOT expressly recite that the bill of rights applies to states. They were right in saying that. They also said that despite this, the bill of rights does apply to states because they _interpreted _the constitution and reached that conclusion. 

In some cases their interpretation made more sense than others. 

And if you all want to argue with me that such and such language in the constitution means that the first amendment should apply to states then you are completed missing the point. You are doing exactly what the Supreme Court did (which I agree with!), which is to find that the constitution provides for rights even even though they are not clearly written out in the constitution. 

And the right to abortion was found the same way. It was inherent in the penumbral right to privacy which the Supreme Court decided that states cannot invade. 

And my point is that the same court which changed its mind and now decided that you can’t find a right in the constitution if it’s not written is there is full of shit because the way the Supreme Court has always worked is to interpret the words of the constitution to find things that are not expressly written there. INCLUDING THEIR OWN POWER TO OVERTURN LAWS!  And including their own power to do anything about state laws.


----------



## SuperMatt

Cmaier said:


> Being under the umbrella of the constitution does not expressly mean that a particular clause or amendment applies to states. Again, the Supreme Court itself said that the constitution does NOT expressly recite that the bill of rights applies to states. They were right in saying that. They also said that despite this, the bill of rights does apply to states because they _interpreted _the constitution and reached that conclusion.
> 
> In some cases their interpretation made more sense than others.
> 
> And if you all want to argue with me that such and such language in the constitution means that the first amendment should apply to states then you are completed missing the point. You are doing exactly what the Supreme Court did (which I agree with!), which is to find that the constitution provides for rights even even though they are not clearly written out in the constitution.
> 
> And the right to abortion was found the same way. It was inherent in the penumbral right to privacy which the Supreme Court decided that states cannot invade.
> 
> And my point is that the same court which changed its mind and now decided that you can’t find a right in the constitution if it’s not written is there is full of shit because the way the Supreme Court has always worked is to interpret the words of the constitution to find things that are not expressly written there. INCLUDING THEIR OWN POWER TO OVERTURN LAWS!  And including their own power to do anything about state laws.



That specific clause *explicitly* mentions the states though. And since “privileges” is a synonym for “rights” - then it’s really a literal reading, not an interpretation, to say that the federal government can tell the states not to infringe on those rights. So, in order to make abortion legal some places and not others, one must *interpret* as you said, that abortion is NOT a right.

As for rights not specifically mentioned in the constitution, check out the 9th amendment. That is explicit language allowing for human rights to be protected. A nice way to cover anything that might come up in the future or that they didn’t specifically get to add. Unfortunately, it comes back to interpretation as you mentioned before. Some judges don’t interpret abortion as a human right.

There is a lot of gray area and interpretations to be made between federal and state powers. However, there are some explicit statements about those powers, and protecting “privileges and immunities” is an example of an explicit clause.


----------



## Cmaier

SuperMatt said:


> That specific clause *explicitly* mentions the states though. And since “privileges” is a synonym for “rights” - then it’s really a literal reading, not an interpretation, to say that the federal government can tell the states not to infringe on those rights. So, in order to make abortion legal some places and not others, one must *interpret* as you said, that abortion is NOT a right.




Ok. what you are doing there is interpreting the words of the constitution to come to the conclusion that the first amendment, which expressly says CONGRESS, also means states, right? It’s NOT a literal reading. Its using other literal words, interpreting them, and coming to a conclusion which is NOT literally written there. Again, the Supreme Court, itself, found that the constitution does NOT *literally* prevent the states from impinging on rights from the bill of rights.

And they reached the conclusion NOT based on what you cited - that wasn’t good enough. They reached it based on the 14th amendment!

And guess what else! They did NOT reach the conclusion that all rights in the bill of rights are protected from state interference! The right to indictment by a grand jury is not! (Sorry, fifth amendment!) You like the 6th amendment? Well, states don’t have to give you a jury from the district where the crime was committed, so sorry about that!

The whole framework of ”selective incorporation” (applying much of the bill of rights to the states) is built on the same reasoning - the constitution can mean things that aren’t written out in it -  that the Supreme Courts now rejects with respect to abortion.


By the way, it was not until 1925 (!) that the Supreme Court said the first amendment applies to states. See _Gitlow v. New York_.  Clearly the founders didn’t INTEND to prevent states from impinging free speech, right? They didn’t SAY so. The constitution specifically says “CONGRESS shall make no law…”.  And there was a long tradition of states preventing different kinds of speech!  I mean, Alito says you can only prevent a state from impinging on a supposed right if the right is granted expressly in the constitution or if the right was a traditional and long held fundamental right, yes?  I guess free speech and freedom of religion are the next to go.


----------



## JayMysteri0

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1523300762256015360/

Seriously, you know these mother fuckers lie.  Stop coddling them for fear of them NOT coming back.  Why the FUCK would you want someone who lies back on your show?  Call them out, piss them off, make them run off in tears with the head tucked, then call them out again for NOT having the balls to be on your show and TELL THE TRUTH!  It's so simple, yet so maddening.  It's why these assholes are emboldened to do their shit, because they will NOT get called out.


----------



## Cmaier

SuperMatt said:


> The clause specifically deals with ”privileges and immunities.“ When state laws attempt to take rights away from people, this clause explicitly prevents that. So at least when it comes infringing upon “privileges and immunities” - state law is explicitly under the umbrella of the constitution. There are other mentions of federal supremacy in the constitution too, such as the commerce clause, or prohibiting states from treating residents and nonresidents differently.



By the way, the clause you mention has historically been used primarily for the idea that if you are a citizen of, say, Colorado, and you travel to Texas, then while in Texas you have all the _basic _rights of a citizen of Texas.  It has NOT been interpreted to mean that Colorado has to allow you the rights a Texan has in Texas, or that if the federal government provides a right, then the states have to.

After all, it literally says “Privileges and Immunities of Citizens *in the several States*.”

It meant that you are to be treated as a local (more or less) when you travel between states.

History tells us this is what the founders meant, by the way. It’s similar to a clause in the articles of confederation.


----------



## Roller

JayMysteri0 said:


> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1523300762256015360/
> 
> Seriously, you know these mother fuckers lie.  Stop coddling them for fear of them NOT coming back.  Why the FUCK would you want someone who lies back on your show?  Call them out, piss them off, make them run off in tears with the head tucked, then call them out again for NOT having the balls to be on your show and TELL THE TRUTH!  It's so simple, yet so maddening.  It's why these assholes are emboldened to do their shit, because they will NOT get called out.



Right! How about following-up with "You didn't answer my question. What does 'not focused on at this time' mean?" I think they're afraid of offending their guests to the point that they'll refuse to appear again, but who cares? And Democrats should be pounding away on these issues through every medium available, letting people know the rights that will be taken away.


----------



## SuperMatt

JayMysteri0 said:


> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1523300762256015360/
> 
> Seriously, you know these mother fuckers lie.  Stop coddling them for fear of them NOT coming back.  Why the FUCK would you want someone who lies back on your show?  Call them out, piss them off, make them run off in tears with the head tucked, then call them out again for NOT having the balls to be on your show and TELL THE TRUTH!  It's so simple, yet so maddening.  It's why these assholes are emboldened to do their shit, because they will NOT get called out.



Just saw Reeves on Meet the Press and he refused to rule out banning contraception there too. And he had no solution when Chuck Todd pointed out the severe child poverty problems in Mississippi and how those would get even worse if abortion is banned.

And on a tangent: one legal analyst tossed out the possibility that the court could re-hear the case.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Roller said:


> Right! How about following-up with "You didn't answer my question. What does 'not focused on at this time' mean?" I think they're afraid of offending their guests to the point that they'll refuse to appear again, but who cares? And Democrats should be pounding away on these issues through every medium available, letting people know the rights that will be taken away.



Not to criticize after liking, but it isn't the dems who should be doing the pounding.  

It's a f'n news show about reporting the news & supposedly getting at the truth.  But CNN and the like can't even do that for fear of hurting their guests feelings.  To quote some of that guest's loudest constituents "F' their feelings"!  It's literally Tapper's job to drill down thru the bullshit.  If he can't do that, nobody should watch him unless he's doing puff pieces.  The dems as you say though should use such interviews to demonstrate that if one of these republicans is talking about anything abortion related, it should be assumed as a lie until they can prove otherwise.  They've lost the "innocent until proven guilty" aspect when it comes to honest discussion about this topic and many more.

Back to what I was originally going to post.
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1522975927038316544/


----------



## Alli

What’s going to happen to all these people who swear they interpret the constitution “as it was written” when they realize there were not 50 states mentioned in it? Will we have to dissolve states who didn’t exist at that time?


----------



## JayMysteri0

Alli said:


> What’s going to happen to all these people who swear they interpret the constitution “as it was written” when they realize there were not 50 states mentioned in it? Will we have to dissolve states who didn’t exist at that time?



I've always said that those who claim to be "constitutionalists",  are often telling you that what they mean is,  what they select from the constitution should be considered as gospel.  Otherwise suddenly as "constitutionalists" when they can't use the constitution to make their point, they are the best ones to "interpret" the constitution.  Y'know, like the "interpretationists" they hate so much.


----------



## mollyc

abortion  isn’t mentioned in the constitution because a) it regards women and b) it was legal and relatively safe even for the time. 









						Scarlet Letters: Getting the History of Abortion and Contraception Right
					

Despite anti-abortion activists’ rhetoric, abortion and contraception have been legally practiced in America since the Pilgrims’ arrival.




					www.americanprogress.org
				




stripping away rights of basic contraception is crazy. as one half of a married couple who uses contraception i can’t fathom having to worry about getting pregnant in my late 40s.


----------



## Roller

JayMysteri0 said:


> Not to criticize after liking, but it isn't the dems who should be doing the pounding.
> 
> It's a f'n news show about reporting the news & supposedly getting at the truth.  But CNN and the like can't even do that for fear of hurting their guests feelings.  To quote some of that guest's loudest constituents "F' their feelings"!  It's literally Tapper's job to drill down thru the bullshit.  If he can't do that, nobody should watch him unless he's doing puff pieces.  The dems as you say though should use such interviews to demonstrate that if one of these republicans is talking about anything abortion related, it should be assumed as a lie until they can prove otherwise.  They've lost the "innocent until proven guilty" aspect when it comes to honest discussion about this topic and many more.
> 
> Back to what I was originally going to post.
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1522975927038316544/



I absolutely agree that the news hosts aren't doing their job when they don't ask hard follow-ups to non-sensical or incomplete answers. But I believe everyone should be pounding away as hard and as consistently as possible. Call them out for what they are. If I were running against Rand Paul, I'd flood the market with ads juxtaposing clips of him questioning support for Ukraine with video of death and destruction there. If I were running against MTG, I'd show clips of her claiming not remembering what she said about the insurrection with her actual statements and ask voters if they want someone who lies consistently representing them.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Roller said:


> I absolutely agree that the news hosts aren't doing their job when they don't ask hard follow-ups to non-sensical or incomplete answers. But I believe everyone should be pounding away as hard and as consistently as possible. Call them out for what they are. If I were running against Rand Paul, I'd flood the market with ads juxtaposing clips of him questioning support for Ukraine with video of death and destruction there. If I were running against MTG, I'd show clips of her claiming not remembering what she said about the insurrection with her actual statements and ask voters if they want someone who lies consistently representing them.



Technically that is what many dems are doing.  They just don't go as far as 'r's for fear of diving down to the depths of negativity that r's will do with their own like with Cawthorn.  There's always a fine line that has to be thread by one side over the other, for fear of actually being no different than them.  When elections become too negative it tends to turn off the voters the dems need, but not the r's.

One thing helpful would be if the news shows actually did their jobs with both parties, and both parties could use their own actual words in discussions.  

This isn't a thing though.  Which the r's demonstrated by deciding to NOT even do debates anymore on the pres level.  The r's even hate moderators who ask tough questions that their candidates would then have to answer truthfully or get exposed on stage.


----------



## SuperMatt

JayMysteri0 said:


> Technically that is what many dems are doing.  They just don't go as far as 'r's for fear of diving down to the depths of negativity that r's will do with their own like with Cawthorn.  There's always a fine line that has to be thread by one side over the other, for fear of actually being no different than them.  When elections become too negative it tends to turn off the voters the dems need, but not the r's.
> 
> One thing helpful would be if the news shows actually did their jobs with both parties, and both parties could use their own actual words in discussions.
> 
> This isn't a thing though.  Which the r's demonstrated by deciding to NOT even do debates anymore on the pres level.  The r's even hate moderators who ask tough questions that their candidates would then have to answer truthfully or get exposed on stage.



When Terry McAuliffe uttered this phrase during a Virginia governor’s debate: “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach” - it was running in Glenn Youngkin ads CONSTANTLY starting the next day, all the way to the election.

Dems need to do exactly the same thing, and it’s not like it’s hard to get Republicans saying stupid or offensive stuff on tape. You could do a 5-minute commercial and still leave stuff on the cutting room floor.


----------



## JayMysteri0

SuperMatt said:


> When Terry McAuliffe uttered this phrase during a Virginia governor’s debate: “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach” - it was running in Glenn Youngkin ads CONSTANTLY starting the next day, all the way to the election.
> 
> Dems need to do exactly the same thing, and it’s not like it’s hard to get Republicans saying stupid or offensive stuff on tape. You could do a 5-minute commercial and still leave stuff on the cutting room floor.



As I said though, that's how r's roll.  For some it will be a badge of honor to take things so negative it makes any election seem like a muck fest.  Because in a muck fest you can just make up shit, and deny the truth.  It's harder I know, but dems still have to unfortunately be the "adults" in the room.  I'm not saying NOT using their own words, but don't make that the sole focus.   Dems really need to start hammering an 'r' on what they will actually do to fix a problem.  Not fixing whether or not Curious George is too "woke", but how to actually bring new jobs, improve wages, etc.  There's a reason why "culture wars" have become the 'r' crutch, it's because you don't actually have to say you're going to do the job you'll be elected to do.  Hammer the f'ers with actually printing out a plan on how to fix an economy or infrastructure, instead of waiting for a Biden plan to take credit for after shouting it down.  It ain't pretty.  It ain't inspiring.  But you don't actually have to be, the r's inspire ( some ) dems.

The real thing is that all of this is about motivating the base.  Which the r's realized more than a decade, then learned painfully in the last election.  So the game is who can motivate more, which number wise is the dems, which is why gerry mandering, suppression, and other laws are so important.


----------



## JayMysteri0

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1523279449999155200/
Too soon?


----------



## Renzatic

Imagine an America without abortion. Imagine America without contraceptives of any kind.

Do you have this pictured in your mind's eye? Is it a chaste, Godly America, filled to bursting with humble Christian citizens that take personal responsibility for their actions, and take bended knee to our Lord in Heaven?

It's beautiful, isn't it? This dream.

The reality of it will be gangs of feral 8 year olds with cold sores all over their mouths raiding your trash cans at 3AM for scraps.


----------



## Cmaier

Renzatic said:


> Imagine an America without abortion. Imagine America without contraceptives of any kind.
> 
> Do you have this pictured in your mind's eye? Is it a chaste, Godly America, filled to bursting with humble Christian citizens that take personal responsibility for their actions, and take bended knee to our Lord in Heaven?
> 
> It's beautiful, isn't it? This dream.
> 
> The reality of it will be gangs of feral 8 year olds with cold sores all over their mouths raiding your trash cans at 3AM for scraps.




Phew. I was worried it would be the former. I would be terrified by more christians all over the place.


----------



## Renzatic

Cmaier said:


> Phew. I was worried it would be the former. I would be terrified by more christians all over the place.




Sir, have you accepted Jesus Christ as your lord and savior?

I don't care if you're eating dinner right now. I need to know. Now.


----------



## Cmaier

Renzatic said:


> Sir, have you accepted Jesus Christ as your lord and savior?
> 
> I don't care if you're eating dinner right now. I need to know. Now.




My what and what? Isn’t that guy dead?


----------



## Renzatic

Cmaier said:


> My what and what? Isn’t that guy dead?




He was for a little while, but then he came back. We celebrate this resurrection with rabbits and chocolate eggs.

...haven't we already had this discussion?


----------



## JayMysteri0

F' all that finally achieving that Christian idyllic America that didn't exist.

With the Domestic Infant supply chain in full effect, you can see why r's have been working on something else quietly.



> Republicans have new idea to fix labor shortage: Loosen child labor laws
> 
> 
> Experts in adolescent development worry about the long-term effects of stress on overworked teens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.salon.com




Have a work force contained in adoption housing facilities allowed to learn about working min wage jobs 3 or 4 years before they are kicked out & forced to survive on min wages.  Peddle the dream of "you can achieve anything you want", all the while having denied them the advantages, education, privileges, & wealth they will keep for their own children.  Finally the real dream of the r's,  a worker class grown for the jobs.


----------



## SuperMatt

JayMysteri0 said:


> F' all that finally achieving that Christian idyllic America that didn't exist.
> 
> With the Domestic Infant supply chain in full effect, you can see why r's have been working on something else quietly.
> 
> 
> 
> Have a work force contained in adoption housing facilities allowed to learn about working min wage jobs 3 or 4 years before they are kicked out & forced to survive on min wages.  Peddle the dream of "you can achieve anything you want", all the while having denied them the advantages, education, privileges, & wealth they will keep for their own children.  Finally the real dream of the r's,  a worker class grown for the jobs.



Charles Dickens is rolling over in his grave. He wrote Oliver Twist to draw attention to the cruelty of making kids work (14 hour days when he was a kid). To think such a barbaric practice would reappear in the 21st century? Y’all-Qaeda is winning.


----------



## Herdfan

JayMysteri0 said:


> As I said though, that's how r's roll.  For some it will be a badge of honor to take things so negative it makes any election seem like a muck fest.  Because in a muck fest you can just make up shit, and deny the truth.




But in McAuliffe's case, he said it.  And it wasn't taken out of context.  

So why was it out of bounds to use it?


----------



## JayMysteri0

SuperMatt said:


> Charles Dickens is rolling over in his grave. He wrote Oliver Twist to draw attention to the cruelty of making kids work (14 hour days when he was a kid). To think such a barbaric practice would reappear in the 21st century? Y’all-Qaeda is winning.



Actually the real belief of the Domestic Infant supply chain is that's intended for White children.  The r's don't want you to consider what will happen to Black & Brown babies.  It's all about some goof fantasy of "restocking" the dwindling White base, by not allowing those woman to abort their seed.
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1522739791640416256/

They instead would choose who's allowed birth control and who isn't.  Yes, this the people who big gov't.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1523079556131098624/

So you can understand this has already been going on

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1522948229804937218/

According to their own words, these babies are needed to prop the baby count.  But which portion is actually the dwindling portion of the U.S.?  If you go by who the 'r's want to suppress in voting, who they will make voting easier for, it's not difficult to figure out.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1522700999525343233/

Also, not to kick anyone in the d-, but a thing to consider.  Anyone upset abut this turn of events, but thought voting for HRC was too offensive...  Consider that if she had been president, we wouldn't have certain justices we do now.  Sooo...  congratz on that nose holding.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Herdfan said:


> But in McAuliffe's case, he said it.  And it wasn't taken out of context.
> 
> So why was it out of bounds to use it?



Just so I follow, can you quote where I specifically said any such thing about stuff in the VA election being taken out of context or out of bounds?

I thought what I said is that 'r's don't mind taking an election negative.  Which is a general statement, we've seen happen in the past.  Or as I point, even when it's not an election r's will turn on their own and take it negative as we see with Cawthorn.


----------



## Renzatic

It's like we're watching the Quiverfull movement is being legislated upon all of us here.

Got to have all these babies being pumped out uninterrupted. They'll be our soldiers in the future wars against evil.


----------



## SuperMatt

Just do your nine and plop!

Kate McKinnon did a silly Amy Coney Barrett impression last night on SNL’s Weekend Update.



> “You’re a murderer if you have an abortion, but you’re not a murderer if you put a baby in a bag in mailbox and that tracks. Give it to a stork, who will give it to a lesbian,” she went on. “The lesbians would be happy because there’s more babies. So just do your nine and plop.”


----------



## Herdfan

JayMysteri0 said:


> Just so I follow, can you quote where I specifically said any such thing about stuff in the VA election being taken out of context or out of bounds?
> 
> I thought what I said is that 'r's don't mind taking an election negative.  Which is a general statement, we've seen happen in the past.  Or as I point, even when it's not an election r's will turn on their own and take it negative as we see with Cawthorn.




Specifically, you didn't.

But I also don't think using a direct quote is going negative.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Herdfan said:


> Specifically, you didn't.
> 
> But I also don't think using a direct quote is going negative.



I don't think I said such a thing either.

You are still trying to tie two different points together as A point I didn't make.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Just let this sink in
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1523472149389791233/
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1523458858437406720/
Why?  Just answer why?

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1523343712788525056/

And...
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1523487452328910850/


----------



## Eric

Seems fair...


__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/ulr4o6


----------



## Deleted member 215

Yeah, I’ve had enough of the “stop the steal” crowd pearl-clutching over their “sacred institutions”. You all have nothing valid to say about “sanctity” for at least the next decade.


----------



## JayMysteri0

More thoughts from Twitter

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1523414925384716290/
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1523671083043659776/

And some *speculation*...
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1523359141997080576/
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1523401090795933696/
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1523360959686873088/


----------



## JayMysteri0

Oh, as far as the speculation above, and people possibly talking about it...

Seems it's been an USA Today opinion piece already



> Supreme Court abortion leak investigation and the curious case of Clarence Thomas and Co.
> 
> 
> The leak of a draft abortion opinion should investigated, but what about Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court justice whose wife is an election denier?
> 
> 
> 
> www.usatoday.com


----------



## mollyc

JayMysteri0 said:


> Oh, as far as the speculation above, and people possibly talking about it...
> 
> Seems it's been an USA Today opinion piece already



is there a non paywall version of this? probably not.


----------



## JayMysteri0

mollyc said:


> is there a non paywall version of this? probably not.



I forgot how to do it.

I think @SuperMatt knows how to skirt the paywall

Friend clued me, perhaps this will work


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 12ft |
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 12ft.io




Update:  Nope.  Just removed signage asking for money.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Was listening to the Wellred podcast which is 3 liberal “redneck” standup comedians. Normally they don’t get political but this really weighed on them and they don’t think it’s a laughing matter. One of them lives in MTG's district and said just about everybody he knows either had an abortion or paid for one. One of the cohosts said he has also paid for friends' abortions. They come from a poor white background. Meanwhile, with my middle class northern California background I know very few people who have had an abortion, admittedly some might have that just haven’t talked about it. Nobody in my circle has paid for a friend’s abortion, that I am aware of.

So if these guys are to be believed, it sounds like there’s an epidemic of abortion having in the poor south. This isn’t exactly news, but accordingly these bans will affect the poor the most, the people least equipped to have kids and will become a drain on the welfare system. But, hey, a woman’s highest calling is to make more babies for the reich, and a good amount of babies will be born into that belief system. You don’t need to pay your bills when you’re in a cult.


----------



## SuperMatt

JayMysteri0 said:


> I forgot how to do it.
> 
> I think @SuperMatt knows how to skirt the paywall
> 
> Friend clued me, perhaps this will work
> 
> 
> Update:  Nope.  Just removed signage asking for money.



I can only get around The NY Times and Wash post paywalls because they give subscribers 10 “gift” articles a month. That’s usually plenty for sharing here.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Was listening to the Wellred podcast which is 3 liberal “redneck” standup comedians. Normally they don’t get political but this really weighed on them and they don’t think it’s a laughing matter. One of them lives in MTG's district and said just about everybody he knows either had an abortion or paid for one. One of the cohosts said he has also paid for friends' abortions. They come from a poor white background. Meanwhile, with my middle class northern California background I know very few people who have had an abortion, admittedly some might have that just haven’t talked about it. Nobody in my circle has paid for a friend’s abortion, that I am aware of.
> 
> So if these guys are to be believed, it sounds like there’s an epidemic of abortion having in the poor south. This isn’t exactly news, but accordingly these bans will affect the poor the most, the people least equipped to have kids and will become a drain on the welfare system. But, hey, a woman’s highest calling is to make more babies for the reich, and a good amount of babies will be born into that belief system. You don’t need to pay your bills when you’re in a cult.



It won't be a drain on the welfare system, because as Amy insists those children should be put up for adoption.  Thus adding to the Domestic Infant supply pool.  Or what will be known later I'm sure as the Strategic Infant Supplemental Supremacist Youth program.  She believes that woman should give up their children so that woman with the means can adopt them as infants, furthering the dwindling base her party needs.


----------



## Renzatic

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> One of them lives in MTG's district and said just about everybody he knows either had an abortion or paid for one.




Corey Forrester. He lives about a town over from me in Chickamauga.

His claims don't surprise me in the least. We like to act all pious on Sunday, but every other day of the week, we're all a bunch of ho-bags.


----------



## Yoused

Renzatic said:


> Corey Forrester. He lives about a town over from me in Chickamauga.
> 
> His claims don't surprise me in the least. We like to act all pious on Sunday, but every other day of the week, we're all a bunch of ho-bags.



Is that not the point of religion? You can Ted Bundy all week long, as long as you apologize to christ on Sunday and do the cannibalism thing to make it all good.


----------



## Renzatic

Yoused said:


> Is that not the point of religion? You can Ted Bundy all week long, as long as you apologize to christ on Sunday and do the cannibalism thing to make it all good.




Yeah, pretty much. So long as you feel bad about it on Sunday, you can sin all you want Monday through Saturday.

It's God's biggest loophole. How to be saved, and have fun too!


----------



## Joe

The long game is criminalizing abortion, and making it a crime to even have a miscarriage. Then it will be a felony, and now those women cannot vote. 

This is what you get when you go high when republicans go low. I keep telling everyone that you cannot play fair and be nice with people that lie, cheat, and steal their way. Conservatives, and mainly conservative white men and women are scared as fuck of becoming the minority in this country and will do ANYTHING to stay in power. ANYTHING!


----------



## Renzatic

Joe said:


> The long game is criminalizing abortion, and making it a crime to even have a miscarriage. Then it will be a felony, and now those women cannot vote.




Considering a good 20% of pregnancies end up in miscarriage...

...wow. We're gonna run out of jail space!


----------



## Joe

Renzatic said:


> Considering a good 20% of pregnancies end up in miscarriage...
> 
> ...wow. We're gonna run out of jail space!




I have a friend that is pro-life. She has always voted Republican because of that issue. She also has had 2 or 3 miscarriages over the last few years. I'm curious to ask her opinion on being a criminal according to the party she votes for.


----------



## Renzatic

Joe said:


> I have a friend that is pro-life. She has always voted Republican because of that issue. She also has had 2 or 3 miscarriages over the last few years. I'm curious to ask her opinion on being a criminal according to the party she votes for.




I'm counting down the days until the fallout from nixing Roe v. Wade becomes yet another example of Democrat tyranny that the Republicans will run against.


----------



## fooferdoggie

Renzatic said:


> I'm counting down the days until the fallout from nixing Roe v. Wade becomes yet another example of Democrat tyranny that the Republicans will run against.



caring anbout anyone seems to be tyranny to republicans.


----------



## Renzatic

fooferdoggie said:


> caring anbout anyone seems to be tyranny to republicans.




From what I can tell, tyranny is when their policies end up effecting them personally.

Remember when Right to Work was a big Republican talking point? I do. Your place of business has no obligation to keep you on board, and can fire you for any reason whatsoever. Don't like it? Whine somewhere else, libtard.

Then the pandemic came, and suddenly all these businesses were requiring that their employees either get vaccinated, or look for another job. Suddenly, Right to Work laws were yet another example of big government tyranny. After all, these people need their jobs to live, and they shouldn't be let go over something they consider an act of personal freedom, down entirely to personal choice!


----------



## Joe

Renzatic said:


> From what I can tell, tyranny is when their policies end up effecting them personally.
> 
> Remember when Right to Work was a big Republican talking point? I do. Your place of business has no obligation to keep you on board, and can fire you for any reason whatsoever. Don't like it? Whine somewhere else, libtard.
> 
> Then the pandemic came, and suddenly all these businesses were requiring that their employees either get vaccinated, or look for another job. Suddenly, Right to Work laws were yet another example of big government tyranny. After all, these people need their jobs to live, and they shouldn't be let go over something they consider an act of personal freedom, down entirely to personal choice!




They never care until it affects them. 

The same people that say "Just comply" were running around with "I will not comply" social media pics when it came to covid vaccines.


----------



## Renzatic

Joe said:


> The same people that say "Just comply" were running around with "I will not comply" social media pics when it came to covid vaccines.




They don't have a coherent political standpoint. They're just a bunch of people jumping from one outrage to the next, always screaming about how X or Y is DESTROYING AMERICA, even if X or Y was something they supported previously, and was supposed to Save America.

It's knee-jerk reactionism taking to the nth degree.


----------



## Yoused

Renzatic said:


> Considering a good 20% of pregnancies end up in miscarriage...




My understanding is that that number is _waaaay_ too low. In the real world, a sexually active woman will conceive repeatedly and have a "difficult period" instead of becoming pregnant. If a zygote is to be classified as a person, just about every woman in the world will instantly be guilty of serial manslaughter.


----------



## Renzatic

Yoused said:


> My understanding is that that number is _waaaay_ too low. In the real world, a sexually active woman will conceive repeatedly and have a "difficult period" instead of becoming pregnant. If a zygote is to be classified as a person, just about every woman in the world will instantly be guilty of serial manslaughter.




Well, it might be slightly different, since most natural miscarriages are God's will.

...but hey, we'll obviously need a specially trained police force to determine that.


----------



## fooferdoggie

Renzatic said:


> Well, it might be slightly different, since most natural miscarriages are God's will.
> 
> ...but hey, we'll obviously need a specially trained police force to determine that.



yes the police force that cant tell a gun from a empty hand.


----------



## Renzatic

fooferdoggie said:


> yes the police force that cant tell a gun from a empty hand.




We really need to look at this from a different perspective. Abortions are loathed because they're performed in hospitals, by those godless doctors using their damnable sciences.

What we need to do is find a righteous way to terminate a pregnancy. For that, I suggest we shoot the fetuses. When the miscarriage police come by to investigate, the mothers-that-were can always say they heard a noise, and decided to exercise their 2nd Amendment right as guaranteed by the Constitution.

Also, it looked like a black guy. I'm not racist, but...


----------



## mollyc

Renzatic said:


> We really need to look at this from a different perspective. Abortions are loathed because they're performed in hospitals, by those godless doctors using their damnable sciences.
> 
> What we need to do is find a righteous way to terminate a pregnancy. For that, I suggest we shoot the fetuses. When the miscarriage police come by to investigate, the mothers-that-were can always say they heard a noise, and decided to exercise their 2nd Amendment right as guaranteed by the Constitution.
> 
> Also, it looked like a black guy. I'm not racist, but...



that doesn’t work either. 









						Alabama Woman Who Was Shot While Pregnant Is Charged in Fetus’s Death (Published 2019)
					

Marshae Jones was five months pregnant when she was shot in the stomach. The police say she initiated a fight that led to the shooting.




					www.nytimes.com


----------



## Renzatic

mollyc said:


> that doesn’t work either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alabama Woman Who Was Shot While Pregnant Is Charged in Fetus’s Death (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> Marshae Jones was five months pregnant when she was shot in the stomach. The police say she initiated a fight that led to the shooting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com




Wait a second. Let me get this straight, since I can't read the article. 

She got shot, and she's being charged with the deal of the fetus? How does that make sense?


----------



## mollyc

Renzatic said:


> Wait a second. Let me get this straight, since I can't read the article.
> 
> She got shot, and she's being charged with the deal of the fetus? How does that make sense?



exactly. the article is from 2019 so not sure if there is an update.


----------



## mollyc

maybe you can read the bbc article. 









						Alabama woman charged after losing unborn baby in shooting
					

The pregnant mum was initially charged with manslaughter after her unborn child was killed inside her.



					www.bbc.com
				




i’ll look for an update


----------



## mollyc

charges were apparently dropped. but still. 









						Alabama: attorney drops charges against pregnant woman shot in stomach
					

Lawyers defending the woman argued the state used a ‘flawed and twisted rationale’ that ‘ignores the law and ignores reason’




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Renzatic

mollyc said:


> charges were apparently dropped. but still.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alabama: attorney drops charges against pregnant woman shot in stomach
> 
> 
> Lawyers defending the woman argued the state used a ‘flawed and twisted rationale’ that ‘ignores the law and ignores reason’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theguardian.com




That's just sick.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

The Roe Disaster — And What To Do About It
					

Reproductive rights are on the chopping block because of dark GOP schemes and Democrats’ duplicity — but this fight is not over.




					www.levernews.com
				




"It’s also a reminder of how minoritarian the United States government is. While the vast majority of Americans support the right to an abortion in at least some circumstances, *five Supreme Court justices appointed by two presidents who lost the popular vote are positioned to overturn that right* — and the judges’ draft opinion scoffs at the idea that they have any responsibility to represent what the public wants."


----------



## SuperMatt

Renzatic said:


> Wait a second. Let me get this straight, since I can't read the article.
> 
> She got shot, and she's being charged with the deal of the fetus? How does that make sense?



And charges were initially DROPPED against the person who actually pulled the trigger. The system is working as intended.


----------



## JayMysteri0

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1523752283023892482/





Bonus
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1523842705004060675/

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1524032418377867264/


----------



## Yoused

And, of course, where would we be without the incite of Raphael,

*Cruz in an appearance on (redacted) Monday said the protests, which came after the Supreme Court leak that shows the Court is prepared to overturn Roe v. Wade, revealed "complete hypocrisy" by Democrats and the media. 

"On January 6 of 2021, you had tens of thousands of people peacefully protesting, and yet the corporate media and Democrats slander them with the made-up term 'insurrectionist,' … And yet in this instance, they are not willing to call off their goons even now, even now, as this has the potential to escalate and escalate further," Cruz said, referencing the protestors in front of the Justices' homes.*​
Thanks, Canada, will you please take him back now?


----------



## SuperMatt

Regarding Alito and his deference to ancient common law:

I wonder if Alito regularly puts insanity like this in his drafts, but it gets edited out by others before it becomes public. It makes him look horrible. He cares more about common law of the 17th century than about actual human beings living in the 21st century. He, as a white Catholic man, would be at the top of the food chain in such a society (arguably he is anyway but the idea of minorities getting rights seems threatening to him). So of course he longs for days when his tribe is basically unopposed by women, non-white people, etc. He has told on himself and it isn’t pretty.

I listened to a story about all the South American countries that, despite a much heavier Catholic influence than the US, are removing their abortion bans. Why are we going the other way? We have fascists in charge. Each Republican President has picked far right judges. They work constantly to take away the right to vote, and when you take that away, the rest of the rights just fall like dominos. It starts with the unelected judges appointed by minority-supported Presidents. Then voting rights are stripped by them, gerrymanders are not blocked by them, and the systematic dismantling of our Democracy continues.

When (not if, when), the popular backlash to this comes, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth from the right. When it becomes clear that 60-70% of people don’t support a supposedly democratic government? All it will take is one “wave” election. And at that point, Congress can aggressively work to displace the fascists. 50 states? DC and PR not states? They could combine a bunch of “mostly land” states and give statehood to other areas, then split CA into 4-5 states if they wanted. Get rid of the guaranteed Senate seats for places like Wyoming or North Dakota. Fewer people than DC, but 2 Senators while DC folks get 0? They can pack the court if they need to. Once they re-align the states, they can push constitutional amendments to get 70% of states approving them. Enshrine rights for abortion, LGBTQ people, WOMEN (how is the ERA still not in the constitution?), etc, etc. Give the power back to *the people* instead of a handful of wealthy power brokers.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Now its being speculated that Clearance Thomas’ extremist activist wife was the leaker to get a few wavering justices onboard. This goes along with Thomas’ “we won’t be bullied” statement. Bullied by each other, sure, but not by the popular will of the people. This also signals to the right to start getting their anti-abortion legislation on the books now. No need to wait. By the time it could get challenged in the supreme court it will be a moot point.

I’ve heard several people say the supreme court only has as much power as we let it and there’s been several times in our history when we’ve given the middle finger to supreme court decisions. Unfortunately they didn’t give specific examples. But year after year Congress refuses to do their damn job and instead outsource it to the supreme court so they can go “Out of our hands. Sorry, not sorry.”


----------



## JayMysteri0

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Now its being speculated that Clearance Thomas’ extremist activist wife was the leaker to get a few wavering justices onboard. This goes along with Thomas’ “we won’t be bullied” statement. Bullied by each other, sure, but not by the popular will of the people. This also signals to the right to start getting their anti-abortion legislation on the books now. No need to wait. By the time it could get challenged in the supreme court it will be a moot point.
> 
> I’ve heard several people say the supreme court only has as much power as we let it and there’s been several times in our history when we’ve given the middle finger to supreme court decisions. Unfortunately they didn’t give specific examples. But year after year Congress refuses to do their damn job and instead outsource it to the supreme court so they can go “Out of our hands. Sorry, not sorry.”



That speculation was actually floated around over the weekend, then made it's way on social media Monday.



JayMysteri0 said:


> And some *speculation*...
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1523359141997080576/
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1523401090795933696/
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1523360959686873088/




Seems the Supreme Court isn't good with it's plausible deniability, because people figured out a WSJ opinion piece laying the ground work posted *before* the leak was somehow very prescient.  It looks more & more like the Supreme Court is just as political as any other body, and willing to play the same games.



> Opinion | What Was the Strategy Behind the Supreme Court Leak?
> 
> 
> Was it meant to galvanize the left or right? It is something of a mystery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com




Hoping none of this is true.


----------



## SuperMatt

The hypocrisy of “how dare you protest at a Supreme Court Justice’s house?” Is pointed out by Jen Psaki.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1524105247177592832/


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Pro life former Tea Party Congressman Joe Walsh had the best response I think you could get from his side. First, he waited a week to chime in. He didn’t want to be part of the reflexive reactionary noise. Second, he has empathy for the pro choice side from the viewpoint of a 2nd amendment supporter who would also be outraged if he woke up one day and the 2nd amendment was repealed. He admits that’s a crass comparison, but no matter how you slice it this would be removing a protected right that has been there since the 70’s. Third, he finds the attacks from the right, well, deplorable…especially from the hyper hypocrites saying the left whines when things don’t go their way.


----------



## mollyc

i am fairly conservative in most topics but abortion needs to be safe and legal.


----------



## SuperMatt




----------



## Herdfan

mollyc said:


> i am fairly conservative in most topics but abortion needs to be safe and legal.




And as rare as possible.


----------



## Eric

SuperMatt said:


> The hypocrisy of “how dare you protest at a Supreme Court Justice’s house?” Is pointed out by Jen Psaki.
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1524105247177592832/



Interesting that these same people have no problem with this right outside the door of a Planned Parenthood.


----------



## mollyc

Herdfan said:


> And as rare as possible.



i’m definitely against late term abortions, excepting the health of the mother, but i cannot judge someone else’s position, regardless of my personal feelings. i would not have one; i would not counsel someone to have one. but i am in a position of privilege to most women in that circumstance and i think everyone has the right to a safe and legal procedure.

i’m also not adopting any extra kids and the system is overwhelmed as it is. this is a decision for a woman and her doctor. not me.


----------



## JayMysteri0

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1525202582758645762/


----------



## SuperMatt

A reminder of what Justice Amy Coney Barrett said during her rushed confirmation hearing.

“Judges can’t just wake up one day and say ‘I have an agenda — I like guns, I hate guns, I like abortion, I hate abortion’ — and walk in like a royal queen and impose their will on the world,” “It’s not the law of Amy. It’s the law of the American people.”


----------



## Roller

Herdfan said:


> And as rare as possible.



This assumes that mechanical contraception (e.g., condoms, IUDs) and pharmacological contraception (e.g., Plan B, RU-486) are widely available and affordable, especially to poor populations that are least likely to have healthcare coverage. Also, none of these methods are infallible, and even some desired pregnancies don't proceed well due to fetal or maternal conditions that are not manifest or can't be detected until quite late, when surgical abortion is the only option.


----------



## Herdfan

Roller said:


> This assumes that mechanical contraception (e.g., condoms, IUDs) and pharmacological contraception (e.g., Plan B, RU-486) are widely available and affordable, especially to poor populations that are least likely to have healthcare coverage. Also, none of these methods are infallible, and even some desired pregnancies don't proceed well due to fetal or maternal conditions that are not manifest or can't be detected until quite late, when surgical abortion is the only option.




Agree 100%.

I just don't think abortion should be used as a form of birth control.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Herdfan said:


> Agree 100%.
> 
> I just don't think abortion should be used as a form of birth control.



That's thing though about this country.  It's about choice.  Taking what for some women is a medically necessary procedure, a life saving procedure, a life altering procedure away based on the choice of those not involved with those women, is completely antithetical of what many believe this country is about.  The fact that some can use abortion as birth control should NOT erase the option for ALL women.  As you say you don't believe it should be used for abortion & that belief / choice / decision should ONLY affect you & yours.  That's where others jump the shark philosophically, when they want to enforce your thought ( _I am NOT saying you specifically, I am saying others who agree with you & then take it too far_ ) onto others without their say so.

It will be the same people wanting to force their choice on others to NOT have a choice, based on personal / religious beliefs.  Nothing scientific or factual.  Then turn around wanting to say "their body, their choice" when it comes to wearing a mask or getting vaccine, completely oblivious to the hypocrisy.  One could always see the game given away when accommodations were made.

_'Okay, we'll distastefully go along if exceptions are made for rape / incest, and provide enough time for a woman to find out and make a choice.'  'NO!  No exceptions!'  'Why?'  NO EXCEPTIONS!  Even a child created from rape should be carried to term by the mother to live with the rape!'_

That's fucked up.

The thing about choice is that it's one choice how to use that choice.  People have shown if you try to limit or ration that choice, it won't be enough for them.  They will want that choice completely removed for others.  Some want it to be choice for them to make choices for others only.  Supposedly choice if it only affects one self (_ if one believes the fetus is a self, that's a personal thing_ ) is left to one's self.  What makes it horrific is the same people who will say that, complain about the intrusion of gov't, want to to use said gov't to enforce their choice on everyone else.  That has to be unacceptable.  Because as we know from the removing of exceptions for abortions, the extremists won't stop with abortion, they WILL be happy with other things being left to the states as well.  Just to enforce their choices on others, and remove choices.



> Senator Says Legalizing Interracial Marriage Was a Mistake, Backtracks Unconvincingly
> 
> 
> Mike Braun of Indiana told reporters that the Supreme Court was wrong to strike down state laws that banned Black and white Americans from wedding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slate.com




That's fucked up.


----------



## Edd

Herdfan said:


> Agree 100%.
> 
> I just don't think abortion should be used as a form of birth control.



Yeah, I doubt a statistically significant amount of people think abortion is proper birth control. And I’m not claiming that’s what you’re saying but right wing media/politicians toss off comments implying that lefties are all horny for and just loving abortions which is such bullshit.

Like, literally nobody likes abortions. People don’t want to perform them or get them but it’s one of life’s unfortunate realities. It sucks. The right wing won’t tell you that though, as a democrat, I just can’t get enough abortions, apparently, like I’m writing some abortion fan fiction right now, I love it so much.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Drama much?
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1525379665623494656/

Because the drama is coming from INSIDE the house
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1525491998609768448/

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1525481658689933312/


----------



## SuperMatt

Margaret Atwood, author of The _Handmaid’s Tale_, has written an article for The Atlantic.









						I Invented Gilead. The Supreme Court Is Making It Real.
					

I thought I was writing fiction in "The Handmaid’s Tale."




					www.theatlantic.com
				






> Although I eventually completed this novel and called it The Handmaid’s Tale, I stopped writing it several times, because I considered it too far-fetched. Silly me. Theocratic dictatorships do not lie only in the distant past: There are a number of them on the planet today. What is to prevent the United States from becoming one of them?


----------



## Joe

SuperMatt said:


> Margaret Atwood, author of The _Handmaid’s Tale_, has written an article for The Atlantic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Invented Gilead. The Supreme Court Is Making It Real.
> 
> 
> I thought I was writing fiction in "The Handmaid’s Tale."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theatlantic.com




That’s where we are headed. Right wing fascism. The Supreme Court is corrupted. We have politicians that are actively fighting against democracy by saying the last election was stolen, and making it harder to vote. The amount of people I see on social media that just love authority is crazy to me. They love authority when they think it’s being used on people they hate. But what they fail to see is that eventually they’ll come for you too.  Scared white conservatives in this country would rather see the US torn apart and collapse than lose power to democrats. 

Get your guns and learn to use them! You’ll need them when crazy republicans turn this country into Gilead. Don’t say I didn’t warn y’all  

It’s happening in front of our eyes and people are just letting it.


----------



## SuperMatt

How much overlap is there between people who opposed vaccine and mask mandates but support abortion bans? Refusing to give up a bit of their own freedom to save lives during a pandemic, but happy to take away the freedom of OTHERS in order to save fetuses?


----------



## Renzatic

SuperMatt said:


> How much overlap is there between people who opposed vaccine and mask mandates but support abortion bans? Refusing to give up a bit of their own freedom to save lives during a pandemic, but happy to take away the freedom of OTHERS in order to save fetuses?




As long as it doesn't die in the womb, then it's God's will. Oh well.


----------



## SuperMatt

I enjoyed this New Yorker article about the right-wing scam of “originalism” when it comes to interpretation of the constitution.









						Amelia Bedelia, Meet Samuel Alito — The New Yorker
					

What the Supreme Court Justice’s leaked draft opinion on abortion reveals about originalism.




					apple.news


----------



## Alli

Herdfan said:


> I just don't think abortion should be used as a form of birth control.



I’ve never seen one thing that suggested anyone uses abortion as birth control. Personally, I don’t believe anyone does. But it’s 100% effective, while birth control is not. Ever looked at the stats on pregnancies to women on the pill?


----------



## Herdfan

Alli said:


> I’ve never seen one thing that suggested anyone uses abortion as birth control. Personally, I don’t believe anyone does. But it’s 100% effective, while birth control is not. Ever looked at the stats on pregnancies to women on the pill?




Stats? No.  But my wife's friend has 2 pill babies so I know it isn't 100%.


----------



## Alli

Herdfan said:


> Stats? No.  But my wife's friend has 2 pill babies so I know it isn't 100%.



So…they made the choice that they didn’t want kids and went on the pill. (That happened to a friend of mine in college as well.) But that choice failed them.


----------



## shadow puppet

Herdfan said:


> I just don't think abortion should be used as a form of birth control.



I seriously doubt that is ever the plan.  At least that's not what I witnessed while holding the hand of two different friends who had abortions since the men who got them into the predicament bailed on taking ownership of their part in the deed. It's a gut wrenching procedure that I don't think any woman desires to find herself in.


----------



## Roller

Herdfan said:


> Agree 100%.
> 
> I just don't think abortion should be used as a form of birth control.



Why would any woman prefer surgical abortion as a form of birth control? It's more expensive (not including the time and cost of travel from states that don't provide it) and is riskier, even though it's safe in good hands. But all the non-surgical options are fallible, and women are often not aware they're pregnant well into the first trimester. Plus, as I said, there are maternal and fetal conditions that only can be addressed by abortion. And what about the states that are considering defining life as beginning at conception, which would technically make several forms of contraception illegal?

The Republicans who are restricting or outright banning abortion don't care about the women who will be most affected, nor are they concerned about their babies' well-being. If they were, they wouldn't be advocating for not providing formula to the few hundred (at most) babies who are under U.S. custody at the border. It's immensely hypocritical to say it's acceptable for the government to regulate what a woman does with her own body when it comes to abortion, but rail against vaccine and mask mandates that help protect others and can make a huge difference in the course of a deadly pandemic, to the individual and common good. 

And I don't doubt for a minute that if someone in Tate Reeves' family or circle wanted an abortion, they would get it and have it kept secret.


----------



## SuperMatt

Alli said:


> I’ve never seen one thing that suggested anyone uses abortion as birth control. Personally, I don’t believe anyone does. But it’s 100% effective, while birth control is not. Ever looked at the stats on pregnancies to women on the pill?



The “abortion used as birth control” is a worn-out anti-abortion trope. Those repeating it may not realize that, but the idea is to paint those having abortions as heartless people who would rather kill a baby than use a condom.


----------



## Roller

I wonder what the "Christian" proponents of restricting or banning abortion would say if asked about the situation in Israel, where abortion is widely available, albeit with some requirements such as committee review that the current health minister thinks should be relaxed.

Under Jewish law, “personhood” begins at birth, and maternal physical and mental well-being always takes precedence. Therefore, a woman's emotional distress may be acceptable grounds for abortion. Even the Talmud, which is the primary text of rabbinic Judaism, says “until forty days from conception the fetus is merely water. It is not yet considered a living being.”


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> The “abortion used as birth control” is a worn-out anti-abortion trope. Those repeating it may not realize that, *but the idea is to paint those having abortions as heartless people who would rather kill a baby than use a condom.*




That is absolutely not what I am saying.  But  happens sometimes.  People get lazy or drunk and hope the odds work in their favor.  (For the record, I have been there.  Had a few long weeks a couple of times and it is certainly no fun.)  No I seriously doubt people would rather kill a baby vs using a condom.

But your choice of words is interesting.  Your post seems to indicate that you think it is killing a baby, which is the position of the anti-abortion side. 

And don't forget, I am not opposed to abortion.  I do think if you can't make a decision by 24 weeks (which is more than reasonable and longer than many other countries) , then you can put it up for adoption.  (Life of the mother excepted.) 

What I find interesting is that a majority of people think overturning RvW will outlaw abortions across the country.  It does not.  

I think this is an opportunity for the Dems if they don't squander it to change some statehouses in Red states.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> That is absolutely not what I am saying.  But  happens sometimes.  People get lazy or drunk and hope the odds work in their favor.  (For the record, I have been there.  Had a few long weeks a couple of times and it is certainly no fun.)  No I seriously doubt people would rather kill a baby vs using a condom.
> 
> But your choice of words is interesting.  Your post seems to indicate that you think it is killing a baby, which is the position of the anti-abortion side.



I didn’t think you were trying to say that. But it has been the point of such a statement from the anti-abortion coalition in the past, which is why I thought it bore a mention.

As for my choice of words, I said that anti-abortion activists are the ones trying to paint people as baby killers. I don’t see how you could read that to think that I agree with them.



Herdfan said:


> What I find interesting is that a majority of people think overturning RvW will outlaw abortions across the country. It does not.




I’d be interested in seeing the poll that indicates that belief. The decision will *allow* abortion to be outlawed across the country. Not every state will do so, but many already have laws on the books that take effect immediately upon the overturning of Roe. So the *effect* of overturning Roe would be immediate abortion bans across *much* of the country.


----------



## Yoused

Herdfan said:


> (Life of the mother excepted.)



Well, there some really ugly stories in which strict late-term abortion bans offer the worst possible outcomes. Abortions after 20 weeks are extremely uncommon, and those that happen because the woman could not make up her mind are vanishing rare. These bans are just plain stupid, and "life of the mother" is a wrong metric.


----------



## Renzatic

Herdfan said:


> What I find interesting is that a majority of people think overturning RvW will outlaw abortions across the country. It does not.




It leaves the issue up to the states, as it was before Roe v. Wade. 22 states are expect to ban it outright with practically no exceptions the moment SCOTUS makes it ruling, with some planning provisions to criminalize those who go out of state to get an abortion while forbiding IUDs and morning after pills.

Don't underestimate the absolutely draconian extremes some of these state governments are willing to go to the moment they're able.


----------



## mollyc

Herdfan said:


> That is absolutely not what I am saying.  But  happens sometimes.  People get lazy or drunk and hope the odds work in their favor.  (For the record, I have been there.  Had a few long weeks a couple of times and it is certainly no fun.)  No I seriously doubt people would rather kill a baby vs using a condom.
> 
> But your choice of words is interesting.  Your post seems to indicate that you think it is killing a baby, which is the position of the anti-abortion side.
> 
> And don't forget, I am not opposed to abortion.  I do think if you can't make a decision by 24 weeks (which is more than reasonable and longer than many other countries) , then you can put it up for adoption.  (Life of the mother excepted.)
> 
> What I find interesting is that a majority of people think overturning RvW will outlaw abortions across the country.  It does not.
> 
> I think this is an opportunity for the Dems if they don't squander it to change some statehouses in Red states.




It's okay to be morally opposed to abortion but still be pro choice. That is where I stand. They are not mutually exclusive. If abortions *have* to happen, they need to be safe and legal.


----------



## Katbel

From Canada we are watching what's happening in US .
We don't understand why there are people caring about life so much, even before birth -mollyc explained it very well-
 but  not  doing anything to stop the killings happening so often, in schools, malls everywhere.
We feel for you  and hope someone will fix this nonsense


----------



## Alli

Herdfan said:


> What I find interesting is that a majority of people think overturning RvW will outlaw abortions across the country. It does not.



Because half the states have trigger laws ready to go into effect if it’s overturned. 

And let’s face it, does it really matter if states like TX are going to refuse to allow its citizens to leave the state so they can get an abortion elsewhere? Does it really matter if states like FL will persecute prosecute a mother who has a miscarriage?


----------



## Joe

Alli said:


> Because half the states have trigger laws ready to go into effect if it’s overturned.
> 
> And let’s face it, does it really matter if states like TX are going to refuse to allow its citizens to leave the state so they can get an abortion elsewhere? Does it really matter if states like FL will persecute prosecute a mother who has a miscarriage?




He wont care...until his daughter has a miscarriage and they come for her.


----------



## JayMysteri0

When the "hate big gov't & intrusion in our lives crowd" is in gov't, NOTHING is safe.  Despite the obvious

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1525874695186300930/


> Oklahoma governor warns tribes not to create abortion havens
> 
> 
> Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) on Sunday warned Native American tribes not to create abortion safe havens if Roe v. Wade is overturned and his state enacts a near-total ban on abortions. Stitt told …
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thehill.com




Because... the "I hate big gov't" crowd wants to use "big gov't" against sovereign land?


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

20 years ago a black person married to a white supremacist activist probably would have made a pretty funny Chappelle Show skit, but in 2022 that's the reality of a supreme court justice and not funny in the slightest.  And even more absurd, Thomas has somehow become the spokesperson for this shit, made even more ironic in his righteous fixation on the supreme court losing the respect of the American people.  It's like taking a dump in somebody's living room and trying to convince people the anger should be aimed at the homeowners for calling you on it.


----------



## Yoused

If I have a thing, I should be able to sell it









						Warren Calls Out Tech Firms for Selling Abortion Clinic Patients’ Location Data
					

Data firms were recently shown to be selling data on where clinic patients go after their visits and where they live.




					truthout.org


----------



## JayMysteri0

In case there's still the one soul out there pretending to NOT know what really motivates abortion discussion for one side.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1528047017771114502/

Along with the reminder of the "separation of Church & State", includes ALL Churches.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1527851396485332992/


----------



## JayMysteri0

Time for the facepalm borne from creepiness & faux shock

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1533817703734968320/

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1533802942708559873/


----------



## SuperMatt

JayMysteri0 said:


> Time for the facepalm borne from creepiness & faux shock
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1533817703734968320/
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1533802942708559873/



When the crazy “People of Praise” cult was brought up, the Republicans screamed and cried that those asking questions were being mean to Amy because of her faith.

But they had no problem accusing Ketanji Brown Jackson of being a pedophile…


----------



## SuperMatt

Thank goodness they stopped this guy before he could commit violence:









						Armed man arrested near Supreme Court justice's home, allegedly made threats — ABC News
					

Kavanaugh has been on the court since 2018.




					apple.news
				






> McConnell used the incident to call on the House to pass legislation increasing protection for Supreme Court Justices and their families.



Meanwhile, he’s hard at work blocking legislation to protect little kids from being gunned down. Priorities.


----------



## JayMysteri0

SuperMatt said:


> Thank goodness they stopped this guy before he could commit violence:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man upset with Uvalde, leaked abortion ruling arrested outside Kavanaugh's home: FBI — ABC News
> 
> 
> He allegedly had a gun, two magazines, pepper spray, zip ties and more on him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> apple.news
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, he’s hard at work blocking legislation to protect little kids from being gunned down. Priorities.



Are we sure it wasn't just an attempt at "political legal discourse"?   

I mean. I don't see muscomitch getting worked up over the assassination of the judge in Wisconsin.



> A former judge was killed in his Wisconsin home in a targeted attack, officials say
> 
> 
> A former Wisconsin judge was killed Friday in what authorities are calling a targeted attack by a suspect who also had other government officials as targets, a source familiar with the investigation told CNN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com




Musco's only concern is that Beerchugger is necessary for his agenda, so he needs all the protection in the world.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1534578785474977792/

We would literally have guns off the street yesterday.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

American woman who had incomplete miscarriage while vacationing in Malta not allowed to get abortion
					

Jay Weeldreyer said that his partner, Andrea Prudente, is at risk of a life-threatening infection if the fetal tissue isn't promptly removed.




					www.cbsnews.com
				




This didn’t happen in the US but you can look forward to it happening in the  US soon.


----------



## Deleted member 215

The Know Your Enemy podcast did an interesting history of the pro-life movement, how it essentially started as a Catholic pet issue that Evangelicals and Protestants were reluctant to get near and as late as 1974 (after Roe, mind you), conservative institutions like the Southern Baptist Convention were saying that abortion should be legal (albeit restricted)--not to mention Ronald Reagan legalizing abortion in California when he was governor. People act like everything was more conservative in the past, but this widespread support for outright banning it is relatively recent.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

TBL said:


> The Know Your Enemy podcast did an interesting history of the pro-life movement, how it essentially started as a Catholic pet issue that Evangelicals and Protestants were reluctant to get near and as late as 1974 (after Roe, mind you), conservative institutions like the Southern Baptist Convention were saying that abortion should be legal (albeit restricted)--not to mention Ronald Reagan legalizing abortion in California when he was governor. People act like everything was more conservative in the past, but this widespread support for outright banning it is relatively recent.




Similarly, I mentioned in the gun threat that it was Ronald Reagan who banned open carry in CA, albeit as a result of witnessing armed Black Panthers, but he still did it.


----------



## SuperMatt

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> American woman who had incomplete miscarriage while vacationing in Malta not allowed to get abortion
> 
> 
> Jay Weeldreyer said that his partner, Andrea Prudente, is at risk of a life-threatening infection if the fetal tissue isn't promptly removed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This didn’t happen in the US but you can look forward to it happening in the  US soon.



The cruelty is the point.

At the time of Roe v Wade, we also passed Title IX. Everybody associates it with sports, but that wasn’t what it was meant for. At the time, graduate programs literally had quotas limiting how many women they would admit. Engineers, doctors, lawyers... All intentionally limited female participation.

Systemic sexism - wonder why we still have a gender pay gap today?

The right wants to take us back 60-70 years to a time when white men controlled everything and had women and minorities under their thumbs.


----------



## LIVEFRMNYC

Well it just got overturned. 

But states have the right to ban or allow it as they please.  We already know what the majority of southern states will do.


----------



## fooferdoggie

well the clones have started. Woman will suffer so much in the red states. Trump put in lying justices just like himself.


----------



## LIVEFRMNYC

I wonder if women from red states can make a trip to blue states to get an abortion, or would they need to prove they are a permanent resident with State I.D do such?


----------



## SuperMatt

LIVEFRMNYC said:


> Well it just got overturned.
> 
> But states have the right to ban or allow it as they please.  We already know what the majority of southern states will do.



We KNOW what will happen as a result of this. It’s a part of our history.

Enjoy the summer. While the court is out of session, they can’t take away anymore of our rights.


----------



## fooferdoggie

LIVEFRMNYC said:


> I wonder if women from red states can make a trip to blue states to get an abortion, or would they need to prove they are a permanent resident with State I.D do such?



a few states are trying to even make that illegal. its crazy the control they are attempting. of course these same states could care less about he kids born.


----------



## SuperMatt

LIVEFRMNYC said:


> I wonder if women from red states can make a trip to blue states to get an abortion, or would they need to prove they are a permanent resident with State I.D do such?



I haven’t read the ruling, but I read that abortion-rights states already have laws in the works to protect those who come from other states to get an abortion.


----------



## GermanSuplex

Elect dumb evangelical bible thumpers, and you get these results.

Or, elect stupid conmen who have no moral compass or concern for or against abortion but will overturn it anyways because they find it politically expedient, and you get the same results.

There's no denying that if you are a "pro-life" Trump supporter, this is a huge victory.

A majority of supreme court judges, three of which were seated by a president who didn't have the support of the majority of Americans, made this decision. It will be reversed again. Abortions will still happen. You can't govern a woman's body, its that simple. I actually am not oblivious to the argument that people feel strongly towards unborn children. It's not that hard of a concept to grasp, really. Most people who support a woman's right to choose are not "pro-abortion". It's "pro-choice". I would like to have resources available for pregnant women and victims of sexual assault and rape. You know, kinda like what Planned Parenthood does, which they want to gut as well.

But the simple fact remains that an unborn child resides inside of a woman's body, and I believe people should have complete autonomy over their body, regardless of what I think. _Its not. my. decision._ Period.

There are so many reasons outside of "irresponsibility" that a woman may need to terminate a pregnancy that its asinine these conservative judges - not elected by the American people, directly or indirectly thanks to our outdated electoral system - stripped away a half-century of precedent.

My only hope is some of these judges live long enough to see their decision overturned and Roe vs. Wade is re-codified into law, with additional protections. A woman's right to healthcare and autonomy over her own body should be absolute, period.

Hopefully, this encourages democrats to get out the vote. Democrats win when turnout is high. If we don't, expect more rights to be stripped away. They're already chipping away at voting rights, when they should be doing the opposite.


----------



## LIVEFRMNYC

fooferdoggie said:


> a few states are trying to even make that illegal. its crazy the control they are attempting. of course these same states could care less about he kids born.






SuperMatt said:


> I haven’t read the ruling, but I read that abortion-rights states already have laws in the works to protect those who come from other states to get an abortion.




That's crazy.   It's one thing to say, not on our land, but to extend that elsewhere is just being vindictive.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

It’s a trifecta! All 3 branches of government have now lost the respect of a majority of Americans.


----------



## Deleted member 215

Honestly, all one had to do was read about the Dred Scott decision and Plessy vs. Ferguson and lose respect for the SCOTUS. But at least we could tell ourselves "it's better now".

Expect more rights-rollbacks to come.


----------



## Eric

Done and done. Would love for Republicans to explain this... regulation won't work for gun control but it will work for abortions?

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540337911538786305/


----------



## SuperMatt

TBL said:


> Honestly, all one had to do was read about the Dred Scott decision and Plessy vs. Ferguson and lose respect for the SCOTUS. But at least we could tell ourselves "it's better now".
> 
> Expect more rights-rollbacks to come.



Relying on the court for rights has been shown to be a failure. A federal law (and possibly a constitutional amendment) protecting bodily autonomy will be needed.

Because if Congress says abortion must be legal throughout the country, I could see this court killing such a law.


----------



## Eric

Local Fox News affiliate who refused to cover the hearings now have their pants at their ankles covering this one, I had to change the channel. Anytime someone is stripped of their fundamental rights Fox News is front and center.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

TBL said:


> Honestly, all one had to do was read about the Dred Scott decision and Plessy vs. Ferguson and lose respect for the SCOTUS. But at least we could tell ourselves "it's better now".
> 
> Expect more rights-rollbacks to come.












						Kavanaugh, Alito, Roberts and Thomas wrote opinions overturning Roe
					

1973's landmark decision on abortion rights was overturned by a Republican majority




					www.salon.com
				




"Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh all wrote their own concurring opinions. In his concurrence, Thomas wrote that the court should now "reconsider" its decisions that found a right to contraception, sex between consenting adult men, and same-sex marriage — and "correct the error" made in cases like "Griswold, Lawerence and Obergefell." 

Our politics have become a cartoonish horror movie.

Republicans: "Here's exactly what we are going to do"

Does it.

Democrats: "I can't believe they just did that."


----------



## Deleted member 215

Y'all should've voted for the Hill-dawg, just saying. 

Many Republicans voted for Trump for this reason alone. They're getting more for that vote than they ever could've imagined.


----------



## leman

Next they will go after birth control. Sterilisation is already pretty much impossible in many places from what I hear. I cannot fathom the stupidity and despicability of what is happening. So much to America, the land of freedom. Voter suppression, police unaccountability, now female slavery... where does this crap even come from?


----------



## Eric

TBL said:


> Y'all should've voted for the Hill-dawg, just saying.
> 
> Many Republicans voted for Trump for this reason alone. They're getting more for that vote than they ever could've imagined.



That and Democrats could fight it by stacking the courts, but they don't have the will or backbone for anything. They constantly get walked over and have their asses handed to them as a result.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Eric said:


> That and Democrats could fight it by stacking the courts, but they don't have the will or backbone for anything. They constantly get walked over and have their asses handed to them as a result.




And then expect people to vote for them after witnessing their nonstop ineffectual parade.  

Their only selling point right now is that the Republican agenda is so over the top evil.


----------



## Clix Pix

I am just sickened.....


----------



## SuperMatt

leman said:


> Next they will go after birth control. Sterilisation is already pretty much impossible in many places from what I hear. I cannot fathom the stupidity and despicability of what is happening. So much to America, the land of freedom. Voter suppression, police unaccountability, now female slavery... where does this crap even come from?



That is how we started the country. Some want to take us back to those days.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

I remember back when Trump was elected some people on the left quite vocally removed their Republican friends from their lives without bothering to find out if that friend actually supported Trump. I imagine this ruling is going to cause another avalanche of that behavior, probably even more than the Trump separations.

When the issue was only Trump there was possibly a chance for a reconciliation, but since then the Republican party has said and done so many things that are grotesquely horrific to the left that I see any reconciliation as near impossible. Who has the time or interest to go “Where do you stand on these 20 major actions and platforms?”


----------



## Eric

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> And then expect people to vote for them after witnessing their nonstop ineffectual parade.
> 
> Their only selling point right now is that the Republican agenda is so over the top evil.



^ This. The party is in shambles, they're simply weak and cannot get anything done and frankly I'm ashamed to even associate with them anymore. They'll lose it all and hopefully learn and grow a pair next time around. Republicans are bullies, at some point you have to fight fire with fire.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Eric said:


> ^ This. The party is in shambles, they're simply weak and cannot get anything done and frankly I'm ashamed to even associate with them anymore. They'll lose it all and hopefully learn and grow a pair next time around. Republicans are bullies, at some point you have to fight fire with fire.




I think a major problem is there are so many micro parties within the Democrat party that they are incapable of uniting on anything, no matter how important. Meanwhile the Republican party is a borg hivemind. Sure you may get some dissenting voices but it's never enough to make a difference.


----------



## Eric

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> I think a major problem is there are so many micro parties within the Democrat party that they are incapable of uniting on anything, no matter how important. Meanwhile the Republican party is a borg hivemind. Sure you may get some dissenting voices but it's never enough to make a difference.



Right, I think their diversity is a crutch and I get that, sort of a catch 22. However, issues like this are ideals everyone in the party is solidly behind and when it's telegraphed as easily as this was they need to gather, come up with a plan and fight. 

I get they don't have enough of the majority to stack the courts now but next time they do, they need to get something done. @Herdfan is right to criticize the party on this point, they've always been passive and weak when it comes to fighting to get anything done.


----------



## Eric

Obama's response...


__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPeopleTwitter/comments/vjpuoe


----------



## fooferdoggie

Eric said:


> Obama's response...
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPeopleTwitter/comments/vjpuoe



sad part its just going to get worse.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Eric said:


> Right, I think their diversity is a crutch and I get that, sort of a catch 22. However, issues like this are ideals everyone in the party is solidly behind and when it's telegraphed as easily as this was they need to gather, come up with a plan and fight.
> 
> I get they don't have enough of the majority to stack the courts now but next time they do, they need to get something done. @Herdfan is right to criticize the party on this point, they've always been passive and weak when it comes to fighting to get anything done.




For one thing they can stop (almost exclusively) going after the mythical white male swing voter, a near extinct species. They do that and they’ll be “Oh wow, who are all these other people? There sure are a lot of them. Maybe we should ask them what they want and do that.”

The Democrat party started its deterioration when they decided to go after big money like the Republicans during the Clinton administration. I think it’s no coincidence Trump voters love him for his rallies. The only time they see a Democrat is when they’re driving by in their car between major cities.


----------



## ronntaylor

But her emails!

There's no difference between the GOP & Dems!

Bernie or Bust!

Who wouldathunkit!!


----------



## Runs For Fun

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540381462008143876/

Sure it will orange man.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

ronntaylor said:


> But her emails!
> 
> There's no difference between the GOP & Dems!
> 
> Bernie or Bust!
> 
> Who wouldathunkit!!




"It would be best for the country if I retired now, but I really want to do it during Hillary Clinton's presidency because that would be historically special (unlike a black president I guess)"  

-Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

The dark irony of what historically special event was actually accomplished partially due to this decision is painful.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Runs For Fun said:


> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540381462008143876/
> 
> Sure it will orange man.




Part of me wants to believe that even Trump knows that this made for great campaign rhetoric but has the potential of being consequentially disastrous in achieving it. Out of all his claimed beliefs to get votes this has to be the one he personally gives the least amount of shits about. It’s questionable that he even cares about his kids. He sure as fuck doesn’t care about anybody else’s.


----------



## SuperMatt

Not enough young people vote. That’s what this comes down to. You can blame the Democratic politicians if you want. And maybe they need to be blamed for not doing better with pushing young people to turn out.

If young people voted at the same rates as old people, Democrats would have supermajorities. How do we know? Look at Obama - young people turned out for Obama, and we got 60 D senators. Democrats need a candidate that will energize young people to vote. OR young people could just get out there and do it.


----------



## Eric

How about that, Joe.


__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/vjqovd


----------



## SuperMatt

Eric said:


> How about that, Joe.
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/vjqovd



He can join Susan Collins in clutching their pearls.

Whaaaaat? You mean judges from the Federalist society voted to overturn Roe v Wade? This is SHOCKING!!!!

I just read to confirm what I thought - 6 of 9 justices all hail from this extreme right society. That is fucking crazy-ass shit. Talk about the real-world Illuminati....









						What Is The Federalist Society And How Does It Affect Supreme Court Picks?
					

The Federalist Society is a hugely powerful, nationwide organization of conservative lawyers which will be instrumental in helping President Trump pick the next Supreme Court nominee. NPR's Mary Louise Kelly speaks with Amanda Hollis-Brusky, author of Ideas with Consequences: The Federalist...




					www.npr.org


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Clix Pix said:


> I am just sickened.....




As am I.

This is an appalling day for women, for Americans and for America.


----------



## SuperMatt

DC needs statehood immediately. If Republicans take over the House and Senate and White House, they will undoubtedly pass laws banning abortion in the nation’s capital.

People who cannot vote for members of Congress would have even MORE of their rights taken away by members of Congress.

Get rid of the filibuster, and get us our statehood now. In 2016, only 4% of us voted for Trump and now we risk losing our rights to 3 of his Supreme Court justices? Hell no.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Eric said:


> How about that, Joe.
> 
> 
> He voted Yea on Gorsuch, Barrett & Kavanaugh from
> LeopardsAteMyFace



Because it's Joe...


----------



## Roller

SuperMatt said:


> Not enough young people vote. That’s what this comes down to. You can blame the Democratic politicians if you want. And maybe they need to be blamed for not doing better with pushing young people to turn out.
> 
> If young people voted at the same rates as old people, Democrats would have supermajorities. How do we know? Look at Obama - young people turned out for Obama, and we got 60 D senators. Democrats need a candidate that will energize young people to vote. OR young people could just get out there and do it.



I don't know that capturing the young vote will guarantee victory by Democrats, but many of their current office-holders won't garner enough support from that important demographic, especially at the national level. Biden should not run in '24, nor should Harris, and Sanders is too old. The names of a few governors and senators who haven't run for president have been floated, though I don't see an obvious choice. Regardless, the longer Biden continues to say he'll try again and doesn't step aside, the harder it will be.


----------



## JayMysteri0

SuperMatt said:


> He can join Susan Collins in clutching their pearls.
> 
> Whaaaaat? You mean judges from the Federalist society voted to overturn Roe v Wade? This is SHOCKING!!!!
> 
> I just read to confirm what I thought - 6 of 9 justices all hail from this extreme right society. That is fucking crazy-ass shit. Talk about the real-world Illuminati....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is The Federalist Society And How Does It Affect Supreme Court Picks?
> 
> 
> The Federalist Society is a hugely powerful, nationwide organization of conservative lawyers which will be instrumental in helping President Trump pick the next Supreme Court nominee. NPR's Mary Louise Kelly speaks with Amanda Hollis-Brusky, author of Ideas with Consequences: The Federalist...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.npr.org



Susan Collins shouldn't ever be mentioned anymore, unless it's a story about how she got lost on the way to falling into a sinkhole and no one knows where she is.
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540338547370205185/





_I posted that to make myself feel better, I love that movie._


----------



## JayMysteri0

Roller said:


> I don't know that capturing the young vote will guarantee victory by Democrats, but many of their current office-holders won't garner enough support from that important demographic, especially at the national level. Biden should not run in '24, nor should Harris, and Sanders is too old. The names of a few governors and senators who haven't run for president have been floated, though I don't see an obvious choice. Regardless, the longer Biden continues to say he'll try again and doesn't step aside, the harder it will be.



The problem with that logic / thinking is that the sad reality your list of who should NOT run, would NEVER end.  There's always going to be a reason why someone shouldn't run, as we saw just in the variety of candidates who ran against Biden in the primary.  It isn't possible to rally all the disparate interests in the dem party, which is why focusing on running against someone who has demonstrated they would be worse for the country worked.  

Until there are other party options, I'm afraid we are going to be back to running the choice that has the best chance to defeat the authoritarian of choice from the republican party.


----------



## SuperMatt

Roller said:


> I don't know that capturing the young vote will guarantee victory by Democrats, but many of their current office-holders won't garner enough support from that important demographic, especially at the national level. Biden should not run in '24, nor should Harris, and Sanders is too old. The names of a few governors and senators who haven't run for president have been floated, though I don't see an obvious choice. Regardless, the longer Biden continues to say he'll try again and doesn't step aside, the harder it will be.








It would absolutely flip everything to Democratic control. Is it likely to happen? No; young people either don’t care, or they’re in college and registered to vote in their home state and didn’t get an absentee ballot, or they are working 2 jobs and don’t see a way to vote in their busy schedules (even though they could make time for it).

If any politician found a way to get support of young people, and then get that 18-29 line up to the 65+ line, they’d win it all easily.

Obama was the best at this that I can recall in my lifetime. I think Robert Kennedy had a similar draw. We need somebody who can do the same, and soon.


----------



## mollyc

We need someone neutral. Actually we need a lot of neutral someones. The polarity at the ends of each group is what is killing this country. Who stands for all the normal people? And I don't mean hetero white people as "normal." I mean normal as in people who want an equal chance as everyone else and who can live their lives as they want without unnecessary government mandates and interference.


----------



## Roller

JayMysteri0 said:


> The problem with that logic / thinking is that the sad reality your list of who should NOT run, would NEVER end.  There's always going to be a reason why someone shouldn't run, as we saw just in the variety of candidates who ran against Biden in the primary.  It isn't possible to rally all the disparate interests in the dem party, which is why focusing on running against someone who has demonstrated they would be worse for the country worked.
> 
> Until there are other party options, I'm afraid we are going to be back to running the choice that has the best chance to defeat the authoritarian of choice from the republican party.



Of course we need someone who has a good chance of beating Trump, DeSantis, or whoever runs on the Republican ticket, but I don't think it should be Biden, Harris, or Sanders. However, the process of identifying who it will be needs to begin now, and Biden should open the door to that. If he's concerned that declaring he won't run would be the same as saying his presidency failed, it can happen in the background, though it would be difficult to keep under wraps.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Stepping back from the emotion of it for a bit.

SUPREME COURT TO CONGRESS: We’re not here to legislate. That’s your job.

CONGRESS TO SUPREME COURT: OK. OK. Just one question. What does legislate mean? We asked around and nobody seems to know. Does it involve fund raising? That’s pretty much all we do.


----------



## SuperMatt

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Stepping back from the emotion of it for a bit.
> 
> SUPREME COURT TO CONGRESS: We’re not here to legislate. That’s your job.
> 
> CONGRESS TO SUPREME COURT: OK. OK. Just one question. What does legislate mean? We asked around and nobody seems to know. Does it involve fund raising? That’s pretty much all we do.



They said that in the abortion decision. But when it came to gun rights and voting rights, they changed the laws of Congress (and state legislatures) to suit their personal views, overriding the will of the people.

Again, every bit of “judicial philosophy” from this court is a straight-up lie. Please tell me what their philosophy is. States’ rights? Textual originalism? They literally contradicted THEMSELVES in a span of 24 hours with the gun ruling and the abortion ruling. They’re all over the map and they only care about pushing the extreme ideology of the Federalist society.

Pack the court. Institute term limits.


----------



## ronntaylor

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> "It would be best for the country if I retired now, but I really want to do it during Hillary Clinton's presidency because that would be historically special (unlike a black president I guess)"
> 
> -Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
> 
> The dark irony of what historically special event was actually accomplished partially due to this decision is painful.



I remember some Dems were mad about calls for RBG to retire once Pres. Obama won a 2nd term. I thought she should have announced her retirement after his 2nd inauguration. So many screamed "What about Kennedy?" Kennedy wasn't beset with severe health issues. Kennedy wasn't slipping. And I have no doubt that she was slipping by then. I was surprised that she made it towards the very end of Mango's term. And immediately knew the consequences of her death just seven weeks before the election. I wonder if the court had been 5-4, conservatives over liberals, if CJ Roberts would have ruled with the conservative bloc to eviscerate Roe. Guess it doesn't matter.

At this point the RW court has announced its intentions: rolling back rights for disfavored groups and even large segments of society. Today it's women and their bodily autonomy. Soon it will be queer folk and their right to privacy, and marriage & civil equality. They'll continue to take away voting rights for Black and Brown folk. And once they come out and allow the banning of birth control and the further suppression of civil liberties it'll be too late. So many of us told folk that it was a dangerous game since Bill Clinton.

This shouldn't be a wake up call. Progressives/liberals/socialists/whatever have been hitting the snooze bar for far too long and now they're waking up realizing it's far too late to be just waking up. If they don't come out and keep the GQP from taking over, they deserve everything that's coming. There's no time to sugar coat or talk about what older folk and more moderate voters should have done/are doing. As was stated above, younger voters as a group are just as large as older voting groups. If they standby and allow their futures to be destroyed further, they are simply willing participants in their own destruction.

Stop the BS of supporting and enabling GQP candidates in primaries with expectations that they won't win the general against a decent Dem. There's no way to ensure that they'll lose against the Dem candidate in the general as so many GOP voters will vote simply for the "R" next to the candidate. And too many of them are like-minded. Focus on getting the best Dem to win primaries. And if your preferred doesn't win, support the eventual Dem and hold them accountable. No more time, energy and money for quixotic races. We are not going to win governorships and senate seats in overwhelmingly hostile territory. Focus on US House races, local races and those races where there is a good chance in a purple area. Booker is never going to win in Kentucky. Beto is still a very long shot in Texas.

And fucking stop with the nonsense that "Dems don't do nuffin' for us" bullshit. The Dem-lead House passes legislation and then 48/50 or 49/50 Dem Senators vote to also pass, but Sinema and/or Manchin kill it. That fucking doesn't equal "The Dems." Not by a long-shot: 2% or 4% against 96% or 98%.


----------



## SuperMatt

ronntaylor said:


> I remember some Dems were mad about calls for RBG to retire once Pres. Obama won a 2nd term. I thought she should have announced her retirement after his 2nd inauguration. So many screamed "What about Kennedy?" Kennedy wasn't beset with severe health issues. Kennedy wasn't slipping. And I have no doubt that she was slipping by then. I was surprised that she made it towards the very end of Mango's term. And immediately knew the consequences of her death just seven weeks before the election. I wonder if the court had been 5-4, conservatives over liberals, if CJ Roberts would have ruled with the conservative bloc to eviscerate Roe. Guess it doesn't matter.
> 
> At this point the RW court has announced its intentions: rolling back rights for disfavored groups and even large segments of society. Today it's women and their bodily autonomy. Soon it will be queer folk and their right to privacy, and marriage & civil equality. They'll continue to take away voting rights for Black and Brown folk. And once they come out and allow the banning of birth control and the further suppression of civil liberties it'll be too late. So many of us told folk that it was a dangerous game since Bill Clinton.
> 
> This shouldn't be a wake up call. Progressives/liberals/socialists/whatever have been hitting the snooze bar for far too long and now they're waking up realizing it's far too late to be just waking up. If they don't come out and keep the GQP from taking over, they deserve everything that's coming. There's no time to sugar coat or talk about what older folk and more moderate voters should have done/are doing. As was stated above, younger voters as a group are just as large as older voting groups. If they standby and allow their futures to be destroyed further, they are simply willing participants in their own destruction.
> 
> Stop the BS of supporting and enabling GQP candidates in primaries with expectations that they won't win the general against a decent Dem. There's no way to ensure that they'll lose against the Dem candidate in the general as so many GOP voters will vote simply for the "R" next to the candidate. And too many of them are like-minded. Focus on getting the best Dem to win primaries. And if your preferred doesn't win, support the eventual Dem and hold them accountable. No more time, energy and money for quixotic races. We are not going to win governorships and senate seats in overwhelmingly hostile territory. Focus on US House races, local races and those races where there is a good chance in a purple area. Booker is never going to win in Kentucky. Beto is still a very long shot in Texas.
> 
> And fucking stop with the nonsense that "Dems don't do nuffin' for us" bullshit. The Dem-lead House passes legislation and then 48/50 or 49/50 Dem Senators vote to also pass, but Sinema and/or Manchin kill it. That fucking doesn't equal "The Dems." Not by a long-shot: 2% or 4% against 96% or 98%.



People blame “the Dems” even though Dems support what they want almost all of the time. Reality - there are not ENOUGH Dems. And that is on the voters.

If we kept 60 Dem senators from 2009 until now? We’d have the most liberal Supreme Court of all time, healthcare would most likely be universal. We’d have gotten aggressive with environmental laws. We would never have torn kids from their parents at the border, we would have done something after Sandy Hook, etc, etc, etc.

In the 2 years from 2009-2010, a lot of good things got done. But voters patted themselves on the back instead of going back out to vote in 2010, and that’s when the Tea Party nuts took over.

You have to vote. Every single time. I already knew who was most likely gonna win the primaries in DC this week. I voted anyway. If you don’t vote, there are millions of grumpy old racist men that vote every single time. They will win; and you’ll get another dose of Trump, or maybe even somebody worse.


----------



## Huntn

SuperMatt said:


> They said that in the abortion decision. But when it came to gun rights and voting rights, they changed the laws of Congress (and state legislatures) to suit their personal views, overriding the will of the people.
> 
> Again, every bit of “judicial philosophy” from this court is a straight-up lie. Please tell me what their philosophy is. States’ rights? Textual originalism? They literally contradicted THEMSELVES in a span of 24 hours with the gun ruling and the abortion ruling. They’re all over the map and they only care about pushing the extreme ideology of the Federalist society.
> 
> Pack the court. Institute term limits.



Gotta control Congress first to do that, yet unless a miracle, I’m planning on the GOP to regain control of Congress at the end of this year. This is the tend that would need to be broken. We’ll soon see.


----------



## Herdfan

JayMysteri0 said:


> The problem with that logic / thinking is that the sad reality your list of who should NOT run, would NEVER end.  There's always going to be a reason why someone shouldn't run, *as we saw just in the variety of candidates who ran against Biden in the primary. * It isn't possible to rally all the disparate interests in the dem party, which is why focusing on running against someone who has demonstrated they would be worse for the country worked.
> 
> Until there are other party options, I'm afraid we are going to be back to running the choice that has the best chance to defeat the authoritarian of choice from the republican party.




The problem is they were all the same basic candidate so it was harder for a single one of them to gain any traction.  Biden was the only true moderate in the race.

Same thing happened in the 2016 GOP primary - there was Trump and a bunch of very similar candidates.



Huntn said:


> Gotta control Congress first to do that, yet unless a miracle, I’m planning on the GOP to regain control of Congress at the end of this year. This is the tend that would need t be broken. We’ll soon see.




I'll agree with half that.  Unless something major happens, the House is a foregone conclusion.  Not sure about the Senate though.  Some tough races for both sides and they could be decided by a few thousand votes.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

SuperMatt said:


> People blame “the Dems” even though Dems support what they want almost all of the time. Reality - there are not ENOUGH Dems. And that is on the voters.
> 
> If we kept 60 Dem senators from 2009 until now? We’d have the most liberal Supreme Court of all time, healthcare would most likely be universal. We’d have gotten aggressive with environmental laws. We would never have torn kids from their parents at the border, we would have done something after Sandy Hook, etc, etc, etc.
> 
> In the 2 years from 2009-2010, a lot of good things got done. But voters patted themselves on the back instead of going back out to vote in 2010, and that’s when the Tea Party nuts took over.
> 
> You have to vote. Every single time. I already knew who was most likely gonna win the primaries in DC this week. I voted anyway. If you don’t vote, there are millions of grumpy old racist men that vote every single time. They will win; and you’ll get another dose of Trump, or maybe even somebody worse.




I think a major source of frustration when you live in a blue state is you have to almost rely entirely on swing states to make the difference.  As a California resident, what am I supposed to do about the voters in Michigan?


----------



## JayMysteri0

Roller said:


> Of course we need someone who has a good chance of beating Trump, DeSantis, or whoever runs on the Republican ticket, but I don't think it should be Biden, Harris, or Sanders. However, the process of identifying who it will be needs to begin now, and Biden should open the door to that. If he's concerned that declaring he won't run would be the same as saying his presidency failed, it can happen in the background, though it would be difficult to keep under wraps.



What I am saying though is imagine hypothetically that Biden did step aside.

Who's your choice?

Whoever that choice maybe, there will be a hundred people who will have an issue with your choice.

If Biden remains the alternative that unites as much of the party against whoever the 'r' want to use to roll back freedoms, that may still be our only option.  If that option turns enough voters away, we will get the monster the voters fear so much.  We can bicker as much as we want about who isn't progressive enough, is too conservative, too centrist, whatever.  Yes, it's unfair.  Dems have to continually give up on their priorities, but when the only other party is fanatical in it's quest to literally rule there's little choice.


----------



## Huntn

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> I heard this theory recently. It’s such a hot button platform staple for Republicans that they wouldn’t want it to go away. It’s one of the few remaining “party of” statements they can make with any semblance of integrity. The pro fetus appearance holds a lot of voter value for them. But if Trump gets a second term I’m sure he’ll smash that one into the dirt too, along with all the other traditional Republican values he pisses on.



But now that it is over turned, let’s see how energized the centrist- left wing and citizens at large, becomes or if they even give a shit.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Herdfan said:


> The problem is they were all the same basic candidate so it was harder for a single one of them to gain any traction.  Biden was the only true moderate in the race.
> 
> Same thing happened in the 2016 GOP primary - there was Trump and a bunch of very similar candidates.




There is no traction anymore in these polarized times.  There's extremists and NOT extremists.  The choices are does the country want the extremists or not.

No.  It was NOT even close to the same thing.  The candidates were not like 45, 45 was an exception that enough of an extremist base thought would be "fun" to put in office because he's different.

He was different alright.  Hard to remember the last coup American citizens staged on it's own gov't because of a fair election they didn't win.


----------



## shadow puppet

Funny (not) how this worked out.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540412834789658625/

Oh and women who use period tracking apps, they're coming for you here as well.  "Data from period tracking apps are now subject to subpoenas from deranged Republican prosecutors. Delete them, tell your friends and family to delete them."


----------



## Herdfan

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> I think a major source of frustration when you live in a blue state is you have to almost rely entirely on swing states to make the difference.  As a California resident, what am I supposed to do about the voters in Michigan?




Living in a Red state is the same thing.


----------



## Eric

Dick's Sporting Goods FTW!

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540363274910171137/


----------



## LIVEFRMNYC

Eric said:


> Dick's Sporting Goods FTW!
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540363274910171137/




WOW!!!!!


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Eric said:


> Dick's Sporting Goods FTW!
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540363274910171137/




A lot of the big tech companies did something similar.


----------



## Eric

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> A lot of the big tech companies did something similar.



Right. So far (and I'll give props to Musk if he's behind the Tesla decision)...

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540423103163121671/


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Herdfan said:


> Living in a Red state is the same thing.




I was going to add that but then decided not to, felt a little whataboutism for this occasion.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> A lot of the big tech companies did something similar.



Yes, many gaming companies ( with the exception of course EA ) are doing the same



> PlayStation Studios Break Silence On Abortion Rights After Roe Overturned
> 
> 
> Bungie, Insomniac, and others advocate for abortion rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kotaku.com



https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540389574739865600/

My favorite company has been at the forefront since the leak.
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540367105551347712/


----------



## Roller

JayMysteri0 said:


> What I am saying though is imagine hypothetically that Biden did step aside.
> 
> Who's your choice?
> 
> Whoever that choice maybe, there will be a hundred people who will have an issue with your choice.
> 
> If Biden remains the alternative that unites as much of the party against whoever the 'r' want to use to roll back freedoms, that may still be our only option.  If that option turns enough voters away, we will get the monster the voters fear so much.  We can bicker as much as we want about who isn't progressive enough, is too conservative, too centrist, whatever.  Yes, it's unfair.  Dems have to continually give up on their priorities, but when the only other party is fanatical in it's quest to literally rule there's little choice.



I don't have a choice, as I haven't taken a look at potential candidates, apart from the people who ran in the primary last time and a couple others like Connecticut senator Chris Murphy. I'll vote for whomever is nominated, even if I think there are better alternatives. What I want is for the Democrats to choose someone I and others will be excited to vote for.


----------



## Edd

Eric said:


> Dick's Sporting Goods FTW!
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540363274910171137/



Whoa, I’m shocked they’d get into this.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Roller said:


> I don't have a choice, as I haven't taken a look at potential candidates, apart from the people who ran in the primary last time and a couple others like Connecticut senator Chris Murphy. I'll vote for whomever is nominated, even if I think there are better alternatives. What I want is for the Democrats to choose someone I and others will be excited to vote for.



As I've said though, the problem the democratic party always faces, is that the choice that excites you will turn off many others.  The democratic party hasn't completely sold it's soul for victory at any cost.  That's the advantage one has when fighting an opponent who clings to the rules, if you don't think the rules apply to yourself you'll do whatever it takes to win & stay the winner.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Roller said:


> I don't have a choice, as I haven't taken a look at potential candidates, apart from the people who ran in the primary last time and a couple others like Connecticut senator Chris Murphy. I'll vote for whomever is nominated, even if I think there are better alternatives. What I want is for the Democrats to choose someone I and others will be excited to vote for.




And that's the problem.  The establishment goes out of its way to crush anybody voters have been or might be excited to vote for.  Nobody is going to get excited to vote for centrist mediocrity.  That's what we have now and look how that's turning out.  But I have faith in establishment Democrats' ability to continue to map out their own doom.  I don't know who is more mediocre than Biden but I'm sure they'll find them and force them to the front of the queue, a candidate who will only be appealing to middle-aged white men who aren't racist.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Edd said:


> Whoa, I’m shocked they’d get into this.



I want to say I'm shocked as well, but we've seen this over & over again in Florida.  

The party that is supposedly pro business, goes too far & affects the employees of those businesses.

So the businesses have to step up for their employees.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Personally, I think that this thread title may benefit from an editorial tweak, one which would reflect depressing reality more readily.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Scepticalscribe said:


> Personaly, I think that this thread title may benefit from an editorial tweak, one which would reflect depressing reality more readily.




Agreed.  As the OP I went to edit it but I'm not able to.


----------



## JayMysteri0

One thing, even though conservatives & some religious got their way, they will still have quite a bit to wail about after this



> Scholastic Editor Calls For YA Books/Graphic Novel Pitches On Abortion
> 
> 
> There is a lot of discussion online regarding the US Supreme Court's decision to overturn the Roe Vs Wade legal precedent that legalised abortion across
> 
> 
> 
> bleedingcool.com






> San Diego Comic-Con's *Pam Noles* had previously tweeted in response to a Variety article headlined "Disney, Netflix, Paramount and Comcast to Cover Employee Travel Costs for Abortions After Roe v. Wade Overturned". She wrote "Covering bare minimum of travel costs to seek Basic Reproductive Health Care is good. But! Will those multi-billion corps ALSO cover the legal costs of the states that now have SCOTUS clearance for bounty hunters targeting pregnant women known or suspected?"
> 
> I get the feeling someone somewhere is preparing that reality TV show right now. Probably one of those companies Pam mentioned. She continued "Do their lawyers have protocols in place to handle & evaluate cases of forced pregnancy resulting from domestic rape/abuse that may involve minors? Cuz you never *really* know what's happening in a family bubble. Is the press releases put out by these multi-billion Corps TRUE and ready to ACTUALLY be backed up by the Might Of Their Lawyers, or is it all Performative for the knee-jerk We Got Y'all immediate reaction? THESE are the questions y'all need to ultimately ask, @Variety @CondeNast. Cuz if these multi-billion corps hand-wave away The Deep Dive *Terrifying* Rest Of It? All you're doing is giving them cover. You are their Beard. You are complicit.  Ask the Hard Questions, even if that means your people may be "punished" with being culled from access to actors/creators et and al on red carpet or other interviews *temporarily*. Y'all @Variety @CondeNast are in a unique position to possibly Help if you choose to do so."






> It was an excellent point, will such companies so more than pay lip service to this issue? Well,* Emily Seife*, Senior Editor at Scholastic Press, the biggest publisher of comic books in America, and who recently bought *Maysoon Zayid* and* Shadia Amin*'s graphic novel, _Shiny Misfits_, had a different approach from her own wheelhouse. She tweeted; "I'll mention now that my colleagues and I absolutely do want your YA books with or about abortions. There aren't enough of them and these stories need to be told and normalized, and that's not going to change. Senior Editor at Scholastic Press tweeted out "I'll mention now that my colleagues and I absolutely do want your YA books with or about abortions. There aren't enough of them and these stories need to be told and normalized, and that's not going to change."




There's a whole lot of people & businesses NOT on the same page as conservatives.  Will the conservatives be as understanding as they demand others to be of their views?


----------



## Eric

Eric said:


> Dick's Sporting Goods FTW!
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540363274910171137/






Edd said:


> Whoa, I’m shocked they’d get into this.




Technically speaking they have skin in the game.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Agreed.  As the OP I went to edit it but I'm not able to.



Perhaps you might let the mods know that an amendment might be in order, not least so that the title reflects (deeply depressing) reality.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

What a deeply depressing day.

This is about punishment and control, punishment of women for thinking that they could have a sex life determined by their own desires, preferences and needs, risk sex without consequences (as men have been able to do since the dawn of recorded time), and control of women for daring to dream that biology is not destiny, and that autonomy, independence and being able to exercise choice are possible inn life without being answerable to any man.

I suspect that this judgment is also be a part of this egregious mindset to compel white women (above all, poor white women) to carry pregnancies to term.

We hear all of this wittering on about demographics and declining numbers.

That this will serve to hurt women of colour (especially poor women of colour) even more than white women is simply the sadistic icing and cherry on that particular cake.

Today incontestably proves to me that rights of some groups, - for now, above all, women, white women, black women, brown women, poor women, in the United States are not inalienable but are conditional; and conditional rights can be withdrawn at will, - for they are conditional, not absolute - for they depend on the benevolence, and goodwill, of male legislators (and their fanatical supporters) rather than rights based on the rule of law, rights that citizens might expect to hold by virtue of their shared humanity.

Of course, reproductive rights - and here, I am referring to access to safe, affordable reliable birth control, in other words, contraception - will - inevitably - now be viewed as a target, ripe for repeal. As will the hard-won rights of gay men (and women).


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Scepticalscribe said:


> Perhaps you might let the mods know that an amendment might be in order, not least so that the title reflects (deeply depressing) reality.




This decision has killed my ability to suggest any creative title changes.  I'm open to whatever.


----------



## Runs For Fun

Meanwhile in Ohio...
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540448701855911937/
(read the whole thread)

This fucking guy. He's clearly just trying to make himself look good by pretending to care. He's clearly dug in to pro-life, he doesn't give a shit what the other side has to say.


----------



## Eric

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> This decision has killed my ability to suggest any creative title changes.  I'm open to whatever.



We can rename it to something like "Roe vs. Wade overturned" (or whatever you like) or we can create a new thread and move any posts started today into it, or we can leave as is. It's your thread and your call.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Have abortion rights ever been on a ballot for direct voting anywhere?

I don't understand how in a supposed democracy these decisions are being made by a small group of legislators who clearly don't give a shit about the opinion of the majority.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Eric said:


> We can rename it to something like "Roe vs. Wade overturned" (or whatever you like) or we can create a new thread and move any posts started today into it, or we can leave as is. It's your thread and your call.




I'm fine with that suggested name change.


----------



## GermanSuplex

It's all good, looking forward to a good old-fashioned public shaming for whoever the first republican lawmaker is who gets caught taking his mistress across state lines for easy access to an abortion.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

GermanSuplex said:


> It's all good, looking forward to a good old-fashioned public shaming for whoever the first republican lawmaker is who gets caught taking his mistress across state lines for easy access to an abortion.




I think we should be realistic here.  It will most likely be a Republican supreme court justice who does it first.   This is the world we live in now.


----------



## ronntaylor

SuperMatt said:


> In the 2 years from 2009-2010, a lot of good things got done. But *voters patted themselves on the back instead of going back out to vote in 2010*, and that’s when the Tea Party nuts took over.



My friends and family get sick of me repeating this note from my friend Bernie:

In November 2008 Dems won and went home. Republicans (really, their money bags) lose and went to work.


----------



## ronntaylor

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Have abortion rights ever been on a ballot for direct voting anywhere?
> 
> I don't understand how in a supposed democracy these decisions are being made by a small group of legislators who clearly don't give a shit about the opinion of the majority.



Not sure I would be okay with that? What's next? Ballot Question #2: should the queers be allowed to marry? All the phobes would come out and too many would stay home thinking that their fellow American wouldn't be that evil. They would. Rights are rights or they're based on the whims of a dedicated group of haters determined to keep minority groups in their place.

I shudder thinking about a direct vote on whether or not Black people get equality. Enough already don't care if we have the right to even cast a ballot now.


----------



## GermanSuplex

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> I think we should be realistic here.  It will most likely be a Republican supreme court justice who does it first.   This is the world we live in now.




Yeah, and the same Republican shitbags who helped overturn abortion rights after years of pretending to sob tears of pain for the loss of the unborn will probably rally around whichever one of them gets caught.

Remember - _It’s different when they do it._

I like what Carlin said… “rights aren’t rights if they can be taken away.”


----------



## JayMysteri0

They get their way & some "religious" demonstrate they are still truly shitty people deep inside

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540467204235337729/


----------



## Eric

Sorry but I have to agree. I've all but given up on the party at this point, hoping they'll some day decide to actually take on Republicans, until then this is the shame they deserve to face.









						Democrats called ‘f***ing useless’ for singing ‘God Bless America’ after Roe ruling
					

‘Leave it to Democratic leadership to bring a sing-along to a gunfight where Republicans are using Bazookas and Jet fuel to torch our rights’ wrote one critic on Twitter




					www.independent.co.uk


----------



## JayMysteri0

Where was this response on Jan 6th?

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540362945921785856/

Abortion or BLM protest, they go into preventive mode

Truth is, you can blame dems, but remember there's a large group that will be affected by this, and wanted this.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540398227421274113/


----------



## Runs For Fun

Eric said:


> Sorry but I have to agree. I've all but given up on the party at this point, hoping they'll some day decide to actually take on Republicans, until then this is the shame they deserve to face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats called ‘f***ing useless’ for singing ‘God Bless America’ after Roe ruling
> 
> 
> ‘Leave it to Democratic leadership to bring a sing-along to a gunfight where Republicans are using Bazookas and Jet fuel to torch our rights’ wrote one critic on Twitter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.independent.co.uk



I saw that and thought they truly deserved getting called fucking useless for that.


JayMysteri0 said:


> Where was this response on Jan 6th?
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540362945921785856/
> 
> Abortion or BLM protest, they go into preventive mode
> 
> Truth is, you can blame dems, but remember there's a large group that will be affected by this, and wanted this.
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540398227421274113/



My thoughts exactly


----------



## sgtaylor5

If this keeps up… Mark my words, they are going to come after women's right to vote. Somehow someway. I used to be with them, but not anymore. I know how they think. What they really think is a perfect Christian man is a Southern planter.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

sgtaylor5 said:


> If this keeps up… Mark my words, they are going to come after women's right to vote. Somehow someway. I used to be with them, but not anymore. I know how they think. What they really think is a perfect Christian man is a Southern planter.




Of course they are.

Women, gay people, people of clour aren't viewed as human, or aren't considered fully human, and thus, deserving of human rights.  

This is because their rights (our rights) are conditional.

And that which is conditional can be both given but also taken away.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

GermanSuplex said:


> Yeah, and the same Republican shitbags who helped overturn abortion rights after years of pretending to sob tears of pain for the loss of the unborn will probably rally around whichever one of them gets caught.
> 
> Remember - _It’s different when they do it._
> 
> *I like what Carlin said… “rights aren’t rights if they can be taken away.”*



I have made this very point twice already in this thread.


JayMysteri0 said:


> Where was this response on Jan 6th?
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540362945921785856/
> 
> Abortion or BLM protest, they go into preventive mode
> 
> Truth is, you can blame dems, but remember there's a large group that will be affected by this, and wanted this.
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540398227421274113/



Sure, "not all white women", (not I, never I), but, I will go to my death insisting that white women do not vote for these sadistic maniacs in the GOP and their foul fellow-travellers in anything like the numbers that white men do.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Scepticalscribe said:


> Of course they are.
> 
> Women, gay people, people of clour aren't viewed as human, or aren't considered fully human, and thus, deserving of human rights.
> 
> This is because their rights (our rights) are conditional.
> 
> And that which is conditional can be both given but also taken away.



https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540416006882983936/

The problem with "The Onion" lately is that it's hard to tell if they are making jokes or just speaking the plain truth


----------



## SuperMatt

Scepticalscribe said:


> Women, gay people, people of clour aren't viewed as human, or aren't considered fully human, and thus, deserving of human rights.
> 
> This is because their rights (our rights) are conditional.
> 
> And that which is conditional can be both given but also taken away.



I believe you are correct. 

In this week’s opinions, the court relied on “history” for their decisions. 

Their view of “history” is that it applies to the 19th century or earlier. Women had no rights. Segregation was legal…. And on and on. 

Anything after that doesn’t fit the “historic” test they’ve invented. They are telling everybody this is what they want to return to. 

One other reminder about the early 70s. Title IX was made into law around the same time. And although usually discussed for athletics, it was meant to end quotas limiting women from university scholarships. SCOTUS could claim it’s not “historical” either.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Scepticalscribe said:


> Sure, "not all white women", (not I, never I), but, I will go to my death insisting that white women do not vote for these sadistic maniacs in the GOP and their foul fellow-travellers in anything like the numbers that white men do.



Hmmmm...

Let's check the googles



> More Than Half of White Women in the US Voted For Trump, but Why?
> 
> 
> I'd love to blame Hillary Clinton's loss on men, but I can't. According to exit polls, 53 percent of white women voted for Donald Trump. Does that mean this is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popsugar.com










> When we break it down by gender and race, however, we learn that 53 percent of white women cast their ballots for Trump, while 94 percent of black women and 68 percent of Latina women voted for Clinton.









Technically a majority of White women would disagree with you.  They wanted the guy who would get the ball rolling on this.



> White Women Are Helping States Pass Abortion Restrictions
> 
> 
> Their support for Republican officials has been key to the GOP’s strength in the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theatlantic.com





> It’s common for critics of the new wave of state laws severely limiting access to abortion to say the measures are part of a Republican “war on women.”
> 
> But strong support from most white women, especially those who identify as evangelical Christians, has helped Republicans dominate local government in the states passing the most restrictive measures, from Alabama and Georgia to Kentucky and Missouri. In some of those states, polling shows that opposition to legal abortion is higher among white women than among white men.




For many this isn't a self interest thing, it's a belief thing.  Like Evangelicals many didn't care HOW they got results, just that they got results.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540346407785226242/


----------



## GermanSuplex

Ari Melber had the best breakdown of this I've seen yet. Old white men making calls and citing previous "intent" of founders and outdated rulings. As he said, its like using "intent" of slaveowners to debate voting rights. Fucking stupid.

The last few years have totally wiped out the facade of America being some progressive beacon of diversity and unity. Don't get me wrong, there's few other places I'd rather live, but we've got a large contingent of folks who really want to make this country an oppressive hell hole like Russia. And the people pushing for it the hardest will be the first ones bitching when they have to suffer under the regime they helped create. You think these Christian crusader gun nuts will be walking the streets with rifles if people like Trump have real, actual power?

It will be based on race, sex and class. You must past all three tests, and there's a lot of white guys who don't have the money to hang with Trump, and they'll be treated the same as a black woman in modern America at that point - if they're lucky. Maybe then they'll get it.


----------



## Yoused

Meanwhile, the various Tribes are saying "_You dug yourselves into this hole, and after shitting all over us for the last four centuries, we are not interested in helping you out by setting up clinics on our land_."

There is a lot of NA land in especially Oklahoma as well as several other White-wing states where the state laws could be circumvented. But the Native Americans have been handed scraps and their healthcare situation is already drastically bad. That white people thought they might help out here is laughable at best.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Yoused said:


> Meanwhile, the various Tribes are saying "_You dug yourselves into this hole, and after shitting all over us for the last four centuries, we are not interested in helping you out by setting up clinics on our land_."
> 
> There is a lot of NA land in especially Oklahoma as well as several other White-wing states where the state laws could be circumvented. But the Native Americans have been handed scraps and their healthcare situation is already drastically bad. That white people thought they might help out here is laughable at best.




Fools.

The problem with this is that I assume that women are also to be found among the enumerated Tribes; that Tribe membership is not confined to males.

Thus, such restrictions may well have an impact (negative) on the lives of women from the Tribes.

This is the sort of subject matter on which all of the various groups who may well run the risk of reduction or removal of (various) rights (women - all women, gay men, people of colour, - would do well to make common cause.


----------



## Herdfan

ronntaylor said:


> Not sure I would be okay with that? What's next? Ballot Question #2: should the queers be allowed to marry? All the phobes would come out and too many would stay home thinking that their fellow American wouldn't be that evil. They would. Rights are rights or they're based on the whims of a dedicated group of haters determined to keep minority groups in their place.
> 
> I shudder thinking about a direct vote on whether or not Black people get equality. Enough already don't care if we have the right to even cast a ballot now.




I agree with you here.  We have a Representative Republic for a reason.  I'm generally OK with Initiatives and Referendums as long as the bar to get them on the ballot is high enough.  Sometimes our legislators need a smack to remind them the power is supposed to be vested in the people.


----------



## JayMysteri0

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540425528276041730/


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Always a good hot take.

Key take aways.

The people who made this decision lied in the hearings to get their job.

Pack the court, the only real option.  To the "It will undermine the faith in the court." detractors, only 1 in 4 Americans have faith in the court.  It's never been this low.  You can't make it worse.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

ronntaylor said:


> Not sure I would be okay with that? What's next? Ballot Question #2: should the queers be allowed to marry? All the phobes would come out and too many would stay home thinking that their fellow American wouldn't be that evil. They would. Rights are rights or they're based on the whims of a dedicated group of haters determined to keep minority groups in their place.
> 
> I shudder thinking about a direct vote on whether or not Black people get equality. Enough already don't care if we have the right to even cast a ballot now.




So let's just watch a small group of state ideologues make the decision for everybody and then take it up to the supreme court who we know is already on their side?  What is the proper recourse in this scenario other than go cry in a corner?


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Scepticalscribe said:


> Fools.
> 
> The problem with this is that I assume that women are also to be found among the enumerated Tribes; that Tribe membership is not confined to males.
> 
> Thus, such restrictions may well have an impact (negative) on the lives of women from the Tribes.
> 
> This is the sort of subject matter on which all of the various groups who may well run the risk of reduction or removal of (various) rights (women - all women, gay men, people of colour, - would do well to make common cause.




But don't tribes have the right to provide services to their tribe members but not offer it to people outside the tribe?


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> But don't tribes have the right to provide services to their tribe members but not offer it to people outside the tribe?




Does the definition of who is a member of the tribe include the women of the/that tribe?


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

GermanSuplex said:


> Ari Melber had the best breakdown of this I've seen yet. Old white men making calls and citing previous "intent" of founders and outdated rulings. As he said, its like using "intent" of slaveowners to debate voting rights. Fucking stupid.
> 
> The last few years have totally wiped out the facade of America being some progressive beacon of diversity and unity. Don't get me wrong, there's few other places I'd rather live, but we've got a large contingent of folks who really want to make this country an oppressive hell hole like Russia. And the people pushing for it the hardest will be the first ones bitching when they have to suffer under the regime they helped create. You think these Christian crusader gun nuts will be walking the streets with rifles if people like Trump have real, actual power?
> 
> It will be based on race, sex and class. You must past all three tests, and there's a lot of white guys who don't have the money to hang with Trump, and they'll be treated the same as a black woman in modern America at that point - if they're lucky. Maybe then they'll get it.




When the right says that the left hates the US I usually say wanting and fighting for a better outcome for more people isn't hating the US.  It's a principle that draws people here.  But with the constant onslaught of the worst humans imaginable as politicians, candidates, and deciding voters I have to say that I'm leaning more towards there original assessment.  So congratulations.  You're creating a country worthy of hating and global ridicule.  Eventually they'll probably cross a line where even North Korea will go "Well that's just unnecessarily inhumane."


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> But don't tribes have the right to provide services to their tribe members but not offer it to people outside the tribe?




Yes, of course they do.

But - given how suppressed/oppressed and ill-treated both women and the Tribes (and gay people, and people of colour) have been historically, it seems to me that alliances (of the historically oppressed, which, given today's SOTUS decision may also mean the once and possibly future oppressed) - rather than seekig to stress and emphasise existing divisions - is a better way forward.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Scepticalscribe said:


> Yes, of course they do.
> 
> But - given how suppressed/oppressed and ill-treated both women and the Tribes (and gay people, and people of colour) have been historically, it seems to me that alliances (of the historically oppressed, which, given today's SOTUS decision may also mean the once and possibly future oppressed) - rather than seekig to stress and emphasise existing divisions - is a better way forward.



It's always hard to be told alliances are good for you, when that alliance is only offered because one side suddenly needs you.

Meaning I can understand even if it isn't in their best interests why a tribe would only give an 'FU' to those NOW coming around.  After all, it was other groups who operated against their best interests, that got the side that now wants an alliance let happen.  It's kind of karma.

Is it the best position to take?  No.  But I can empathize.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Scepticalscribe said:


> Does the definition of who is a member of the tribe include the women of the/that tribe?





Doesn't it?  I'm not sure what you are saying.  I'm saying can't they offer reproductive services including abortion to the female members of the tribe and they don't have to offer it to women who aren't members?


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Always a good hot take.
> 
> Key take aways.
> 
> The people who made this decision lied in the hearings to get their job.
> 
> Pack the court, the only real option.  To the "It will undermine the faith in the court." detractors, only 1 in 4 Americans have faith in the court.  It's never been this low.  You can't make it worse.




More on objections to packing the supreme court






"Historically speaking when centrist governments have a lukewarm response to authoritarian movements the authoritarians take power."


----------



## mac_in_tosh

I think it's time that Democrats abandon the "when they go low we go high" attitude. McConnell stole a Supreme Court nomination from Obama because, he said, there were only a few months left in Obama's term and he was so concerned about hearing the will of the people in the upcoming election. Then of course he put a judge on the Court with only a few weeks left in Trump's term. Do you think the GOP as currently constituted would hesitate for one minute to do away with the filibuster in the Senate? Do you think a GOP Attorney General would be so hesitant to charge Democrats involved with something even an order of magnitude less serious than the Jan. 6 insurrection? In recent presidential elections, Democrats have recorded millions of more votes than Republicans. They need to something while they still can.


----------



## ronntaylor

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> So let's just watch a small group of state ideologues make the decision for everybody and then take it up to the supreme court who we know is already on their side?  What is the proper recourse in this scenario other than go cry in a corner?



Black people, Latinos and queer people would be up shit's creek if our rights depended on white people voting on us being equal. There is no question in my mind. That includes tons of so-called progressives/liberals.


----------



## jonblatho

Disappointed — gutted, actually — but not surprised. It's honestly tough not to feel helpless in the face of minority rule.


----------



## SuperMatt

JayMysteri0 said:


> Technically a majority of White women would disagree with you.  They wanted the guy who would get the ball rolling on this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For many this isn't a self interest thing, it's a belief thing.  Like Evangelicals many didn't care HOW they got results, just that they got results.
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540346407785226242/



But it is a bit of a self-interest thing. Women of color are least likely to be able to afford to travel for an abortion. For most white women, traveling for an abortion will be an inconvenience. For most women of color, it will be a near impossibility, With this state-by-state rule, well-off women can get abortions (secretly I’m sure) while opposing the right “officially” to get their right-wing street cred.

My opinion on why 53% of white women voted Trump despite his misogyny? It was a calculation. He was going to ”stick it to” Mexicans, Muslims, and other minorities. Well, he might be anti-woman too, but white women rank above all the darker-colored people, so they are still near the top of the pyramid in his regime.


----------



## JayMysteri0

When you think it won't get worse


> Supreme Court Updates: Abortion rights protester injured as truck hits her
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade, allowing states to ban abortions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com





> Abortion Rights Protester Injured as Truck Hits Her While Crossing Street​Videos circulating online reportedly show the driver of a truck running into pro-abortion rights protesters in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
> 
> Reporter Lyz Lenz said on Twitter Friday evening that a "man in a truck just ran down two peaceful protesters."
> 
> "Everyone seems to be okay," Lenz said in a tweet. "One woman had her foot run over. But it was terrifying."
> 
> Chaotic videos posted by Lenz of the incident show protesters trying to stop the advance of a black truck that continues moving forward.


----------



## SuperMatt

ronntaylor said:


> Black people, Latinos and queer people would be up shit's creek if our rights depended on white people voting on us being equal. There is no question in my mind. That includes tons of so-called progressives/liberals.



There will have to be a fight to get these rights back. As AOC said, voting will not be enough.

For example, I think DC residents would have to engage in a coordinated and extended shutdown of the nation‘s capital in order to get statehood.

We may need nationwide general strikes by women, with solidarity from men as well.

Major companies should forget this “we will pay you to travel for an abortion” nonsense and literally move all operations out of states where abortion is illegal. Economic warfare against the religious extremists.


----------



## SuperMatt

JayMysteri0 said:


> When you think it won't get worse



Pro-life my ass.


----------



## jonblatho

SuperMatt said:


> But it is a bit of a self-interest thing. Women of color are least likely to be able to afford to travel for an abortion. For most white women, traveling for an abortion will be an inconvenience. For most women of color, it will be a near impossibility, With this state-by-state rule, well-off women can get abortions (secretly I’m sure) while opposing the right “officially” to get their right-wing street cred.



Bit of a tangent, but this is exactly why, if you’re looking to donate money in response to today’s news, you shouldn't donate to Planned Parenthood or NARAL or other such organizations — they don’t need more money than they already have. Rather, it’s likely better to donate to abortion funds to help women who need it actually get to places where they can receive medical care.


----------



## ronntaylor

SuperMatt said:


> My opinion on why 53% of white women voted Trump despite his misogyny? It was a calculation. He was going to ”stick it to” Mexicans, Muslims, and other minorities. Well, he might be anti-woman too, but white women rank above all the darker-colored people, so they are still near the top of the pyramid in his regime.



This is exactly why I wouldn't want a vote on whether certain groups should have certain rights. These same voters are voting in "a small group of state ideologues" that restrict rights already.


----------



## Joe

GermanSuplex said:


> Ari Melber had the best breakdown of this I've seen yet. Old white men making calls and citing previous "intent" of founders and outdated rulings. As he said, its like using "intent" of slaveowners to debate voting rights. Fucking stupid.
> 
> The last few years have totally wiped out the facade of America being some progressive beacon of diversity and unity. Don't get me wrong, there's few other places I'd rather live, but we've got a large contingent of folks who really want to make this country an oppressive hell hole like Russia. And the people pushing for it the hardest will be the first ones bitching when they have to suffer under the regime they helped create. You think these Christian crusader gun nuts will be walking the streets with rifles if people like Trump have real, actual power?
> 
> It will be based on race, sex and class. You must past all three tests, and there's a lot of white guys who don't have the money to hang with Trump, and they'll be treated the same as a black woman in modern America at that point - if they're lucky. Maybe then they'll get it.




It’s going to be funny when all the poor white trailer trash in the south that voted for a trump realize they won’t be safe under that regime.


----------



## jonblatho

ronntaylor said:


> This is exactly why I wouldn't want a vote on whether certain groups should have certain rights. These same voters are voting in "a small group of state ideologues" that restrict rights already.



I can see that, but making people vote for these things also rubs people's noses in it.

It's a lot easier for someone to not feel so bad about voting for a representative who votes for things they disagree with, if on the whole they agree more than they disagree with that representative. A solid majority of Americans support the right of a woman to receive an abortion in at least some cases — it is the Republican Party that’s increasingly espousing positions that a majority of Americans — hell, even their *own constituents* — disagree with but still earning their votes.

That’s why Democrats need to quit with the “when they go low, we go high” nonsense. It sounds great, sure, but look where it’s gotten us.


----------



## fooferdoggie

cant I imagine how this could go wrong. a Lying president with the help of a lying Moscow Mitch ignored the lying nominees and the lying judges showed us how honest they were. Of course they ill go after other things even though they deny it.  just a great big bunch of liars.


----------



## SuperMatt

ronntaylor said:


> This is exactly why I wouldn't want a vote on whether certain groups should have certain rights. These same voters are voting in "a small group of state ideologues" that restrict rights already.



This is the argument for the bill of rights in the first place. The 14th amendment expanded this. I agree wholeheartedly that we cannot allow majority rule to decide rights. If we did that, the religion of Islam would have certainly been banned after 9/11/2001 - the sentiment in America was that negative. The majority often has no problem taking away rights from minorities. We cannot just put it to a vote when it comes to human rights.


----------



## Yoused

SuperMatt said:


> This is the argument for the bill of rights in the first place. The 14th amendment expanded this. I agree wholeheartedly that we cannot allow majority rule to decide rights. If we did that, the religion of Islam would have certainly been banned after 9/11/2001 - the sentiment in America was that negative. The majority often has no problem taking away rights from minorities. We cannot just put it to a vote when it comes to human rights.




We have always heard that women amount to about 51% of the population, so that would make them not-a-minority.



Spoiler: but, is that right?







What we see in this image, the dark blue on the left is "excess" males, and where it is dark red on the right, there aremore females. Do the math: A woman's childbearing years are typically between 18 and 40, during almost all of which, there are more men than women in the age group.

Viewed as a whole, the people directly affected by this – women (and girls) who can carry a fetus – are by far a minority of the overall population. Even if you push the bracket of affected from 13~55, they still amount to what looks to me like no more than a third of the country.


----------



## Eric

This sums up how so many people feel about Christianity and dictating laws based on a stupid mythical book.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540382064142233600/


----------



## JayMysteri0

I wonder how much of this will happen that we don't hear about, and what it's long term effects will be?

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540491567336751105/

I wonder how much outcry there would be if say a popular athlete when their contract ended with a team, chose to go elsewhere over the ban?

We know people already lose their shit when celebs speak their mind either way on the topic.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540351738292539393/

I just wonder what happens when more & more businesses, celebs, maybe even athletes act on their beliefs against this ban?


----------



## JayMysteri0

I know it's repetitive, but I really can't express my disgust enough for these two senators

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540352445859127299/
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540529058202746883/






Don't try to duck & run NOW, we've seen you since the beginning.  Enjoy your places in history.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

ronntaylor said:


> Black people, Latinos and queer people would be up shit's creek if our rights depended on white people voting on us being equal. There is no question in my mind. That includes tons of so-called progressives/liberals.




That doesn’t answer the question.  What’s the solution if the supreme court puts them up shit‘s creek?


----------



## JayMysteri0

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> That doesn’t answer the question.  What’s the solution if the supreme court puts them up shit‘s creek?




I think it does.  There isn't supposed to be a solution.  That's why conservatives were so obsessively focused on stacking the courts, even if they had to blatantly shit on any pre existing norms that both parties previously followed.  The only solution isn't possible because the party that is supposed to be standing up for the disenfranchised, has members among them who won't.  Because those members won't be affected by the havoc this supreme court will bring now & in the future, so they don't have to give a f- about anyone else.






As a selfish note, I'm interested in all the things that uncle thomas has indicated he wants to go after next, he somehow left out 'Loving Vs Virginia.  That shows anyone what a flaming d- he is towards any other groups.


----------



## SuperMatt

These abortion bans could be overcome through massive civil disobedience by the medical profession.

All the associations of doctors opposed this ruling, filing briefs against it. Well, time to do something about it. Every doctor in the nation steps up and says “we will still perform abortions; try locking us all up.” 78% of doctors believe there should be *zero* restrictions on abortion. I believe it’s less than 1% who support it being banned.

Remember when the Republicans were screaming about Obamacare and how their health care choices should only be between them and their doctor(s)? What the F ever happened to that line of thinking?


----------



## fooferdoggie

JayMysteri0 said:


> Don't try to duck & run NOW, we've seen you since the beginning.  Enjoy your places in history.



there is no way anyone can trust a republican not to totally ban abortion if they get into office and have a chance now.


----------



## SuperMatt

JayMysteri0 said:


> I wonder how much of this will happen that we don't hear about, and what it's long term effects will be?
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540491567336751105/
> 
> I wonder how much outcry there would be if say a popular athlete when their contract ended with a team, chose to go elsewhere over the ban?
> 
> We know people already lose their shit when celebs speak their mind either way on the topic.
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540351738292539393/
> 
> I just wonder what happens when more & more businesses, celebs, maybe even athletes act on their beliefs against this ban?



Imagine if every top recruit for college athletics refused to go to colleges in abortion-ban states. They love college football more than anything in Alabama. How long would they accept being relegated to the dregs of the NCAA instead of winning championships all the time?

As @ronntaylor has made many posts about unions, they are proof that even in a rigged political system, the people do have the power, if they choose to exercise it.

The right-wingers made fun of Obama for being a “community organizer” but that is exactly what we need, and it’s how he kicked their butts 2 straight elections in his tan suit.


----------



## JayMysteri0

fooferdoggie said:


> there is no way anyone can trust a republican not to totally ban abortion if they get into office and have a chance now.



While I can understand the sentiment since the likes of Susie Van Collins, Joe, and Murkowski are known to be full of shit.  

I don't believe EVERY republican is on board with this, it's just those all out conservative or pandering to them.  We have to remember that abortion wasn't always republican staple nor even an Evangelical one.  It just became one as a way to unite on an ideology over something for the good of the country.  Remember even Reagan, even 45 was on board with abortion & Biden against it, until it was politically expedient not to be.

For some it's a cause, for other it's what's good for their careers.



> The Man Most Responsible for Ending Roe Worries That It Could Hurt His Party
> 
> 
> Former President Donald J. Trump has privately told friends and advisers that a ruling overturning Roe v. Wade will be “bad for Republicans.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com






> When a draft copy of the decision leaked in May, Mr. Trump began telling friends and advisers that it would anger suburban women, a group who helped tilt the 2020 race to President Biden, and would lead to a backlash against Republicans in the November midterm elections.
> 
> In other conversations, Mr. Trump has told people that measures like the Texas state law banning most abortions after six weeks and allowing citizens to file lawsuits against people who enable abortions are “so stupid,” according to a person with direct knowledge of the discussions. The Supreme Court let the measure stand in December 2021.
> 
> For the first hours after the decision was made public on Friday, Mr. Trump was muted in response, a striking contrast to the conservatives who worked in his administration, including former Vice President Mike Pence. Mr. Pence issued a statement saying, “Life won,” as he called for abortion opponents to keep fighting “in every state in the land.”
> 
> For weeks in advance of the ruling, Mr. Trump had been just as muted. In an interview with The New York Times in May, Mr. Trump uttered an eyebrow-raising demurral in response to a question about the central role he had played in paving the way for the reversal of Roe v. Wade.
> “I never like to take credit for anything,” said Mr. Trump, who has spent his career affixing his name to almost anything he could.
> 
> Pressed to describe his feelings about having helped assemble a court that was on the verge of erasing the 1973 ruling, Mr. Trump refused to engage the question and instead focused on the leak of the draft opinion.
> 
> “I don’t know what the decision is,” he said. “We’ve been reading about something that was drawn months ago. Nobody knows what that decision is. A draft is a draft.”
> 
> By early afternoon on Friday, Mr. Trump put out a statement taking a victory lap, including applauding himself for sticking by his choice of nominees. All three of Mr. Trump’s appointees to the court — whom he pushed through with help from Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader — were in the majority in the 6-to-3 ruling. He left unspoken the fact that he repeatedly attacked the court for not interceding on his behalf after he lost the 2020 election.




You can tell who's full of it, by their walking around this decision ( collins, manchin, murkowski ), and others like Pence who are proud of it.


----------



## Roller

SuperMatt said:


> These abortion bans could be overcome through massive civil disobedience by the medical profession.
> 
> All the associations of doctors opposed this ruling, filing briefs against it. Well, time to do something about it. Every doctor in the nation steps up and says “we will still perform abortions; try locking us all up.” 78% of doctors believe there should be *zero* restrictions on abortion. I believe it’s less than 1% who support it being banned.
> 
> Remember when the Republicans were screaming about Obamacare and how their health care choices should only be between them and their doctor(s)? What the F ever happened to that line of thinking?



Sounds great in theory, but more difficult in practice. People often speak of "organized medicine" in the U.S., but in reality, it's not well organized at all. The healthcare system in this country is massively fragmented. Physicians who work for academic and other large institutions are already being advised to consult corporate counsel when caring for pregnant patients who may need an abortion or evacuation of a non-viable embryo or fetus. Even in states that have an exception where a procedure is permitted to save the mother's life in an emergent situations, decisions will be questioned after the fact. 

The situation will also be precarious for obstetricians and other physicians who care for patients in private practice. How many will be willing to jeopardize their ability to support their family and/or risk incarceration? 

Red states with draconian anti-abortion laws will probably see some physicians leave. And they definitely will be less able to recruit physicians from out-of-state or convince locally-trained ones to stay, though the effects will take time, especially in urban areas that already have an abundance of healthcare providers.

It will be more effective if commercial entities and universities in these states begin to have difficulty attracting skilled non-healthcare people. For example, Alabama touts itself as a haven for high-tech companies, especially in space-related industries around Huntsville. They'll have more difficulty filling positions, though I'm sure they'll be able to find some locals who will be perfectly fine living in Gilead.


----------



## Edd

I saw McConnell saying this week that the gun control bill, in his mind, was a way to draw suburban voters closer to the GOP, who own small towns and rural areas, but suburbs not so much.

If he’s correct about that, overturning Roe would wipe that progress out, I’d think.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

One of the whispered fears of white supremecists is that black people will rise up and take revenge for the centuries of oppression.  That pretty much describes Clarence "I'm up for oppressing anybody.  So bring it!" Thomas while still coloring within the lines of the white taskmasters.  They'll just go down the line chopping the rights not in the constitution until they get to his right to marry a white women at which point awkward chuckles will fill the room.


----------



## Eric

Edd said:


> I saw McConnell saying this week that the gun control bill, in his mind, was a way to draw suburban voters closer to the GOP, who own small towns and rural areas, but suburbs not so much.
> 
> If he’s correct about that, overturning Roe would wipe that progress out, I’d think.



That gun bill is useless, a gesture that won't make any difference.


----------



## SuperMatt

Roller said:


> Sounds great in theory, but more difficult in practice. People often speak of "organized medicine" in the U.S., but in reality, it's not well organized at all. The healthcare system in this country is massively fragmented. Physicians who work for academic and other large institutions are already being advised to consult corporate counsel when caring for pregnant patients who may need an abortion or evacuation of a non-viable embryo or fetus. Even in states that have an exception where a procedure is permitted to save the mother's life in an emergent situations, decisions will be questioned after the fact.
> 
> The situation will also be precarious for obstetricians and other physicians who care for patients in private practice. How many will be willing to jeopardize their ability to support their family and/or risk incarceration?
> 
> Red states with draconian anti-abortion laws will probably see some physicians leave. And they definitely will be less able to recruit physicians from out-of-state or convince locally-trained ones to stay, though the effects will take time, especially in urban areas that already have an abundance of healthcare providers.
> 
> It will be more effective if commercial entities and universities in these states begin to have difficulty attracting skilled non-healthcare people. For example, Alabama touts itself as a haven for high-tech companies, especially in space-related industries around Huntsville. They'll have more difficulty filling positions, though I'm sure they'll be able to find some locals who will be perfectly fine living in Gilead.



Yes I agree it would be difficult. Would it be more or less difficult than changing things through voting?

Let’s say we elect enough members of Congress to pass a federal law protecting abortion rights. What’s to say this Supreme Court wouldn’t just overturn such a law? You’d then need to amend the constitution, and you can bet that states with abortion bans aren’t going to ratify such an amendment.

Plus, most states have gerrymandered all like-minded voters into districts where they get their “guaranteed” seats. So at some point, organized civil actions become the only way to change things.

When people were denied the right to vote, they were forced into civil disobedience... because otherwise they were simply at the mercy of those who COULD vote. If today’s GOP denies people the right to vote with gerrymandering and restrictive voting laws, such steps will be necessary once again.

Of course, if young people woke up and realized they don’t NEED to live in a world where school shootings are a fact of their life and they have no freedom to choose whether to reproduce… they could change it all. To be perfectly honest though, I was more worried about college and then finding a way to pay college loans at that age than I was about voting, so can I blame them?


----------



## SuperMatt

JayMysteri0 said:


> I know it's repetitive, but I really can't express my disgust enough for these two senators
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540352445859127299/
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540529058202746883/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't try to duck & run NOW, we've seen you since the beginning.  Enjoy your places in history.



These two would go to a Gallagher show, sit in the front row, and then complain about how shocked they were when they got watermelon juice all over their clothes.


----------



## Deleted member 215

Make no mistake; this is about "state's rights" for about five minutes:









						Pence: 'We must not rest' until abortion is outlawed in every state
					

The court’s 5-4 decision overturned abortion protections that have been in place for nearly half a century, allowing states to decide if they will allow the medical procedure.




					www.politico.com
				




It's almost like "state's rights" is not an actual political position. Who would've thought?


----------



## SuperMatt

Here’s how extreme this ruling is. According to the majority opinion (Alito), here are “legitimate interests”of the state when it comes to regulating abortion:



> Respect for and preservation of prenatal life at all stages of development … the protection of maternal health and safety; the elimination of particularly gruesome or barbaric medical procedures; the preservation of the integrity of the medical profession; the mitigation of fetal pain; and the prevention of discrimination on the basis of race, sex or disability.




Some of these phrases are directly from the most extreme pro-life advocacy groups. They label abortion as a gruesome and barbaric procedure, period. And a fetus cannot feel pain until very late in pregnancy.

These aren’t legitimate at all. Putting them in this opinion decreases the legitimacy of the court. The constitution and rule of law are dead. They have appointed themselves as an unelected super-legislature.


----------



## SuperMatt

TBL said:


> Make no mistake; this is about "state's rights" for about five minutes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pence: 'We must not rest' until abortion is outlawed in every state
> 
> 
> The court’s 5-4 decision overturned abortion protections that have been in place for nearly half a century, allowing states to decide if they will allow the medical procedure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politico.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's almost like "state's rights" is not an actual political position. Who would've thought?



Exactly. They crapped all over states’ rights in the Maine religious school case and the NY gun rights case... but then suddenly cared about States’ rights in the abortion case. A week of whiplash…


----------



## Huntn

In summary today’s suedo-conservatism: 
_States Rights when it serves my position, Federal law when it serves my position, don’t ask for a consistent logic train other than what suits and benefits me, and… btw screw you! _


----------



## Herdfan

Rumor is that WV is going to call a Special Session to legalize abortions based on Rape, Incest (although technically isn't this sort of the same thing as Rape) and Life of the Mother.  

I hope it passes.


----------



## shadow puppet

This is one hell of a graphic.


----------



## leman

Herdfan said:


> Rumor is that WV is going to call a Special Session to legalize abortions based on Rape, Incest (although technically isn't this sort of the same thing as Rape) and Life of the Mother.
> 
> I hope it passes.




Even if it passes it won’t change the fact that freedom and rights in the USA are being eroded. One can’t just take away a fundamental right, then do half a step back to implement a bare minimum (it’s about patients lives!) and then go “oh those liberals are so unreasonable, why can’t they be mature about this”.


----------



## Runs For Fun

And the stupid is already starting.


----------



## Runs For Fun

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540764285651009539/


----------



## LIVEFRMNYC

So the mayor of NYC just announced that everyone out of state is welcome to abortion clinics here.  I highly doubt this city will turn down anyone.    

And I don't think the ban states can do anything about it, cause that falls under constitutional privacy.  

So what was accomplished here, besides making life harder for women who make a choice?


----------



## SuperMatt

LIVEFRMNYC said:


> So what was accomplished here, besides *making life harder for women* who make a choice?



Nailed it!


----------



## JayMysteri0

LIVEFRMNYC said:


> So the mayor of NYC just announced that everyone out of state is welcome to abortion clinics here.  I highly doubt this city will turn down anyone.
> 
> And I don't think the ban states can do anything about it, cause that falls under constitutional privacy.
> 
> So what was accomplished here, besides making life harder for women who make a choice?



States would disagree with you on what they maybe able to do to those who seek out of state abortions.



> Will lawmakers try to ban out-of-state abortions?
> 
> 
> Dobbs sets the stage for states to define what life is, possibly opening the door for legislators to restrict abortion even further.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.king5.com






> Have states tried prohibiting out-of-state abortions?​Yes. GOP legislators in Missouri have tried multiple times to attach amendments to bills that would allow for any party to sue those that either received an abortion or assisted in providing an abortion, including healthcare providers from out-of-state.
> 
> Anti-abortion activists in states like Texas have also been working with state lawmakers to enact Missouri-style proposals, according to Politico.
> 
> So far, the efforts have failed, but Rachel Rebouche, interim dean at Temple University’s Law School, said that Dobbs now clears the way for states to restrict out-of-state abortion because “any travel ban would be premised on the idea that a state can ban abortion."
> 
> However, Rebouche added that the path to pass a law that outright criminalizes out-of-state abortions is an uphill battle because such a law would likely face several legal hurdles.
> 
> “It may be currently a little premature to enact straight-out bans right away,” she said.
> 
> Any state that tries to do so would almost certainly run into federal opposition.
> 
> During remarks Friday at the White House, President Joe Biden warned states to not pass laws or restrictions that would limit a woman's access to reproductive healthcare services in other states.
> 
> Biden said his administration was prepared to help women travel out-of-state to receive such treatment, but he did not elaborate on how exactly he planned to do so.
> 
> A number of major corporations have also told employees they will cover travel costs for individuals seeking abortions. The Walt Disney Co., Netflix, Paramount, Comcast, Sony, Warner Bros and Meta are among the media companies that confirmed they will cover travel costs for abortion-seeking employees.


----------



## JayMysteri0

leman said:


> Even if it passes it won’t change the fact that freedom and rights in the USA are being eroded. One can’t just take away a fundamental right, then do half a step back to implement a bare minimum (it’s about patients lives!) and then go “oh those liberals are so unreasonable, why can’t they be mature about this”.



Amen.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540529686341570561/


----------



## LIVEFRMNYC

JayMysteri0 said:


> States would disagree with you on what they maybe able to do to those who seek out of state abortions.




And let's say they succeed.  What's to stop a women from saying she had a miscarriage?   It's not like they can subpoena medical records without the women's permission.


----------



## Yoused

LIVEFRMNYC said:


> And let's say they succeed.  What's to stop a women from saying she had a miscarriage?   It's not like they can subpoena medical records without the women's permission.




seems irrelevant, though,









						US women are being jailed for having miscarriages
					

More and more American women are facing prison for allegedly harming their unborn baby by using drugs.



					www.bbc.com


----------



## Edd

Man, I can’t believe we’re talking about this. I was born in 1970 and the 70s feel so sane right now.


----------



## SuperMatt

LIVEFRMNYC said:


> And let's say they succeed.  What's to stop a women from saying she had a miscarriage?   It's not like they can subpoena medical records without the women's permission.



How would they know she was pregnant at all? Are they going to start having a pregnancy registry? Will women be forced to take monthly pregnancy tests? Think about how far this would have to go.


----------



## SuperMatt

Yoused said:


> seems irrelevant, though,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US women are being jailed for having miscarriages
> 
> 
> More and more American women are facing prison for allegedly harming their unborn baby by using drugs.
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com



Everybody on the jury voted to convict despite no scientific evidence.


----------



## LIVEFRMNYC

Yoused said:


> seems irrelevant, though,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US women are being jailed for having miscarriages
> 
> 
> More and more American women are facing prison for allegedly harming their unborn baby by using drugs.
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com




That was an actual miscarriage though and she basically told police about her drug use and she didn't know if she wanted the child or not.   

Although the charges and judgement in that case is pure lunacy.    My argument is based on privacy protected by the constitution and hipaa laws.  Women simply don't have to answer personal medical questions.


----------



## fooferdoggie

Yoused said:


> seems irrelevant, though,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US women are being jailed for having miscarriages
> 
> 
> More and more American women are facing prison for allegedly harming their unborn baby by using drugs.
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com



republicans would toss a thousand in jail  for miscarriage if they can catch one or stop one abortion.


----------



## ronntaylor

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> That doesn’t answer the question.  What’s the solution if the supreme court puts them up shit‘s creek?



GFC! It took a concerted effort over nearly 50 years to do it. And it was solidified in the last five years with the election of Mango. All of that with the concerted effort of a hostile nation, and racist, illegal voter suppression and dumb-fuckery on the part of enough Dem/progressive voters. Dems will have to undo it over a few or more years if they maintain control of both the Senate and House, or over several years if they lost either/both during the upcoming midterms.

You asked the question about abortion, but live in a state where equal rights for Queer people *was * on the ballot. And *lost*!! And previously in that "liberal bastion" Latinos suffered at the hands of that same electorate. Same in Hawaii on marriage equality. So in reference to equality for Queer folk, we don't have to imagine our rights, our equality being at the whim of voters. And that's in two liberal, Democratic states. Forget the right-wing, crazed evangelical states. Alabama barely voted for a Dem over a sexual predator (Jones vs Moore) in a Senate race that was way too close for comfort. In that race 60%+ of White women voted for the homophobic, racist predator. Black people, Queer people, Latinos would be up shit's creek if that same electorate voted on any  referendum on whether or not they deserve equality.


----------



## JayMysteri0

LIVEFRMNYC said:


> That was an actual miscarriage though and she basically told police about her drug use and she didn't know if she wanted the child or not.
> 
> Although the charges and judgement in that case is pure lunacy.    My argument is based on privacy protected by the constitution and hipaa laws.  Women simply don't have to answer personal medical questions.



Once again, that's been ANOTHER concern since the leak.



> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> App data could be used to prosecute women under anti-abortion laws
> 
> 
> Pro-choice and privacy campaigners are warning that app data, and other personal data pulled from smartphones, could be used to prosecute ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9to5mac.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _



_Pro-choice and privacy campaigners are warning that app data and other personal data pulled from smartphones could be used to prosecute women who have had abortions …

The concern has been raised in light of the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion that looks set to remove legal protection for both those having abortions and the medical professionals performing them. Indeed, under some state legislation, it could even be illegal to send a text message offering help or support.

CNN reports._



> A wave of new legislation taking aim at abortion rights across the country is raising concerns about the potential use of personal data to punish people who seek information about or access to abortion services online.
> In some of the most restrictive states, digital rights experts warn that people’s search histories, location data, messages and other digital information could be used by law enforcement agencies investigating or prosecuting abortion-related cases.
> Concerns about the digital privacy implications of abortion restrictions come amid a movement by Republican-controlled states, including Georgia, Texas, Mississippi and Oklahoma, in recent years to pass laws severely curtailing access to the service. And they take on additional significance following the leak Monday of the Supreme Court draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade, which guarantees a person’s Constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy before viability (usually around 24 weeks). Overturning the landmark 1973 court ruling would transform the landscape of reproductive health in America, leaving abortion policy up to individual states and potentially paving the way for more than 20 states to pass new laws restricting abortions.



_The piece gives an example of how app data might be used to provide evidence for prosecutions._



> For example, in states that make it a crime to help an abortion-seeker such as Texas and Oklahoma, data from women’s period-tracking or pregnancy apps could end up being subpoenaed as evidence against the person who helped them, said Danielle Citron, a law professor at the University of Virginia and author of the forthcoming book “The Fight for Privacy.” “Let’s say you got your period, stopped your period and then got your period again in a short time,” Citron said. “It’s [potential] evidence of your own criminality, or your doctor’s criminality.”



_Something as basic as a text message offering to drive a friend to the airport – so that they can get an out-of-state abortion – could potentially be used as evidence for a prosecution in some states._



> Some lawmakers have even put forward proposals that would effectively ban citizens from getting out-of-state abortions. Missouri state representative Elizabeth Coleman is pushing a provision that would allow citizens to sue anyone who “aids or abets” a Missouri resident in getting an abortion, including out of state doctors, friends who help arrange transportation or even hosting a website that “encourages or facilitates efforts” of Missouri residents to get elective abortions. And other states could follow suit.



_Many experts have warned that it is impossible for the law to actually prevent abortions – it can only prevent safe abortions. History shows that those who are denied legal access to abortions will instead seek underground alternatives, which can put their life at risk._

As far as privacy...





Suffering something as traumatic as a miscarriage, the authorities may want to speak with you in the future.

Something to consider, the "stand your ground" law.  For some it sounds like a great thing concerning self defense.  Except if you're a woman.  Especially if you're a woman of color.  This is NOT an area that should suddenly involve the authorities, but in some states that may very well be the case very soon.  This entire exercise has been about control & punishment.  You better believe the places that rush to do this, are going to exercise this to make examples of some, to reinforce that control & use that punishment.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

ronntaylor said:


> GFC! It took a concerted effort over nearly 50 years to do it. And it was solidified in the last five years with the election of Mango. All of that with the concerted effort of a hostile nation, and racist, illegal voter suppression and dumb-fuckery on the part of enough Dem/progressive voters. Dems will have to undo it over a few or more years if they maintain control of both the Senate and House, or over several years if they lost either/both during the upcoming midterms.
> 
> You asked the question about abortion, but live in a state where equal rights for Queer people *was * on the ballot. And *lost*!! And previously in that "liberal bastion" Latinos suffered at the hands of that same electorate. Same in Hawaii on marriage equality. So in reference to equality for Queer folk, we don't have to imagine our rights, our equality being at the whim of voters. And that's in two liberal, Democratic states. Forget the right-wing, crazed evangelical states. Alabama barely voted for a Dem over a sexual predator (Jones vs Moore) in a Senate race that was way too close for comfort. In that race 60%+ of White women voted for the homophobic, racist predator. Black people, Queer people, Latinos would be up shit's creek if that same electorate voted on any  referendum on whether or not they deserve equality.




I don’t share your optimism that the Democrats have 2 - 4 years to fix anything, or more specifically have the will or stomach to do it. The incumbent cartel would rather go down in flames.  The national Democrats are the Uvalde police.


----------



## LIVEFRMNYC

JayMysteri0 said:


> Once again, that's been ANOTHER concern since the leak.
> 
> 
> _Pro-choice and privacy campaigners are warning that app data and other personal data pulled from smartphones could be used to prosecute women who have had abortions …
> 
> The concern has been raised in light of the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion that looks set to remove legal protection for both those having abortions and the medical professionals performing them. Indeed, under some state legislation, it could even be illegal to send a text message offering help or support.
> 
> CNN reports.
> 
> 
> The piece gives an example of how app data might be used to provide evidence for prosecutions.
> 
> 
> Something as basic as a text message offering to drive a friend to the airport – so that they can get an out-of-state abortion – could potentially be used as evidence for a prosecution in some states.
> 
> 
> Many experts have warned that it is impossible for the law to actually prevent abortions – it can only prevent safe abortions. History shows that those who are denied legal access to abortions will instead seek underground alternatives, which can put their life at risk._
> 
> As far as privacy...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Suffering something as traumatic as a miscarriage, the authorities may want to speak with you in the future.
> 
> Something to consider, the "stand your ground" law.  For some it sounds like a great thing concerning self defense.  Except if you're a woman.  Especially if you're a woman of color.  This is NOT an area that should suddenly involve the authorities, but in some states that may very well be the case very soon.  This entire exercise has been about control & punishment.  You better believe the places that rush to do this, are going to exercise this to make examples of some, to reinforce that control & use that punishment.





These proposals will be shot to the ground or be completely unenforceable, basically cause it infringes on such a wide scope of privacy issues that NOBODY leaning in any direction would want to corrode.


----------



## fooferdoggie

buy an apple phone to prevent this.


----------



## SuperMatt

LIVEFRMNYC said:


> These proposals will be shot to the ground or be completely unenforceable, basically cause it infringes on such a wide scope of privacy issues that NOBODY leaning in any direction would want to corrode.



Except Clarence Thomas. He’s happy to revisit the legality of gay marriage and the use of contraception.

And he’s FAR from the only one that wants to invade our privacy.

The original post of this thread indicated that even Republicans didn’t want Roe overturned because it went too far. Well, we see that “too far” no longer exists now that the Federalist Society rules America.


----------



## ronntaylor

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> I don’t share your optimism that the Democrats have 2 - 4 years to fix anything, or more specifically have the will or stomach to do it. The incumbent cartel would rather go down in flames.  The national Democrats are the Uvalde police.



It remains to be seen. I remember a lot of similar chatter for the 2020 Senate races in Georgia. And then leading into the runoffs. Dems only need to maintain a majority in the House and 51 votes in the Senate to push through legislation. Even if they Lose one or both these midterms Biden will be wielding his veto pen. And they'd simply need to use outrage and voters need to actually fucking vote in 2024. So between early 2023 and early 2025 is the earliest. Tall order, but no taller than winning *two Senate seats from incumbent Republican control in Georgia*. 

If voters outraged by this ruling and the many years leading up to this don't vote, and vote for the right candidates...


----------



## Runs For Fun

Eric said:


> This sums up how so many people feel about Christianity and dictating laws based on a stupid mythical book.
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540382064142233600/



I consider myself a Christian and I agree with this.


SuperMatt said:


> The original post of this thread indicated that even Republicans didn’t want Roe overturned because it went too far. Well, we see that “too far” no longer exists now that the Federalist Society rules America.


----------



## JayMysteri0

LIVEFRMNYC said:


> These proposals will be shot to the ground or be completely unenforceable, basically cause it infringes on such a wide scope of privacy issues that NOBODY leaning in any direction would want to corrode.



You can say that with the same certainty that some believe Roe Vs Wade wouldn't be overturned?    

With our current political climate, you're betting on the rights of others.



fooferdoggie said:


> buy an apple phone to prevent this.



I was listening to a podcast where two women discussed the various health apps, when it concerned things menstrual.  Basically no app could be particularly trusted.  But the did give the nod to Apple's health app, but since Apple is always completely clear, it was tenative.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1523639381533151233/


----------



## fooferdoggie

Runs For Fun said:


> I consider myself a Christian and I agree with this.



the man that tried to Destroy his party is worried about hurting his party? what a blithering idiot.


----------



## fooferdoggie

JayMysteri0 said:


> I was listening to a podcast where two women discussed the various health apps, when it concerned things menstrual.  Basically no app could be particularly trusted.  But the did give the nod to Apple's health app, but since Apple is always completely clear, it was tenative.



How fast will apple adapt and say they will keep this info safe?


----------



## JayMysteri0

fooferdoggie said:


> How fast will apple adapt and say they will keep this info safe?



I vaguely remember, but I think the claim was that they don't actually keep the info or it isn't attached to a specific person.


----------



## Runs For Fun

fooferdoggie said:


> How fast will apple adapt and say they will keep this info safe?






JayMysteri0 said:


> I vaguely remember, but I think the claim was that they don't actually keep the info or it isn't attached to a specific person.











						How to ensure Apple Health cycle tracking data stays private | AppleInsider
					

Cycle tracking is a feature built into the Apple Health app, and there are plenty of reasons why it shouldn't be handed over to third-party data brokers. Here's how to check your health data privacy.




					appleinsider.com


----------



## LIVEFRMNYC

JayMysteri0 said:


> You can say that with the same certainty that some believe Roe Vs Wade wouldn't be overturned?
> 
> With our current political climate, you're betting on the rights of others.




Nowadays, I say nothing with certainty. 

But I still think the majority of both sides are very stringent when it comes to privacy.  And many might be oblivious now, but when they realize it can put their own privacy in danger, there's going to be a whole lot of backpedaling.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Runs For Fun said:


> How to ensure Apple Health cycle tracking data stays private | AppleInsider
> 
> 
> Cycle tracking is a feature built into the Apple Health app, and there are plenty of reasons why it shouldn't be handed over to third-party data brokers. Here's how to check your health data privacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> appleinsider.com



_-Looks down-_

I'm fairly certain I don't need that information.

I'm just trying remember what the ladies in that podcast discussed about apps & privacy that track their cycles.


----------



## mac_in_tosh

Now that the Court, in its strict adherence to the Constitution, has overturned Roe v. Wade, maybe it will turn its attention to gun laws and base decisions on the fact that the 2nd amendment specifically refers to well-regulated militias, the regulation of which by the government is spelled out in the Constitution. Maybe, guided by its belief in the sanctity of life, it will rule that individual ownership of guns, especially guns of war that were never anticipated in the 18th century, is not guaranteed by the Constitution...NOT


----------



## JayMysteri0

LIVEFRMNYC said:


> Nowadays, I say nothing with certainty.
> 
> But I still think the majority of both sides are very stringent when it comes to privacy.  And many might be oblivious now, but when they realize it can put their own privacy in danger, there's going to be a whole lot of backpedaling.



Once again, I believe that's the same thinking that happened BEFORE Roe Vs Wade was overturned.  Once the leak came out though, more & more people were looking into how over zealous state gov't may try to find those who do seek abortions out of state to circumvent the state's control.

Some of the information involved doesn't require legal permission, but can be purchased.  Texas already has the little abortion bounty hunter workaround in effect, it could very well be turned into purchasing particular data to out those believed to have sought an abortion.


----------



## JayMysteri0

mac_in_tosh said:


> Now that the Court, in its strict adherence to the Constitution, has overturned Roe v. Wade, maybe it will turn its attention to gun laws and base decisions on the fact that the 2nd amendment specifically refers to well-regulated militias, the regulation of which by the government is spelled out in the Constitution. Maybe, guided by its belief in the sanctity of life, it will rule that individual ownership of guns, especially guns of war that were never anticipated in the 18th century, is not guaranteed by the Constitution...NOT








Not gonna happen.  Everyone now knows that guns have more protections than women.


----------



## SuperMatt

LIVEFRMNYC said:


> Nowadays, I say nothing with certainty.
> 
> But I still think the majority of both sides are very stringent when it comes to privacy.  And many might be oblivious now, but when they realize it can put their own privacy in danger, there's going to be a whole lot of backpedaling.



I don’t know that the right of privacy is that highly valued.

After 9/11, we subjected everybody to pretty invasive searches to get on a plane.

When crime was high in NYC, a lot of people liked “stop and frisk” I recall.

Abortion bans amount to a violation of privacy. Why should anybody be entitled to know if somebody else is pregnant or not?

I hope you are right and that people see privacy going away and backtrack.

But the court’s willingness to flip-flop on states’ rights in the space of 24 hours makes me think that they will be fine with invading privacy in some cases while leaving it intact in others. Because, the indignity of stop-and-frisk and the absolute privacy of unlimited “dark money” in politics co-exist. If privacy can be bought, the wealthy are going to be just fine with it.


----------



## LIVEFRMNYC

SuperMatt said:


> I don’t know that the right of privacy is that highly valued.
> 
> After 9/11, we subjected everybody to pretty invasive searches to get on a plane.
> 
> When crime was high in NYC, a lot of people liked “stop and frisk” I recall.
> 
> Abortion bans amount to a violation of privacy. Why should anybody be entitled to know if somebody else is pregnant or not?
> 
> I hope you are right and that people see privacy going away and backtrack.
> 
> But the court’s willingness to flip-flop on states’ rights in the space of 24 hours makes me think that they will be fine with invading privacy in some cases while leaving it intact in others. Because, the indignity of stop-and-frisk and the absolute privacy of unlimited “dark money” in politics co-exist. If privacy can be bought, the wealthy are going to be just fine with it.




I agree, but when it comes to the medical side of things.  That might be a little too much.     

I guess it's a wait and see game right now.  I think Reps are just throwing everything at the wall to appease their demographic and see what sticks.  What's scary is the lack of fight coming from Dems.   Speeches without action ain't cutting it.


----------



## SuperMatt

LIVEFRMNYC said:


> I agree, but when it comes to the medical side of things.  That might be a little too much.
> 
> I guess it's a wait and see game right now.  I think Reps are just throwing everything at the wall to appease their demographic and see what sticks.  What's scary is the lack of fight coming from Dems.   Speeches without action ain't cutting it.



Susan Collins and Joe Manchin could put their money where their mouth is. If they want to protect abortion rights: end the filibuster, pass a law making abortion legal nationwide, then they can fix at least part of their “oopsie!” when they approved Kavanaugh et al. But until the filibuster goes away, or they get 60 senators, what can the Democrats actually do other than make speeches? Sinema might end the filibuster for abortion rights, but Manchin? Not bloody likely.


----------



## JayMysteri0

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540769077656014850/




https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540807815232634887/


----------



## Roller

The Alabama law, hypocritically called the Human Life Protection Act, makes it a crime for anyone in the state to "conspire" to help someone plan or obtain an abortion elsewhere. As I understand it, the woman who obtains the abortion isn't penalized, so the intent is clearly to coerce healthcare providers.


----------



## JayMysteri0

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540819408355938304/




https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540820171945783296/
FFS


----------



## Runs For Fun

JayMysteri0 said:


> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540819408355938304/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540820171945783296/
> FFS



This is depressing


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

SuperMatt said:


> There will have to be a fight to get these rights back. As AOC said, voting will not be enough.
> 
> For example, I think DC residents would have to engage in a coordinated and extended shutdown of the nation‘s capital in order to get statehood.
> 
> We may need nationwide general strikes by women, with solidarity from men as well.
> 
> Major companies should forget this “we will pay you to travel for an abortion” nonsense and literally move all operations out of states where abortion is illegal. Economic warfare against the religious extremists.




Not to be constantly shitting on hope.....but I just listened to podcast on progressive groups and nonprofits and apparently a lot of them are collapsing due to things like "sexism" which honestly could be something like one worker hitting on another coworker and it didn't go well and then everybody is forced to weigh in.  The greater good is getting steamrolled by internal cancel culture.  As one person put it it's "I may not be able to change the world but I can conquer my office" mentality.  I'm not saying these organizations should give everything a pass to keep the eyes on the prize, but I do believe the sensitivity and offended bar is probably way too low.  

Contrast this with the right where probably everything short of hospitalization causing rape is tolerated, and even then there's probably a road to repentance and forgiveness if you support the cause.  

The left is bringing a picket sign to a gun fight, literally and figuratively.


----------



## Runs For Fun

This guy is a real piece of shit 








						Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas told his law clerks in the '90s that he wanted to serve for 43 years to make liberals' lives 'miserable'
					

In a 1993 article in The New York Times, a former law clerk of the Supreme Court Justice said Thomas held a grudge against liberals for making his life miserable.




					www.businessinsider.com


----------



## Yoused

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> … just listened to podcast on progressive groups and nonprofits and apparently a lot of them are collapsing due to things like "sexism" … I do believe the sensitivity and offended bar is probably way too low.
> 
> Contrast this with the right where probably everything short of hospitalization causing rape is tolerated, and even then there's probably a road to repentance and forgiveness if you support the cause.




Here is the dynamic: the left wants you to be a decent person, and tolerant of others, _of your own accord_ – you cannot, realistically,  be coerced into not being an excretory orifice, but the incentives will be put in place to encourage decency, increasing in harshness the more of your posterior you insist on showing.

The right, by contrast, hedges its bets on the church. Their church teaches that we are fallen (a seriously bad misreading of their sacred text) and that the annointed one provides us with a path to redemption, if'n only we subscribe. _They *expect* people to be bad_, but it all works out because they can run to the sanctuary and repent and forgiveness will be bestowed upon them. Lather, rinse, repeat, on _ad infinitum_.

It is like the left is playing soccer on a football field against the armed (and poorly-regulated) militia. In the end, religion really is the problem, and it is a tough one to rein in.


----------



## LIVEFRMNYC

Trump thanked for saving WHITE lives.   

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540852015693037568/


----------



## JayMysteri0

LIVEFRMNYC said:


> Trump thanked for saving WHITE lives.
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540852015693037568/







https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540874602380988416/

Finally the very quiet part said out loud.

Where the true concern is for some.


----------



## JayMysteri0

TBL said:


> Make no mistake; this is about "state's rights" for about five minutes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pence: 'We must not rest' until abortion is outlawed in every state
> 
> 
> The court’s 5-4 decision overturned abortion protections that have been in place for nearly half a century, allowing states to decide if they will allow the medical procedure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politico.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's almost like "state's rights" is not an actual political position. Who would've thought?



If one follows thru on why it's a state's rights issue over the constitution...

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540772564921815043/


----------



## The-Real-Deal82

I think most people on this side of the pond and the rest of Europe are in utter disbelief at this ruling. America seems to be slipping back 50 years and some are very proud of that. The scary thing besides the effect this has on women’s rights is the fact abortion is worse to Christian law makers than a nutter walking into a school to murder children with a semi automatic rifle. You can’t talk about that! 

A very bad day in history for women in America. What’s next, a ban on same sex marriages?? I wouldn’t be at all surprised.


----------



## SuperMatt

The-Real-Deal82 said:


> I think most people on this side of the pond and the rest of Europe are in utter disbelief at this ruling. America seems to be slipping back 50 years and some are very proud of that. The scary thing besides the effect this has on women’s rights is the fact abortion is worse to Christian law makers than a nutter walking into a school to murder children with a semi automatic rifle. You can’t talk about that!
> 
> A very bad day in history for women in America. What’s next, a ban on same sex marriages?? I wouldn’t be at all surprised.



We are sliding into barbarism.

In Justice Thomas’ part of the opinion, he specifically mentioned same sex marriage and contraception as being vulnerable by the reasoning of this ruling. So it’s not fear mongering to worry about it.

And let’s not forget: the court CHOOSES which cases to take. There was zero reason to hear a challenge to Roe. Nothing has changed on it since 1992. They could have rejected every challenge to the end of time. The fact that they even took the case (and the gun case and the tax money for Jesus case) tells you about their extreme agenda. None of these cases should have been controversial enough to get to the Supreme Court. They all should have been handled based on very clear precedents.

We no longer have to wait for the rulings. We can see what courses the court decides to hear next term and we’ll know what to prepare for.


----------



## Nycturne

The-Real-Deal82 said:


> What’s next, a ban on same sex marriages?? I wouldn’t be at all surprised.




Clarence Thomas said as much in his opinion that those rulings should be “reviewed”. A sitting US senator called for a “review” of Brown v Board of Education (the one that prohibited racial segregation in public schools). I think it’s fair to say any civil rights precedent set by prior SCOTUS rulings is actively being targeted by one arm of the GOP or another at this point.


----------



## GermanSuplex

JayMysteri0 said:


> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540769077656014850/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540807815232634887/




Not surprised. And it’s none of my business. And it’s a shame we have to vilify those who got abortions to defend the rights of others to do so.

But, if I remember correctly, she worked in the administration. For the guy who flat out said women who have abortions should be punished.

So yeah, sorry, but not sorry.

As for Mary Miller and “saving white lives”, a return to white male-rule America and Jim Crow segregation is their plan, so the fact they’re becoming more bold, more overt, more direct in their racism is not surprising. The defense of her statement will clearly be “we can say Black Lives Matter and have pride month, but saying the word ‘white’ makes you a racist?”

Which totally strips all historical context and circumstances from it. Which is stupid. But these people support Miller, loon Darren Bailey and Trump, so it’s to be expected.

_“Darren is a farmer and he’s a fighter and he has been an outstanding warrior in the Illinois State Senate where he’s totally, totally respected by all of them,” Trump told a crowd of thousands at the Adams County Fairgrounds near Quincy._

That is a lie. Bailey is disliked by virtually all but a handful of MAGA cultists in the IL house (where he first served), and probably damn near everyone in the senate, where he was a lazy, do-nothing legislator more interested in running for governor and fighting a war on masks than he was doing anything for his constituents.

Oddly enough, Miller’s husband is state rep Chris Miller - another do-nothing legislator who’s a racist and MAGA cultist who was at the January 6 rally with his III percent truck decal. But he claims to know nothing about its racism.

These people are truly nuts.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Runs For Fun said:


> This guy is a real piece of shit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas told his law clerks in the '90s that he wanted to serve for 43 years to make liberals' lives 'miserable'
> 
> 
> In a 1993 article in The New York Times, a former law clerk of the Supreme Court Justice said Thomas held a grudge against liberals for making his life miserable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.businessinsider.com




This asshole wants us to believe that if he was a slave he would have been "Brothers and sisters, first we need an amendment. Now let’s get back to the fields."


----------



## Deleted member 215

A lot of conservatives have been saying "well just pass a constitutional amendment allowing same-sex marriage". Yeah, there's a reason there hasn't been an amendment passed since 1992. It would take all 50 states. It's incredibly unlikely. And a federal law could similarly be found unconstitutional and states would not enforce it under the 10th amendment (likely what would happen with a federal abortion ban and what did happen with the federal outlawing of cannabis). The SCOTUS actually has done a decent job at securing certain rights when no other means would. The problem is, they can also take them away in an instant.


----------



## Herdfan

TBL said:


> A lot of conservatives have been saying "well just pass a constitutional amendment allowing same-sex marriage". Yeah, there's a reason there hasn't been an amendment passed since 1992. *It would take all 50 states.*




No, it takes 38.


----------



## Deleted member 215

Even then, it's a large hurdle, more so than any other means. There's a reason it's not the go-to.


----------



## Eric

Ouch...


'Chef's Kiss' from
      HermanCainAward


----------



## SuperMatt

TBL said:


> Even then, it's a large hurdle, more so than any other means. There's a reason it's not the go-to.



Just pack the court. Gorsuch and Barrett’s seats should have gone to Obama and Biden, respectively. McConnell played dirty pool to get them. They don’t reflect what a majority of people want.

Time for Manchin and Collins to put up or shut up. Put 4 more justices on the court, and pass a national law making abortion a right. Then if that law gets challenged, the wing nut judges will be outnumbered.

The only way to get another amendment would be to completely end gerrymandering. We have too many guaranteed seats in many states. Make most seats competitive so that they more accurately reflect the will of the people. All the “swing state” or “swing district” nonsense isn’t democracy. It‘s a series of power plays by corrupt politicians who want to keep ”their” seats indefinitely.


----------



## ronntaylor

SuperMatt said:


> Just pack the court. Gorsuch and Barrett’s seats should have gone to Obama and Biden, respectively. McConnell played dirty pool to get them. They don’t reflect what a majority of people want.
> 
> Time for Manchin and Collins to put up or shut up. Put 4 more justices on the court, and pass a national law making abortion a right. Then if that law gets challenged, the wing nut judges will be outnumbered.



Not going to happen. The Dems will first need to flip 2+ seats in the Senate this midterm. And keep control of the House. Currently Manchin and Sinema (at a minimum) will never end the filibuster and won't be part of a nuclear option. So that's a couple tall hurdles to leap.

Getting over those hurdles is a big ask. Then Dems have to worry about the GOP doing the same once they get back in control. What's to stop the GOP from adding more seats or taking away seats once they're back in control?

I see no appetite for getting DC to statehood. I see no appetite for Puerto Rico becoming a state. Voters will have to elect a congress that will push for that. In the past when Dems had a large enough majority in the Senate, it was with several Blue Dog/moderate/centrist Dems. They were not going to be a part of anything they thought was "radical" and for many voters, including enough Dem voters, court packing and DC statehood is radical.

Too many independent voters. Too many conservative/moderate Dem voters. And far too many voters that aren't interested in voting and/or staying current with their registration.

It can be done. But lots of work over simply talking and whining needed.


----------



## Herdfan

ronntaylor said:


> Then Dems have to worry about the GOP doing the same once they get back in control. What's to stop the GOP from adding more seats or taking away seats once they're back in control?




That is my concern if the filibuster is done away with.  It is currently serving as a buffer to the whims of whichever party is in control.

And control changes.

Since Bill Clinton was inaugurated in 1993, 7 times has the President had a majority in both the House and Senate, (3D, 4R) and only one (Obama in 09 for a year) had 60 votes in the Senate.  This is slighty less than half the time (7/16)

So without the filibuster, we could see the party in control pass one thing and then less than 2 years later, see the other party reverse it.  People, businesses, local governments and foreign governments want more stability than that.

Just imagine if you would what the Republicans would pass without that buffer.  Still want to do away with it?  I don't.


----------



## SuperMatt

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540726655198576641/

(it’s a lengthy Twitter thread, so you should click through to read it)…

It’s not about saving babies’ lives. It never was; it was a manufactured way to generate outrage and energize “conservative” voters. And many of the voters are 1-issue voters. Anti-abortion voters are just one segment; gun lovers are another… They pander to these various single-issue voters. All the while, the real goal is protecting the ultra-rich.

But now the dog caught the car and it doesn’t know what to do. The professional “pro-life” organizers are trying to push it farther, but this will not be the usual motivator for the next elections. So the pool of useful single-issue voters shrinks slightly…

I hope the majority of people who wanted Roe to stay in place are upset enough to vote out the supporters of anti-abortion laws. But maybe they don’t care. I hope they just took it for granted, but will actually participate in Democracy this time now that their rights are being taken away by the Federalist Cabal.


----------



## ronntaylor

Herdfan said:


> Just imagine if you would what the Republicans would pass without that buffer. Still want to do away with it? I don't.



Fuck the filibuster! "...imagine if you would what the Republicans would pass without that buffer" How about all the legislation that was thwarted or delayed by decades due to the filibuster in the hands of racists and extreme right-wing politicians? Most of that progressive legislation, but some of it moderate. The filibuster is a made up rule. Rules can and should be changed when it serves no purpose. The current wielding of the filibuster is a gutless choice. At least get on the got-damm floor and actually filibuster. A single senator has to simply say they'll filibuster and key pieces of legislation is not even brought forward for debate.

Get rid of that bullshit. Pass legislation. And voters will have to elect pols that will listen to them and pass/squash legislation that will benefit them.

If the Dems get over the 50-seat hump in the Senate (and that's counting those brave enough to go nuclear if necessary), maintain control of the House, then it's game time come January 2023. From Day #1 of the next congress the filibuster should be dead. If they want to start out slow and go nuclear on key legislation (Civil Rights and budget bills were proposed for the Nuclear Option), I'm fine with that. But my preferred choice is completely get rid of the filibuster and have Congress debate and either pass or shoot down legislation.


----------



## Herdfan

ronntaylor said:


> At least get on the got-damm floor and actually filibuster.




I'm OK with that.  Old School.



ronntaylor said:


> (Civil Rights and budget bills were proposed for the Nuclear Option),




Budget bills aren't subject to the filibuster.


----------



## Runs For Fun

GOP privately worrying overturning Roe v. Wade could impact midterms: 'This is a losing issue for Republicans,' report says
					

GOP fears the Supreme Court's abortion ruling on Roe v. Wade might shift the focus from the economy and inflation ahead of the midterms elections, Politico reported.




					www.businessinsider.com


----------



## SuperMatt

ronntaylor said:


> Fuck the filibuster! "...imagine if you would what the Republicans would pass without that buffer" How about all the legislation that was thwarted or delayed by decades due to the filibuster in the hands of racists and extreme right-wing politicians? Most of that progressive legislation, but some of it moderate. The filibuster is a made up rule. Rules can and should be changed when it serves no purpose. The current wielding of the filibuster is a gutless choice. At least get on the got-damm floor and actually filibuster. A single senator has to simply say they'll filibuster and key pieces of legislation is not even brought forward for debate.
> 
> Get rid of that bullshit. Pass legislation. And voters will have to elect pols that will listen to them and pass/squash legislation that will benefit them.
> 
> If the Dems get over the 50-seat hump in the Senate (and that's counting those brave enough to go nuclear if necessary), maintain control of the House, then it's game time come January 2023. From Day #1 of the next congress the filibuster should be dead. If they want to start out slow and go nuclear on key legislation (Civil Rights and budget bills were proposed for the Nuclear Option), I'm fine with that. But my preferred choice is completely get rid of the filibuster and have Congress debate and either pass or shoot down legislation.



The filibuster isn’t in the constitution. And it favors the minority party, so that could be either party. BUT it also favors a party that doesn’t want to get anything done: the GOP is the culprit there.

Of course the Republicans want to keep the filibuster. They run on a platform of complaining about everything “Washington” does. It’s far less beneficial to the Democrats. They should take it out back and put it out of its misery.

Until then, one guy who earned fewer votes than the mayor of Baltimore can shut down the entire American legislative process. What a joke.


----------



## SuperMatt

I was perusing a military message board… so most folks are pretty young, but fairly conservative.

Almost everybody is upset at this decision. A lot of the posts are about figuring out what they can do if/when they get assigned to a state without abortion rights. Will the DoD allow them to turn it down? Will they offer services on-post? I believe Congress has laws against any federal funding of abortions… so paying a military doctor to perform one is probably out of the question.

This is a perfect example of why “it should be up to the states” is nonsense. In addition to people who cannot afford to leave their state and travel 1000 miles for an abortion, military members get sent to a new post every 2-3 years.

Seeing so many otherwise conservative people fuming over this, I think this is going to backfire on the Republicans big-time. If inflation and/or gas prices stay high, maybe it won’t be enough. But I really hope it is. I’d love to see a blue wave as a response, thereby showing the Republicans what a losing issue this is. Even Trump knows it’s a loser…but of course he picked crazy justices to appease the evangelical base so they’d overlook his indiscretions.


----------



## JayMysteri0

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1541085778217881601/


----------



## SuperMatt

Another thing I learned today. It’s not the law, but many hospitals have policies requiring a husband’s permission if a woman wants to get her tubes tied. None of them require the same for a vasectomy. And it’s most prevalent in the same areas that have now banned abortion. But sure, the abortion ban is all about saving fetuses, and has NOTHING to do with taking away women’s reproductive rights…. MY ASS.









						Woman's OBGYN Told Her She Needed Her Husband's Permission to Get Her Tubes Tied...in 2020
					

They wouldn't sign off on the procedure without permission from her husband, as if he owns her or something.




					www.distractify.com
				




In some states, there are laws on the books that aren’t observed due to lower court rulings. The issue has never come all the way to the Supreme Court. Conceivably, this court COULD take such a case.

WHAT THE F!@# is wrong with this country?


----------



## JayMysteri0

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540765526917615616/


----------



## JayMysteri0

The only thing "funnier" than that last post, THIS 
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1541176872565874694/

Really?   Misspoke?  Or "accidentally" said the quiet part out, because they were overcome with joy?


----------



## ronntaylor

Herdfan said:


> I'm OK with that.  Old School.
> 
> 
> 
> Budget bills aren't subject to the filibuster.



IIRC, that only applies to annual budgets. Special budget items fall prey to the filibuster. Witness the negotiations for COVID relief.


----------



## ronntaylor

SuperMatt said:


> The filibuster isn’t in the constitution. And it favors the minority party, so that could be either party. BUT it also favors a party that doesn’t want to get anything done: the GOP is the culprit there.



Bingo!! That's why I don't worry about its demise. Kill the fucker and get to work.


----------



## SuperMatt

ronntaylor said:


> Bingo!! That's why I don't worry about its demise. Kill the fucker and get to work.



I remember “repeal and replace” they promised for YEARS for which they only needed 50 votes since it was part of budget reconciliation… and they couldn’t even pass THAT! I’m not worried about what they will do if the filibuster goes away. The only thing they care about is taking over the judicial branch and they already nuked the filibuster for that x3.


----------



## Yoused

SuperMatt said:


> I remember “repeal and replace” they promised for YEARS for which they only needed 50 votes since it was part of budget reconciliation… and they couldn’t even pass THAT!




The Democrats did an amazing crochet job on the ACA. Tan-suit-guy insisted that it be revenue neutral, so just about anything the Rs tried to do to kill it cost the government money. The Rs/Ts complained that the bill was something like 700 pages long, and, from their perspective, that was a legitimate complaint. It was so intricate that they could not just grab onto it and repeal it without breaking other stuff.

This is the way, when you have the opportunity, to fight loud morons: design things that are so elaborate that they cannot easily find what they are trying to burn down or cannot set it on fire without choking on the smoke.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540752938791972864/


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

SuperMatt said:


> The filibuster isn’t in the constitution. And it favors the minority party, so that could be either party. BUT it also favors a party that doesn’t want to get anything done: the GOP is the culprit there.
> 
> Of course the Republicans want to keep the filibuster. They run on a platform of complaining about everything “Washington” does. It’s far less beneficial to the Democrats. They should take it out back and put it out of its misery.
> 
> Until then, one guy who earned fewer votes than the mayor of Baltimore can shut down the entire American legislative process. What a joke.




The mid terms might be a test run on this.  So we’ll see, but I imagine the GOP would use the opportunity to pass unpopular legislation but then get their ass booted out of office as a result. Right now they’re high off their own supply but that level of addiction doesn’t end well.


----------



## SuperMatt

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> The mid terms might be a test run on this.  So we’ll see, but I imagine the GOP would use the opportunity to pass unpopular legislation but then get their ass booted out of office as a result. Right now they’re high off their own supply but that level of addiction doesn’t end well.



Like I said before: history shows they can‘t pass anything. The fears of the filibuster are unfounded and benefit the Republicans.

Many other countries have parliamentary systems with a simple majority needed. Many of them have far better social safety net systems and reasonable gun laws than we do. Our system benefits the wealthy minority. Even without the filibuster it does, but the filibuster makes it even worse. Will it ever go away? I don’t know. A lot of Senators LOVE that they can shut everything down single-handedly whenever they feel the need to get some attention.


----------



## fooferdoggie

Sarah Huckabee Sanders Vows A 'Kid' In The Womb Will Be As Safe As Those In Classrooms​








						Sarah Huckabee Sanders Vows 'Kid' In Womb Will Be As Safe As Those In Classrooms
					

Like in Uvalde? Parkland? Sandy Hook? Columbine? There have been 27 school shootings so far this year.




					www.huffpost.com


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

SuperMatt said:


> Like I said before: history shows they can‘t pass anything. The fears of the filibuster are unfounded and benefit the Republicans.
> 
> Many other countries have parliamentary systems with a simple majority needed. Many of them have far better social safety net systems and reasonable gun laws than we do. Our system benefits the wealthy minority. Even without the filibuster it does, but the filibuster makes it even worse. Will it ever go away? I don’t know. A lot of Senators LOVE that they can shut everything down single-handedly whenever they feel the need to get some attention.




Republicans have nothing to solve economic issues, or more specifically nothing that will actually solve economic issues. So they’d just ram through culture war legislation which will both not solve economic issues and piss off a majority of Americans. So good luck with that.


----------



## Alli

fooferdoggie said:


> Sarah Huckabee Sanders Vows A 'Kid' In The Womb Will Be As Safe As Those In Classrooms​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah Huckabee Sanders Vows 'Kid' In Womb Will Be As Safe As Those In Classrooms
> 
> 
> Like in Uvalde? Parkland? Sandy Hook? Columbine? There have been 27 school shootings so far this year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com



She is so totally tone-deaf.


----------



## SuperMatt

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Republicans have nothing to solve economic issues, or more specifically nothing that will actually solve economic issues. So they’d just ram through culture war legislation which will both not solve economic issues and piss off a majority of Americans. So good luck with that.



Again, they won’t ram through anything. You are assuming they would, based on what? History tells us the exact opposite, so I just don’t see anything to support your assertion.

A state legislature is very different than the US Congress. That crazy nonsense won’t win over Senators from “purple” states. They know they’d lose their seats.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

SuperMatt said:


> Again, they won’t ram through anything. You are assuming they would, based on what? History tells us the exact opposite, so I just don’t see anything to support your assertion.
> 
> A state legislature is very different than the US Congress. That crazy nonsense won’t win over Senators from “purple” states. They know they’d lose their seats.




They're pretty good at ramming through tax breaks for the rich.  And now they think persecution of "others" is the winning ticket with no signs of pumping the breaks.   

I'm not disagreeing with you.  I'm just stating the worst case scenario options


----------



## Yoused

SuperMatt said:


> Many other countries have parliamentary systems with a simple majority needed. Many of them have far better social safety net systems and reasonable gun laws than we do.




Many other countries have political structures that are not so tightly locked into the entrenched 2-party "system". Even in the early days of the US it was not that big a problem. Today, the exclusionism of "_D or R: pick a side or go home_" is an enormous problem that is screwing the country over. _That_ is what we need to fix.


----------



## fooferdoggie

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> They're pretty good at ramming through tax breaks for the rich.  And now they think persecution of "others" is the winning ticket with no signs of pumping the breaks.
> 
> I'm not disagreeing with you.  I'm just stating the worst case scenario options



in the past yes they have to somewhat conform to the wishes of the voters. but thats gone Now and they do what they want. They have already shown they would not vote for abortion rights.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

fooferdoggie said:


> in the past yes they have to somewhat conform to the wishes of the voters. but thats gone Now and they do what they want. They have already shown they would not vote for abortion rights.




Trump and the Republican party have gotten away with all kinds of things that most thought weren’t possible or legal. I don’t know why anybody thinks they would stop given more power and the main reason to not think that is their agenda is nearly 100% fear and anger based. Their base is never going to reach a point of contentment. About 2 seconds after the monumental task of overturning Roe v. Wade they were already stating their next targets. If they don’t keep their base enraged, or maybe more accurately give them the breathing room to realize that this isn’t solving any major issues, they’d lose voters.


----------



## GermanSuplex

fooferdoggie said:


> Sarah Huckabee Sanders Vows A 'Kid' In The Womb Will Be As Safe As Those In Classrooms​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah Huckabee Sanders Vows 'Kid' In Womb Will Be As Safe As Those In Classrooms
> 
> 
> Like in Uvalde? Parkland? Sandy Hook? Columbine? There have been 27 school shootings so far this year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com




So she’s going to allow abortion by assault rifle?


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

GermanSuplex said:


> So she’s going to allow abortion by assault rifle?




Was checking out That Damn Michael Che show on HBO Max this weekend.  There was a skit that was a commercial for an "Abortion Dojo" in Texas where the instructor was paid to terminate pregnancies through a karate punch or kick to the stomach.  I'd say it didn't age well but it actually came out shortly after Texas passed its abortion bounty legislation.  I didn't know if I should have laughed or cried.


----------



## JayMysteri0

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1541517724647428097/


----------



## JayMysteri0

Because I really can't express my "feelings" about Lucy Van Collins enough.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540541832555163649/


----------



## JayMysteri0

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1541474958014038016/

Read that sentence again, "some women's *rights* *outdated*".  "Rights outdated"?  How the F-?







https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540518329621921792/

Framing it that way if anything involves "railroads" being organized  against your actions, historically in this country, you're probably on the wrong side of history.


----------



## Joe

Wait until women start dying because something goes wrong and they can’t get an abortion. I have a HS friend that is Pro Life and she’s had several miscarriages and is high risk when pregnant. I wonder what she’s gonna do the next time she gets pregnant and something goes wrong. I bet she didn’t think that through.


----------



## Yoused

JayMysteri0 said:


> if anything involves "railroads" being organized against your actions, historically in this country, you're probably on the wrong side of history






​


----------



## Runs For Fun

Wat
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1541441873625112581/


----------



## ronntaylor

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> The mid terms might be a test run on this.  So we’ll see, but I imagine the GOP would use the opportunity to pass unpopular legislation but then get their ass booted out of office as a result. Right now they’re high off their own supply but that level of addiction doesn’t end well.



They can't pass unpopular legislation with Biden ready to veto it into oblivion. No way they get any Dem for their nonsense. They would need to take both The House and Senate and then the Presidency in 2024 without the filibuster. I'm not sure they can run the table to get there.


----------



## AG_PhamD

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, this two party system is awful. It seems all too often we get pulled one way or another by 25% of the country. 

I never thought the day would come (up until recently) when Abortion became illegal, at least in certain states. I used to think it was astonishing it took until 2018 for Ireland to legalize abortion, but I don’t know how much more backwards one can get from moving backwards with abortion.  

I’ve always been of the “safe, legal, and rare” mindset. “Rare” meaning taking all precautions to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place by whatever means necessary (social support, access to healthcare, etc), certainly allowing it for cases of rape/incest and threat to mothers physical health, but also allowing it for anyone who wants it. What time frame  for abortions to be allowed I suppose is up for debate, but at a minimum should provide a “reasonable” amount of time to detect the abortion and access abortion services. Most places in the western world would call that at least the first trimester. “Rare” should not mean outright banned in a number of states. 

I find this argument by many on the right of “well just change your states law” so disingenuous.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Joe said:


> The long game is criminalizing abortion, and making it a crime to even have a miscarriage. Then it will be a felony, and now those women cannot vote.



THIS can't be stressed enough.

It may fall under unintended consequences, but I strongly doubt it.

As we often say, "it isn'a bug, it's a feature".  Especially when you consider who may have an abortion because they won't have the assistance to raise a child they may no be able to care for.  It furthers the cycle of poverty for some people, and if they choose to side step that, it punishes them with the removal of yet another right.  The right to vote.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1541603540396716033/


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Not to be crass, but this is also a serious boner killer which I’m sure is also an intended consequence of the anti-women movement. I live in a state where abortion is safe until the federal thugs shut it down, but even here I think at least in the near term people won’t be able to think about sex without also thinking ABORTION! In the same thought.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Not to be crass, but this is also a serious boner killer which I’m sure is also an intended consequence of the anti-women movement. I live in a state where abortion is safe until the federal thugs shut it down, but even here I think at least in the near term people won’t be able to think about sex without also thinking ABORTION! In the same thought.



For the demented this may help them with their "problem".

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1541789263917891584/

WTF?!!  The penalty for rape is less than that of an abortion, AND the rapist in some places can sue for the child afterwards?

What fucking world is that?!!


----------



## JayMysteri0

Is this how we get a 3rd party option?



> Howard Stern May Run For President, Reveals Plan To 'Overturn All This Bulls**t'
> 
> 
> The radio shock jock says he would set out to do just two things "to make the country fair again."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com





> Radio icon Howard Stern said that last week’s Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade makes it more likely that he’ll run for president in 2024.
> 
> Stern, a longtime supporter of abortion rights, said he would set out to accomplish just two things.
> 
> “The problem with most presidents is they have too big of an agenda,” he said on his SiriusXM radio show on Monday, according to The Hill. “The only agenda I would have is to make the country fair again.”
> 
> He called out Donald Trump’s three Supreme Court justices for lying about accepting legal precedent during their confirmation hearings.
> 
> “It’s very hard to have a Supreme Court that’s openly lied,” he said, adding that it “undermines everything.”
> 
> He said the three were put onto the court by Trump, who lost the popular vote in the 2016 election by nearly 3 million votes.




With the dems & their established centrist candidates, reps running with personalities & culture wars, is another personality enough to provide a 3rd option?



> Stern also said last year that he was considering running for president ― but only if Donald Trump was the Republican nominee.
> “I’ll beat his ass,” he vowed.
> 
> Stern briefly toyed with running for governor in New York in the 1990s as a Libertarian but dropped out over financial disclosure rules.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Did violence follow Roe decision? Yes — almost all of it against pro-choice protesters
					

Right claimed to fear pro-choice "rage" after SCOTUS decision — but so far the violence is directed at protesters




					www.salon.com
				




Shocking, the right accusing the left of something they are actually the perpetrators of.  I guess this shit never gets old.


----------



## mollyc

JayMysteri0 said:


> Is this how we get a 3rd party option?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the dems & their established centrist candidates, reps running with personalities & culture wars, is another personality enough to provide a 3rd option?



can’t we just have someone normal??


----------



## Joe

I can't remember where I saw it, but Republicans are hoping this makes liberals move from red states that are close to turning purple......Texas.


----------



## ronntaylor

JayMysteri0 said:


> Is this how we get a 3rd party option?



Hell fucking no!! Stern is problematic and I don't want another got-damm celeb screwing shit up, enabling the GQP to slid into 1600 Penn again. He could be their Ross Perot in 2024.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Joe said:


> I can't remember where I saw it, but Republicans are hoping this makes liberals move from red states that are close to turning purple......Texas.




Or keep liberals from moving there.  Might not be the only reason.  Liberals tend to take the high cost of living with them when they migrate.  They'll move on once they've established their local gentrification colonization.  It's kind of their answer to the evangelical plague except they do it in yoga studios instead of churches.


----------



## JayMysteri0

This bullshit trend on Twitter needs to stop
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1541324088182034432/

Why did they go there?
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1541527964986253313/




https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1541609986593259520/
 Sorry

Bonus:
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1541582859152015360/


----------



## Joe

I wish I hadn't blocked all the "Gays for Trump" on Tik Tok that were making videos about how Republicans aren't coming for gay marriage so why is everyone worried about it. Now they have overturned Roe v Wade and Clarence Thomas wants to go after gay marriage next lmao #YouGotPlayed 

It's almost always white gays that are Republican. They may be gay but they're also a white man.


----------



## SuperMatt

Glenn Youngkin is trying to push abortion restrictions in Virginia. That is guaranteed to be highly unpopular in the state. I think this shows that Youngkin wants to run for Prez in 2024.









						What Does The End Of Roe Mean For Abortion In Virginia?
					

Governor Glenn Youngkin intends to introduce a 15-week abortion ban but right now abortion is still legal in the commonwealth.




					dcist.com


----------



## Yoused




----------



## GermanSuplex

This will not be good for republicans in the long run. Conservative women get abortions too. Many of the people out holding pro-life signs and making a big deal about this have sisters, daughters, nieces, etc. who have or will have an abortion. Many of them have probably had abortions too, but want to place their guilt on others and deny others the opportunity they were afforded. Or maybe they're like Trump - it wasn't wrong when they had abortion..

You see this time and again. Its not a handout when they receive benefits from the state or federal government. They aren't lazy minorities or immigrants. Their circumstances warrant it, they're in _actual_ need. Unlike those liberal folks who just take handouts. It's not "killing an innocent life" when they have an abortion, its "making a hard decision in a warranted circumstance".

Ever notice how every time a tornado or flood destroys some small conservative town, all the people are out begging officials for "help"? Its not often you hear one of these folks say "I have insurance, a nest egg and knew full-well I live in a flood zone. I'm good, we've got a getaway house to stay in and a rainy day fund to dip into!"

Anyways, this will come back to bite them, Roe v. Wade will be codified back into federal law, and then the high and mighty can get back to doing what they do best, grandstanding about how sacred they view life, while their cult leader tries to get back into office to pardon the January 6 seditionists (and probably himself).


----------



## Joe

GermanSuplex said:


> Ever notice how every time a tornado or flood destroys some small conservative town, all the people are out begging officials for "help"? Its not often you hear one of these folks say "I have insurance, a nest egg and knew full-well I live in a flood zone. I'm good, we've got a getaway house to stay in and a rainy day fund to dip into!"




After Hurricane Harvey, the conservative people that are always shitting on others for handouts were begging for assistance because they didn't have flood insurance. The Party of Personal Responsibility folks didn't think they needed flood insurance in the Houston area that floods. lol They were all over NextDoor crying about FEMA not giving them enough to fix their homes. 

But here I am, the left leaning "free loader" with flood insurance. Luckily, I didn't need it. But I'm the free loading socialist according to them.


----------



## SuperMatt

GermanSuplex said:


> This will not be good for republicans in the long run. Conservative women get abortions too. Many of the people out holding pro-life signs and making a big deal about this have sisters, daughters, nieces, etc. who have or will have an abortion. Many of them have probably had abortions too, but want to place their guilt on others and deny others the opportunity they were afforded. Or maybe they're like Trump - it wasn't wrong when they had abortion..
> 
> You see this time and again. Its not a handout when they receive benefits from the state or federal government. They aren't lazy minorities or immigrants. Their circumstances warrant it, they're in _actual_ need. Unlike those liberal folks who just take handouts. It's not "killing an innocent life" when they have an abortion, its "making a hard decision in a warranted circumstance".
> 
> Ever notice how every time a tornado or flood destroys some small conservative town, all the people are out begging officials for "help"? Its not often you hear one of these folks say "I have insurance, a nest egg and knew full-well I live in a flood zone. I'm good, we've got a getaway house to stay in and a rainy day fund to dip into!"
> 
> Anyways, this will come back to bite them, Roe v. Wade will be codified back into federal law, and then the high and mighty can get back to doing what they do best, grandstanding about how sacred they view life, while their cult leader tries to get back into office to pardon the January 6 seditionists (and probably himself).



“Get your government hands off my Medicare!"

Of course, most people that vote against universal healthcare ALREADY HAVE IT.

Considering that we already have healthcare provided for the elderly and the needy (the biggest consumers of healthcare), it wouldn’t be that much more expensive to give it to everybody. As far as I can tell, the only people who benefit from the current system are the insurance companies.


----------



## GermanSuplex

Joe said:


> I wish I hadn't blocked all the "Gays for Trump" on Tik Tok that were making videos about how Republicans aren't coming for gay marriage so why is everyone worried about it. Now they have overturned Roe v Wade and Clarence Thomas wants to go after gay marriage next lmao #YouGotPlayed
> 
> It's almost always white gays that are Republican. They may be gay but they're also a white man.




Don't forget the Texas GOP kicking the Log Cabin Republicans to the curb and declaring homosexuality an "irregular lifestyle" or some other BS.


----------



## lizkat

GermanSuplex said:


> Don't forget the Texas GOP kicking the Log Cabin Republicans to the curb and declaring homosexuality an "irregular lifestyle" or some other BS.




That can come back to bite the GOP,  combined with the 2010 Citizens United decision basically saying free speech is all the ads you can buy.  It's not like the Log Cabin Republicans are living in trailer parks clipping supermarket 10-for-$10 sales.    The GOP wanted their money, not just their votes.   Well the LC Rs do still have money and they'll be buying ads but the marginal usefulness of Trump to them is over and it's about time for them to figure on kicking Trump (or Trump-endorsed candidates)  to the curb.


----------



## quagmire

JayMysteri0 said:


> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1541474958014038016/
> 
> Read that sentence again, "some women's *rights* *outdated*".  "Rights outdated"?  How the F-?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540518329621921792/
> 
> Framing it that way if anything involves "railroads" being organized  against your actions, historically in this country, you're probably on the wrong side of history.




Just want to point out Mitch never worded it that way. It's that website twisting the words that way.

Like it or not, what Mitch said taken at face value is not wrong. Just because something is precedent doesn't mean it is right as his point about Plessy. You had the SC issue Plessy then later reaffirm it much like Roe did then followed by Casey. The difference is Brown brought evidence of how, " Separate but equal" was not in fact equal. Evidence strong enough to overturn precedence since it showed that precedence actually brought great harm.

Now nothing in the latest case from what I have seen brought that kind of evidence. It basically was, " This is a state issue and Roe was wrong" and the current SC went, "Yup!" without having any evidence necessary to overturn precedence.


----------



## Yoused

*Supreme Court finds that the Civil War was wrongly decided, reinstates the Confederacy​*


----------



## Runs For Fun

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1542142703491850241/


----------



## fooferdoggie

Runs For Fun said:


> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1542142703491850241/



especially since the maga man himself did that to so many other woman.


----------



## Joe

We can't just have MAGA now...we have Ultra Maga...crazy damn cult.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Joe said:


> We can't just have MAGA now...we have Ultra Maga...crazy damn cult.





Don't forget there's also dark MAGA...cause regular MAGA is too full of positive vibes I guess.


----------



## Herdfan

quagmire said:


> Now nothing in the latest case from what I have seen brought that kind of evidence. It basically was, " This is a state issue and Roe was wrong" and the current SC went, "Yup!" without having any evidence necessary to overturn precedence.




But even RBG didn't completely agree with the reasoning used to decide Roe in the first place:



			https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/06/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-wade/


----------



## SuperMatt

The Supreme Court isn’t done for the term. They realized they had another minority to marginalize: indigenous Americans.

I mean, America’s never really honored its treaties with Native Americans, but you’d think they would reverse course in 2022. Nope, let’s go back to the days where we slaughtered them instead I guess.

You can put a fancy robe on a pile of shit and put it in a fancy building, but it’s still a pile of shit. And we’ve got 6 robed shit-piles up in the court right now.

Beer-lover and (alleged) rapist Kavanaugh overturned a 2020 ruling in favor of an 1882 ruling! So yes, LITERALLY back to the days where white Americans slaughtered indigenous Americans.









						US Supreme Court: Oklahoma can prosecute crimes committed against Native Americans on tribal territory
					

The US Supreme Court Wednesday ruled that the state of Oklahoma can prosecute non-Native Americans who commit crimes against Native Americans on tribal territory. This decision clarifies the 2020 McGi...




					www.jurist.org
				




Neil Gorsuch isn’t down with it, and he’s been quite supportive of Native rights, but no other conservatives (including *alleged* human being John Roberts) felt that Native Americans have any rights anymore. He said:



> The Court’s suggestion that Oklahoma enjoys “inherent” authority to try crimes against Native Americans within the Cherokee Reservation makes a mockery of all of Congress’s work from 1834 to 1968. The [General Crimes Act] and [Major Crimes Act]? On the Court’s account, Congress foolishly extended federal criminal law to tribal lands on a mistaken assumption that only tribal law would otherwise apply. Unknown to anyone until today, state law applied all along […] Once more, it seems the Court thinks Congress was hopelessly misguided.


----------



## SuperMatt

SuperMatt said:


> Glenn Youngkin is trying to push abortion restrictions in Virginia. That is guaranteed to be highly unpopular in the state. *I think this shows that Youngkin wants to run for Prez in 2024.*




Well well well…









						Youngkin meets with megadonors amid hints he’s mulling White House bid — The Washington Post
					

The Republican governor also plans to headline a Nebraska GOP event, and has begun speaking more often about the needs of “Americans,” not just “Virginians."




					apple.news
				






> RICHMOND — Gov. Glenn Youngkin flew to New York last week to meet privately with GOP megadonors in Manhattan, a move that underscores recent hints that the Republican is considering a run for president in 2024.
> 
> The day-long visit, which was not listed on Youngkin’s public calendar and included a trio of national TV interviews, comes as the new governor prepares to headline his first out-of-state political event since taking office, with an appearance next week in Nebraska. He also has begun speaking more often about the needs of “Americans,” not just “Virginians,” and has subtly changed how he answers questions about whether he will seek the White House.




And a whole mess of useful idiots in Virginia got this ball rolling. To any locals who were paying attention, it was easy to see that he has no interest in Virginia, and was just a highly ambitious guy who saw this as a stepping stone.

After Jan 6, I fail to see how anybody in the nation could ever cast a vote for a Republican again unless they denounce it and clearly move away from it. Until then, it feels unpatriotic to even consider a vote for the party.


----------



## Clix Pix

As a local living in Northern Virginia, yep, I am not happy with this guy as our governor for many reasons.  He's like a malignant tumor that has unfortunately landed and insinuated itself on the Commonwealth.    However, since he isn't really interested in this state anyway, and is already setting his sights elsewhere, maybe this will mean that he does less damage than he otherwise already has and could continue to do.  (We can hope.....)

Unfortunately, the Commonwealth of Virginia is rather split, with Northern Virginia having a population with distinctly different lifestyles, attitudes and political interests than the southern part of the state, which rather complicates things.


----------



## SuperMatt

Clix Pix said:


> As a local living in Northern Virginia, yep, I am not happy with this guy as our governor for many reasons.  He's like a malignant tumor that has unfortunately landed and insinuated itself on the Commonwealth.    However, since he isn't really interested in this state anyway, and is already setting his sights elsewhere, maybe this will mean that he does less damage than he otherwise already has and could continue to do.  (We can hope.....)
> 
> Unfortunately, the Commonwealth of Virginia is rather split, with Northern Virginia having a population with distinctly different lifestyles, attitudes and political interests than the southern part of the state, which rather complicates things.



There are definitely some downsides to the VA method of having elections 1 year after a presidential election, and only having 1 term. You can get carpetbaggers like Youngkin who don’t care how unpopular their actions are, as long as it improves their standing on the national stage.

The good news is the Senate didn’t completely flip to Republican control, so he probably won’t be able to pass laws like the ones in Texas, Missouri, Alabama, etc.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Just heard a couple clips of Obama

"First thing I'd do is sign the Freedom of Choice Act." - 2008

"The Freedom of Choice Act isn't my highest priority" -2009

Ouch.  Seems it never became a priority.

IMO one good thing is coming out of all this.  Anger at the Democrats is finally getting mainstreamed.  Not from the right.  Not just from Progressives.  From everybody.  Demand nothing from your politicians and you get nothing, or in this case, worse.  All the hurdles given as excuses now are valid, but none of them happened over night or even just since Trump.  Took a long time to get here.  Long history of bad faith for everybody.  They're offering nothing other than begging for donations and votes.  Sounds like trying to win over marginal racists isn't the only thing they learned from Trump.


----------



## Yoused

Clix Pix said:


> Unfortunately, the Commonwealth of Virginia is rather split, with Northern Virginia having a population with distinctly different lifestyles, attitudes and political interests than the southern part of the state




Most states have become like that. The bundling of L v R makes it difficult for people to see common ground for all the lines in the sand. When you look at the presidential-vote-by-county for 2020, only 5 states are nominally uniform color: WV & OK are all red, MA, RI and HI are all blue – all other states have at least one alternate county.


----------



## ronntaylor

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Ouch. Seems it never became a priority.



A President can't sign a bill if it never comes out of committee. And given the financial situation the country was in on January 20, 2009 when he was inaugurated, the congressionally abandoned FOCA couldn't and wouldn't be his top priority.

NARAL Pro-Choice America, the preeminent abortion rights group on Obama's "not a priority" quote:



> "With respect to the Freedom of Choice Act, *President Obama can't move this bill on his own* and, despite our prochoice gains in the last two elections, *we don't have the votes in Congress necessary to pass the legislation* at this point."


----------



## Eric

Bette Midler FTW


----------



## Eric

Also this.

TikTok can’t stop users from doxxing the Supreme Court

Apparently, TikTok has decided that these judges do not have a right to choose whether or not to keep their personal residences and credit card information private.


----------



## sgtaylor5

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Just heard a couple clips of Obama
> 
> "First thing I'd do is sign the Freedom of Choice Act." - 2008
> 
> "The Freedom of Choice Act isn't my highest priority" -2009
> 
> Ouch.  Seems it never became a priority.
> 
> IMO one good thing is coming out of all this.  Anger at the Democrats is finally getting mainstreamed.  Not from the right.  Not just from Progressives.  From everybody.  Demand nothing from your politicians and you get nothing, or in this case, worse.  All the hurdles given as excuses now are valid, but none of them happened over night or even just since Trump.  Took a long time to get here.  Long history of bad faith for everybody.  They're offering nothing other than begging for donations and votes.  Sounds like trying to win over marginal racists isn't the only thing they learned from Trump.



America needs new political parties. Sadly, all we have now is parties beholden to the ruling class, I mean the super rich.


----------



## SuperMatt

Organizations and people you never heard of (and definitely didn’t vote for) spent hundreds of millions to campaign for the current Supreme Court justices.

Meet Leonard Leo (is that a real name?):











						One man's outsized role in shaping the Supreme Court and overturning Roe
					

A dedicated minority of conservative activists has been working for decades to dismantle Roe v. Wade. One man in particular has played an outsized role in that effort: Leonard Leo.




					www.npr.org
				




It isn’t even about political parties. It’s about a wealthy “donor class” that can spend unlimited money to put justices on the court... Justices who then overturn campaign finance laws to allow even MORE money to flow in. Citizens United was NOT a coincidence. It was the first of many goals. It was the first step in permanently establishing the oligarchy.

The only way to fight back is publicize this, and vote against every politician associated with this kind of dark money.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

SuperMatt said:


> Organizations and people you never heard of (and definitely didn’t vote for) spent hundreds of millions to campaign for the current Supreme Court justices.
> 
> Meet Leonard Leo (is that a real name?):
> 
> View attachment 15420
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One man's outsized role in shaping the Supreme Court and overturning Roe
> 
> 
> A dedicated minority of conservative activists has been working for decades to dismantle Roe v. Wade. One man in particular has played an outsized role in that effort: Leonard Leo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.npr.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn’t even about political parties. It’s about a wealthy “donor class” that can spend unlimited money to put justices on the court... Justices who then overturn campaign finance laws to allow even MORE money to flow in. Citizens United was NOT a coincidence. It was the first of many goals. It was the first step in permanently establishing the oligarchy.
> 
> The only way to fight back is publicize this, and vote against every politician associated with this kind of dark money.




I was going to post about this asshole but you beat me to it.


----------



## DT

Eric said:


> Also this.
> 
> TikTok can’t stop users from doxxing the Supreme Court
> 
> Apparently, TikTok has decided that these judges do not have a right to choose whether or not to keep their personal residences and credit card information private.




That's a pretty terrible thing to do.








Oh, I just remembered, I need to post about my new Mac I just ordered ...


----------



## JayMysteri0

I miss that separation thing, I remember when it was once a thing

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1542168577641529348/


> Pelosi receives Communion in Vatican amid abortion debate
> 
> 
> ROME (AP) — U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met with Pope Francis on Wednesday and received Communion during a papal Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica, witnesses said, despite her position in support of abortion rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> apnews.com





> ROME (AP) — U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met with Pope Francis on Wednesday and received Communion during a papal Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica, witnesses said, despite her position in support of abortion rights.
> 
> Pelosi attended the morning Mass marking the feasts of St. Peter and St. Paul, during which Francis bestowed the woolen pallium stole on newly consecrated archbishops. She was seated in a VIP diplomatic section of the basilica and received Communion along with the rest of the congregants, according to two people who witnessed the moment.
> 
> Pelosi’s home archbishop, San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, has said he will no longer allow her to receive the sacrament in his archdiocese because of her support for abortion rights. Cordileone, a conservative, has said Pelosi must either repudiate her support for abortion or stop speaking publicly of her Catholic faith.
> 
> Pelosi has done neither. She called the recent Supreme Court ruling removing constitutional protections for abortion an “outrageous and heart-wrenching” decision that fulfils the Republican Party’s “dark and extreme goal of ripping away women’s right to make their own reproductive health decisions.”
> 
> And she has spoken openly about the Catholic faith, including at a diplomatic reception at the residence of the U.S. Embassy to the Holy See on Tuesday evening marking Independence Day.


----------



## Runs For Fun

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1542505549065060353/


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Hey look, Biden is doing something.









						Biden cut deal with McConnell to appoint anti-abortion judge: Democrat
					

"This is some bullsh*t," said Democratic Senate candidate Charles Booker, calling it a "complete slap in the face."




					www.salon.com
				




It's the exact wrong thing, but he's doing something.


----------



## fooferdoggie

making a deal with moscow Mitch is doomed to be forgotten by the turtle. but what would it matter in Kentucky whats one more?


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

fooferdoggie said:


> making a deal with moscow Mitch is doomed to be forgotten by the turtle. but what would it matter in Kentucky whats one more?




If Mitch agrees to any deal he's already 10 steps ahead of you and whatever he gets out of the quid pro quo is 10 times worse than whatever benefit you got out of the deal.  He won't cut a deal if that isn't the reality of it.


----------



## shadow puppet

Do you think Biden will actually follow through?

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1542577466732122114/


----------



## Edd

shadow puppet said:


> Do you think Biden will actually follow through?
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1542577466732122114/



Pardon my ignorance but, in regard to the filibuster specifically, how would he? Would this be a bill he’d sign?


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Edd said:


> Pardon my ignorance but, in regard to the filibuster specifically, how would he? Would this be a bill he’d sign?




It would involve him taking Manchin and Sinema out to the back of the shed.


----------



## Edd

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> It would involve him taking Manchin and Sinema out to the back of the shed.



That amounts to jack shit, I speculate.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Edd said:


> That amounts to jack shit, I speculate.




It's unfortunate that in this case the back of the shed has also been designated as the lobbyist smoking section.


----------



## SuperMatt

Alito’s BS that the ruling only applies to abortion and not to other things affected by the 14th amendment has already been proven to be a lie.









						Alabama cites Supreme Court abortion decision in transgender youth case
					

Just days after the U.S. Supreme Court abolished women's constitutional right to abortion, Alabama has cited that ruling in a bid to outlaw parents from obtaining puberty blockers and certain other medical treatment for their transgender children.




					www.reuters.com
				




So yeah, everybody is saying that Clarence Thomas‘ opinion is an outlier. But I don’t think so. He is just saying it out loud while the other justices want to pretend otherwise.

The Supreme Court opposes your right to privacy and personal autonomy. And we know the nut-jobs in some state legislatures want to take it away, so people in many states are completely screwed now.

We need a blue wave in the midterms. Congress needs to act with laws first, then expand the court to make sure the ideologues currently running the court cannot just strike the laws down.


----------



## sgtaylor5

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> It's unfortunate that in this case the back of the shed has also been designated as the lobbyist smoking section.



then, Biden "wood" need to take the lobbyists out back and smoke them, too.


----------



## sgtaylor5

SuperMatt said:


> Alito’s BS that the ruling only applies to abortion and not to other things affected by the 14th amendment has already been proven to be a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alabama cites Supreme Court abortion decision in transgender youth case
> 
> 
> Just days after the U.S. Supreme Court abolished women's constitutional right to abortion, Alabama has cited that ruling in a bid to outlaw parents from obtaining puberty blockers and certain other medical treatment for their transgender children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.reuters.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So yeah, everybody is saying that Clarence Thomas‘ opinion is an outlier. But I don’t think so. He is just saying it out loud while the other justices want to pretend otherwise.
> 
> The Supreme Court opposes your right to privacy and personal autonomy. And we know the nut-jobs in some state legislatures want to take it away, so people in many states are completely screwed now.
> 
> We need a blue wave in the midterms. Congress needs to act with laws first, then expand the court to make sure the ideologues currently running the court cannot just strike the laws down.



blue wave? blue tsunami? more like a nationwide general strike first.


----------



## shadow puppet

We are definitely heading into the Handmaid's Tale territory.  This makes me nauseous.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1542695353211932675/

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1542496421160665088/


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

shadow puppet said:


> We are definitely heading into the Handmaid's Tale territory.  This makes me nauseous.
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1542695353211932675/
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1542496421160665088/




BREAKING NEWS: In a rare quasi-alliance with the pronoun police of the left, the right has announced all pregnant women shall be referred to as “it”, as in “It places the lotion in the basket”.


----------



## SuperMatt

shadow puppet said:


> We are definitely heading into the Handmaid's Tale territory.  This makes me nauseous.
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1542695353211932675/
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1542496421160665088/



So much for free speech and freedom of movement.

But the SCOTUS has already shown that *some* speech is more valuable than others. It wasn’t that long ago when they said the school could prevent a kid from holding a sign that said “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” but now it’s perfectly OK for the coach to lead the team in prayer.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

https://www.vox.com/2022/7/1/23180626/roe-dobbs-charts-impact-abortion-women-rights

Some are saying this is about white replacement theory, white women need to outbirth minority women. At least one of those graphs shows those people are in for a rude awakening.

Others say it's about needing more consumers and people who will take shit jobs. They’re probably right about the latter, but a massive population working shit jobs isn’t going to equal a booming economy. Maybe they should gift a pregnant woman a preapproved 100k credit card. That should do it, until the bills all come due and then they can just go back to blaming Mexicans.


----------



## Herdfan

shadow puppet said:


> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1542695353211932675/




Here is what I don't understand.  This has been framed as a war on Women, by Men.  Yet, polling suggests that men and women view abortion fairly equally.  Here is a Vox poll from 2019 showing that women are actually more Pro-Life than men.    This poll isn't an outlier.  Most polling done over the years has support fairly divided between men and women.  So why are women so against thier own rights?













						Men and women have similar views on abortion
					

The gender gap on economics and national security is much larger.




					www.vox.com


----------



## Edd

Herdfan said:


> Here is what I don't understand.  This has been framed as a war on Women, by Men.  Yet, polling suggests that men and women view abortion fairly equally.  Here is a Vox poll from 2019 showing that women are actually more Pro-Life than men.    This poll isn't an outlier.  Most polling done over the years has support fairly divided between men and women.  So why are women so against thier own rights?
> 
> View attachment 15453
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Men and women have similar views on abortion
> 
> 
> The gender gap on economics and national security is much larger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vox.com



Church-induced brain rot? Only joking a little.


----------



## Herdfan

Edd said:


> Church-induced brain rot? Only joking a little.




You may be right, but possibly not for the reason you think.

I always thought all the GOP needed was to move the needle 3-5 % of Blacks to their side and they would never lose an election.  Turns out, they may not need it.  Hispanics, many of whom are devout Catholics, are moving toward the GOP.  So this isn't some suburban soccer mom who attend Bible study with the Preacher's wife.  And the Dems seem to have their heads stuck in the sand about it.


----------



## Eric

As Ohio restricts abortions, 10-year-old girl travels to Indiana for procedure
					

After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, it's left some in Ohio to travel outside the state for an abortion. Among them is a 10-year-old girl.



					www.dispatch.com


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> Here is what I don't understand.  This has been framed as a war on Women, by Men.  Yet, polling suggests that men and women view abortion fairly equally.  Here is a Vox poll from 2019 showing that women are actually more Pro-Life than men.    This poll isn't an outlier.  Most polling done over the years has support fairly divided between men and women.  So why are women so against thier own rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Men and women have similar views on abortion
> 
> 
> The gender gap on economics and national security is much larger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vox.com



There is a big difference once the REALITY of abortion being legal hits the fan. Sure, if you threw out “pro choice” or “pro life” as generic terms (3 years ago), people might respond differently. Because you could be “pro life” as a woman but you still know in the back of your mind that you COULD get an abortion if you wanted one.

The latest polls?

67% of women oppose the change, and 51% of men oppose it.









						CBS News poll: Americans react to overturning of Roe v. Wade — most disapprove, call it step backward
					

Conservatives say they're hopeful and happy.




					www.cbsnews.com
				




Men’s views haven’t changed much. Women’s views changed quite a bit when their rights had just been stolen by an out-of-touch gang of judges.


----------



## SuperMatt

Eric said:


> As Ohio restricts abortions, 10-year-old girl travels to Indiana for procedure
> 
> 
> After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, it's left some in Ohio to travel outside the state for an abortion. Among them is a 10-year-old girl.
> 
> 
> 
> www.dispatch.com



That pregnancy could very well kill her. But if a doctor performed the abortion, the state might not agree that it was life-threatening. These laws are utter bullshit. If they truly want to make “life of the mother” a thing, then they need to allow for a panel of doctors, or give full authority to the doctor that makes the “life or death” decision. As it stands, nobody knows WHO makes the life or death decision. A District Attorney running for election in an ultra-MAGA district? A jury of all pro-life voters? This extremist Supreme Court? Who knows?

I want to be clear that I don’t think they should have the law, period. But the fact that the law doesn’t create a way to handle the realities of things that can go wrong during a pregnancy? It proves that this is nothing but far-right ideology. It has fuck-all to do with saving lives.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Here's what I don't understand.

How is it the crowd that screams "they are being censored" every chance they get, is the crowd introducing bills like this?

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1542496421160665088/


----------



## Runs For Fun

SuperMatt said:


> That pregnancy could very well kill her. But if a doctor performed the abortion, the state might not agree that it was life-threatening. These laws are utter bullshit. If they truly want to make “life of the mother” a thing, then they need to allow for a panel of doctors, or give full authority to the doctor that makes the “life or death” decision. As it stands, nobody knows WHO makes the life or death decision. A District Attorney running for election in an ultra-MAGA district? A jury of all pro-life voters? This extremist Supreme Court? Who knows?
> 
> I want to be clear that I don’t think they should have the law, period. But the fact that the law doesn’t create a way to handle the realities of things that can go wrong during a pregnancy? It proves that this is nothing but far-right ideology. It has fuck-all to do with saving lives.



I hate this state sometimes.


----------



## Yoused




----------



## mac_in_tosh

That cartoon brilliantly summarizing the madness afoot in the U.S. these days.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

More worked up than usual.


----------



## Yoused

If *Chew Toy*'s video is broken, this is the words version:









						As Ohio restricts abortions, 10-year-old girl travels to Indiana for procedure
					

After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, it's left some in Ohio to travel outside the state for an abortion. Among them is a 10-year-old girl.



					www.dispatch.com
				




(In Ohio)* Abortions beyond *(6 weeks)* are legal if the provider determines it's a medical emergency and necessary to prevent the pregnant person's death or "serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function." There are no exceptions for cases of rape and incest or fatal fetal anomalies.*​
In other words a 10y/o cannot get an abortion on the grounds of rape/incest/both, ad if the fetus dies late-term, the woman is not allowed to have it removed (even, I suspect, by induced labor).


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Yoused said:


> If *Chew Toy*'s video is broken, this is the words version:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Ohio restricts abortions, 10-year-old girl travels to Indiana for procedure
> 
> 
> After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, it's left some in Ohio to travel outside the state for an abortion. Among them is a 10-year-old girl.
> 
> 
> 
> www.dispatch.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (In Ohio)* Abortions beyond *(6 weeks)* are legal if the provider determines it's a medical emergency and necessary to prevent the pregnant person's death or "serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function." There are no exceptions for cases of rape and incest or fatal fetal anomalies.*​
> In other words a 10y/o cannot get an abortion on the grounds of rape/incest/both, ad if the fetus dies late-term, the woman is not allowed to have it removed (even, I suspect, by induced labor).




The video isn't broken, just the image...weirdly.

I think the big take away is have no doubt, a Republican controlled Congress will move for a federal ban.  They're too drunk on power and momentum to consider popular opinion.


----------



## fooferdoggie

Yoused said:


> In other words a 10y/o cannot get an abortion on the grounds of rape/incest/both, ad if the fetus dies late-term, the woman is not allowed to have it removed (even, I suspect, by induced labor).



And i bet the docs and mother would get into more trouble than who impregnated her.


----------



## SuperMatt

fooferdoggie said:


> And i bet the docs and mother would get into more trouble than who impregnated her.



I saw a prior post discussing the fact that the penalty for abortion is worse than the penalty for rape in some states. People need to wake up and restore freedom to America. Next election should be a referendum on the Supreme Court.


----------



## Renzatic

Want to see something that'll flabbergast and infuriate the everliving fuck out of you? Here you go...


----------



## Joe

Renzatic said:


> Want to see something that'll flabbergast and infuriate the everliving fuck out of you? Here you go...
> 
> View attachment 15490




And all the people that put the laughing emoji usually have Christian in their profile.


----------



## JayMysteri0

This is... something. 



> Four Cops Showed Up at a Texas Woman's Home Over Her Angry Tweet About Abortion Rights
> 
> 
> Mattie Walker received a letter from the Department of Homeland Security in the wake of a tweet about the Dobbs decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jezebel.com





> “Burn every fucking government building down right the fuck now,” she wrote in a now-deleted tweet.. “Slaughter them all. Fuck you god damn pigs.”
> 
> Six days later, Walker says, officers arrived at her door. One of the questions they asked, she says, was, “Do you still plan on burning any government buildings down?”
> 
> “I said, ‘No, sir. That wasn’t my plan in the first place,’” Walker told me in a phone interview. “I was like, I honestly haven’t even been able to make it to any protests yet.”
> 
> She was issued a letter from DHS that read in part: “This letter is to advise you that any further communications containing any real or implied harassment/threats against the personal safety of agencies, employees or contractors towards government officials are unwarranted and unwelcome. You are advised as of the date of this letter to cease and desist in any conduct deemed harassing/threatening in nature when communicating to or about the federal government.”
> 
> (Joshua Henry, the special agent for DHS who authored the letter, confirmed its authenticity to the _Dallas Morning News_.)
> 
> “Failure to comply with this request could result in the filing of criminal charges,” the letter added.
> 
> “I wasn’t directly threatening,” Walker says. “It was simply just a tweet. I didn’t tag anybody.”
> 
> “DHS’s Federal Protective Service (FPS) coordinates with law enforcement partners across the country to protect federal facilities, and those who work in and visit those buildings, from violence,” DHS wrote in a statement to Jezebel. “FPS may issue warnings as a result of threats made to federal facilities and federal employees, in line with standard law enforcement practices. Americans’ freedom of speech and right to peacefully protest are fundamental Constitutional rights. Those rights do not extend to violence and other illegal activity.”






> Walker says that her experience made her recall a local news story—that of the anti-LGBTQ Stedfast Baptist Church in Watauga, Texas. In response to her initial viral tweet, she posted an NBC News Story about a recent incident in which one of the church’s pastors issued a call for mass murder from the pulpit, but as of yet has faced no known repercussions from law enforcement.
> 
> “These people should be put to death,” church pastor Dillon Awes said during his sermon. “Every single homosexual in our country should be charged with a crime. The abomination of homosexuality that they have, they should be convicted in a lawful trial. They should be sentenced with death. They should be lined up against the wall and shot in the back of the head.”
> 
> The church has been the regular subject of protests, as well as a public forum at a local city council meeting in which one man affiliated with the church said, “If you study history, that homosexuality was a capital punishment in this country, and I still believe that should be true today.”
> 
> However, the local police determined said that Steadfast Baptist Church’s calls for genocide were protected by the First Amendment.
> 
> “The language used by the Pastor of the Stedfast Baptist Church is likely to be offensive to many people,” the Wautaga Police department wrote in a statement to NBC news. “However, at this time, the reported language of the sermon appears to be Constitutionally protected free speech. We will continue to monitor this evolving situation.”
> 
> “I just find it highly hypocritical,” said Walker. “There’s places like Stedfast Baptist Church that are freely able to walk around and threaten violence against people of color, or gay people, or women in general. I don’t understand why places like that are able to make comments and get away with it.”




It's impressive when some will selectively decide to enforce laws & regulations



> “She’s kind of taking it as a joke,” Henry, the DHS agent, told the Dallas News. “She’s not remorseful about these statements, so that’ll be presented a United State Attorney and they’ll make a decision on [sic] that.” (Henry did not respond to Jezebel’s request for comment by publication time.)
> 
> Walker says that she intends to watch what she says online going forward. “Obviously, I’m not trying to go to prison over this,” she told Jezebel. “There could’ve been a better way for me to go about it, actively going to protest or speaking out in public or things like that. I guess maybe Twitter wasn’t exactly the best idea to pull out the stops with.”
> 
> Still, she urged other abortion rights supporters to “keep speaking up” and attending protests.


----------



## SuperMatt

I’m visiting Cincinnati for work. This morning I took a walk and a woman was driving slowly around the neighborhood with her window down. She had a megaphone and was declaring “Women are not free!” 

A sad reminder that just a short distance from where I live, women are being denied a basic right that almost all other nations have.


----------



## Joe

I bet these people didn't see that coming......




			https://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/texas/article263141343.html


----------



## JayMysteri0

Well put & noted

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1543627478303924224/

Hypocrisy noted

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1543631777473994753/


----------



## fooferdoggie

Kristina Karamo, the Donald Trump-endorsed Republican nominee for Michigan’s secretary of state, has made preposterous claims about abortion and demonic possession, according to clips from a 2020 podcast episode unearthed by CNN’s KFILE.
“Abortion is really nothing new. The child sacrifice is a very satanic practice, and that’s precisely what abortion is. And we need to see it as such,” Karamo, a community college professor, said in an Oct. 2020 episode of her podcast.


She also called abortion “the greatest crime of our nation’s history.”
In another episode of the podcast, in Sept. 2020, she said that “demonic possession is real” and can be transmitted by “having intimate relationships with people who are demonically possessed or oppressed.”









						Trump-Backed Candidate Said Abortion Is A 'Satanic Practice' And 'Child Sacrifice'
					

Kristina Karamo, the Republican nominee for secretary of state in Michigan, has also claimed sex can cause demonic possession.




					www.huffpost.com


----------



## SuperMatt

fooferdoggie said:


> Kristina Karamo, the Donald Trump-endorsed Republican nominee for Michigan’s secretary of state, has made preposterous claims about abortion and demonic possession, according to clips from a 2020 podcast episode unearthed by CNN’s KFILE.
> “Abortion is really nothing new. The child sacrifice is a very satanic practice, and that’s precisely what abortion is. And we need to see it as such,” Karamo, a community college professor, said in an Oct. 2020 episode of her podcast.
> 
> 
> She also called abortion “the greatest crime of our nation’s history.”
> In another episode of the podcast, in Sept. 2020, she said that “demonic possession is real” and can be transmitted by “having intimate relationships with people who are demonically possessed or oppressed.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump-Backed Candidate Said Abortion Is A 'Satanic Practice' And 'Child Sacrifice'
> 
> 
> Kristina Karamo, the Republican nominee for secretary of state in Michigan, has also claimed sex can cause demonic possession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com



Well, if abortion is a religious practice, then shouldn’t the court protect it?


----------



## SuperMatt

Worse than Trump?

I remember people saying they held their nose and voted for Trump because they wanted a conservative court. In some ways, this court could be just as destructive as Trump to America.

So I do not give a single excuse to anybody that voted for Trump. Either they voted for HIM, or they voted for this court that they hoped would do exactly what it is doing. Either way, they voted against the rights of others.


----------



## Alli

SuperMatt said:


> Well, if abortion is a religious practice, then shouldn’t the court protect it?



If you’re willing to go back to “the old testament” or what some of us call the Bible, abortion is a necessity and must be provided. Judaism says that life begins with the first breath and that a fetus must be removed if it causes the mother any problems - physical or mental.

So, yes.


----------



## SuperMatt

I read an interesting hypothesis. It posits that a big reason crime dropped in the 1990s was the legalization of abortion in 1973.

The idea is that unwanted children (or children the parents cannot afford to take care of) are more likely to commit crimes.









						Abortion and Crime, Revisited - Freakonomics
					

Abortion and Crime, Revisited - Freakonomics



					freakonomics.com
				




Will we see a spike in crime 15-20 years from now? Will it be mainly in states that criminalized abortion? If so, we can thank today’s off-the-rails Supreme Court.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

SuperMatt said:


> I read an interesting hypothesis. It posits that a big reason crime dropped in the 1990s was the legalization of abortion in 1973.
> 
> The idea is that unwanted children (or children the parents cannot afford to take care of) are more likely to commit crimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion and Crime, Revisited - Freakonomics
> 
> 
> Abortion and Crime, Revisited - Freakonomics
> 
> 
> 
> freakonomics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will we see a spike in crime 15-20 years from now? Will it be mainly in states that criminalized abortion? If so, we can thank today’s off-the-rails Supreme Court.





It will increase poverty for sure.  But hey, poverty has nothing to do with crime.  Or guns.  It's all just purely evil people guided by Satan.  It's just that simple.  And there's no way a child saved from being aborted will grow up to be evil.  That's science!

FUN FACT:  The states with the strictest abortion restrictions/bans also have the highest maternal mortality rate.  Pro life!


----------



## SuperMatt

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> It will increase poverty for sure.  But hey, poverty has nothing to do with crime.  Or guns.  It's all just purely evil people guided by Satan.  It's just that simple.  And there's no way a child saved from being aborted will grow up to be evil.  That's science!
> 
> FUN FACT:  The states with the strictest abortion restrictions/bans also have the highest maternal mortality rate.  Pro life!



I’m still waiting for every state that has criminalized abortion to announce massive increases in social services to care for all the new babies. I’m sure they’ll get to it right after they announce all the mental health funding they’re going to use to stop gun violence.


----------



## Yoused

SuperMatt said:


> I’m still waiting for every state that has criminalized abortion to announce massive increases in social services to care for all the new babies.




"_It's her fault if she got pregnant with a baby she can't take care of, let her suffer._"


----------



## Eric

Wait, what?


The hypocrisy from
      PoliticalHumor


----------



## SuperMatt

We need a better movement for abortion rights. Planned Parenthood of Montana is worried about getting sued, so they are preemptively preventing people from getting abortion pills if they are from another state?









						Montana clinics preemptively restrict out-of-state patients' access to abortion pills
					

Montana is an island of legal abortion, but four of the state's five clinics now restrict abortion pills from people in states with trigger bans to shield themselves and patients from legal attacks.




					www.npr.org
				




F them. Where are the people with some courage and conscience? Your organization failed to protect abortion rights in many states, and now you won’t even fight in places where those rights still exist? Why? To protect your worthless organization that failed to protect a right supported by AT LEAST 2/3rds of women?

Time for people to take care of this on their own and stop depending on organizations that care more about their own continued existence and financial well-being than about women’s rights.









						What the U.S. can learn from abortion rights wins in Latin America
					

In the last two years, Mexico, Argentina and Colombia have decriminalized or fully legalized abortion. Here's what Latin America's green wave can teach the movement in the U.S.




					wamu.org


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

SuperMatt said:


> I’m still waiting for every state that has criminalized abortion to announce massive increases in social services to care for all the new babies. I’m sure they’ll get to it right after they announce all the mental health funding they’re going to use to stop gun violence.




In an evolution of No Child Left Behind the Republicans will follow through with their single door fortified schools solution preparing students for a prison environment and upon graduation they will get to apply to which prison they’d like to be assigned to and work for $0.25 a day when they get convicted of a moral crime.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

I just thought of an unintended consequence of this decision. A lot of men celebrating this are probably at least incel adjacent pissed off at women for not sleeping with them. How do they think removing the right for them to have an abortion is going to increase that likelihood? It’s probably advanced to the top of the list of rejection reasons.  Might even be the only reason behind that decision in some cases.


----------



## SuperMatt

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> I just thought of an unintended consequence of this decision. A lot of men celebrating this are probably at least incel adjacent pissed off at women for not sleeping with them. How do they think removing the right for them to have an abortion is going to increase that likelihood? It’s probably advanced to the top of the list of rejection reasons.  Might even be the only reason behind that decision in some cases.



They can rape women and the women will be forced to carry their evil spawn. The penalty for abortion is worse than for rape in some states.


----------



## Joe

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> I just thought of an unintended consequence of this decision. A lot of men celebrating this are probably at least incel adjacent pissed off at women for not sleeping with them. How do they think removing the right for them to have an abortion is going to increase that likelihood? It’s probably advanced to the top of the list of rejection reasons.  Might even be the only reason behind that decision in some cases.




The same men who are on social media telling women to "just keep their legs closed" are the same men that can't take no for an answer. And the same men that don't want to wear a condom for whatever reason. The same men that try to get laid as much as possible...and they have the nerves to tell women to just keep their legs closed.


----------



## JayMysteri0

THIS really hammers things home for me about some of the justices.  Before this ( knowing the backlash was coming ) whined about not being called political, before doing things based on politics, and now like any other politician don't want to face the consequences ( the public ) for their actions.  They now want protections not afforded other individuals, because...?

Protesting at abortion clinics became an allowable thing, even with strange transparent gating that allowed individuals to basically terrify vulnerable women exercising their right.  Now that that can be turned on them, because they eliminated that right for women...  

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1545520642396659713/
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1545525828024508424/
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1545525829131706371/

This is the world they helped make, and were alright with.

How do these clueless nits NOT get that everything is cyclical, that Karma is a concept?

What you once had no problem with when it happened to others, is now the thing you must contend with because of your actions.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1545437071166394368/


----------



## JayMysteri0

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1545578712732688386/


----------



## fooferdoggie

lets hope they Neve have a peaceful mean again. time ti really rub in free speech.
Brett Kavanaugh Flees Steakhouse When Protesters Gather Outside​








						Brett Kavanaugh Flees Steakhouse When Protesters Gather Outside
					

Apparently there's nothing in the Constitution that specifically protects eating in peace, quipped one Twitter wag.




					www.huffpost.com


----------



## Joe

Yeah, protest them every damn day of their lives. Fuck em


----------



## Alli

None of them should ever enjoy a quiet, peaceful meal again.


----------



## Joe

They think they can take away rights and then go have a peaceful dinner. Fuck em


----------



## DT

Joe said:


> Yeah, protest them every damn day of their lives. Fuck em




I'd like to protest some of them with a baseball bat ...


----------



## Yoused

DT said:


> I'd like to protest some of them with a baseball bat ...



Now, that is uncalled for. Get a job at the steakhouse.


----------



## SuperMatt

fooferdoggie said:


> lets hope they Neve have a peaceful mean again. time ti really rub in free speech.
> Brett Kavanaugh Flees Steakhouse When Protesters Gather Outside​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brett Kavanaugh Flees Steakhouse When Protesters Gather Outside
> 
> 
> Apparently there's nothing in the Constitution that specifically protects eating in peace, quipped one Twitter wag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com



Everywhere they go, they should be greeted the same way women going to get abortions are treated.

Look at this list of things women need to do to protect themselves from harassment:









						Will There Be Protesters at My Abortion Clinic?
					

Will There Be Protesters at My Abortion Clinic? Abortion clinics protesters can be a problem. There may be some at the clinic near you.




					www.abortionclinics.com
				






> Park somewhere where protesters cannot see your car.
> Do not engage with protesters.
> Try wearing ear plugs so you don’t hear protesters.
> Ignore protest signs; they are full of lies and designed to be upsetting.
> Ask the clinic if they have escorts.
> Call the police if a protester threatens or touches you.
> Take someone with you to the clinic for additional support.



SCOTUS Justices who ruled that such harassment is legal should not whine when they suffer the exact same treatment.


----------



## DT

Yoused said:


> Get a job at the steakhouse.




Oh yeah!

"Sir, would you like to see the deserts?"

"Sure"

Desert cart wheels up, I'm hiding underneath, and BOOM, I jump out and go Sonny Corleone on his ass!








(RIP to one of the greats)


----------



## Yoused

DT said:


> Desert cart wheels up, I'm hiding underneath, and BOOM, I jump out and go Sonny Corleone on his ass!




I was thinking a little more subtle. Get a job in the kitchen. "_Whose dessert did you say this was? Oh, OK. Now, where did I put that Exploding Napalm Brûlée custard …_"


----------



## JayMysteri0

I think the most impressive thing here is the inability to see the irony in the letterhead.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1545838337725964290/

"Freedom is for everyone, that does what we say.  Also we hate big gov't, intrusive gov't, and gov't overreach.  So we will use the gov't if you don't do what we say.  Also, if you aren't careful, we'll take that right away as well."


----------



## Joe

The party of freedoms that cry about democrats taking away freedoms are actually the ones that are taking away your freedoms.  The party of less government is using government to control women and charge people for helping someone get an abortion out of state. 

If that letter doesn’t piss everyone off enough to go out and vote then we are screwed as a country. The downfall of America is happening.


----------



## ronntaylor

Joe said:


> The party of freedoms that cry about democrats taking away freedoms are actually the ones that are taking away your freedoms.  The party of less government is using government to control women and charge people for helping someone get an abortion out of state.
> 
> If that letter doesn’t piss everyone off enough to go out and vote then we are screwed as a country. The downfall of America is happening.



Unfortunately too many people don't care unless it personally involves them. They fail to realize that eventually they may be next. Between that and people only voting every four years, expecting a savior in the White House when so much depends on who is occupying Governor's mansions, State Houses, City/Town Halls, etc.


----------



## GermanSuplex

These stupid anti-abortion laws are going to have real-world consequences for more people than they realize - not just pregnant women.









						Pregnant Texas woman argues fetus a ‘living child’ after HOV-lane ticket
					

A pregnant Texas woman who was given a traffic ticket for driving solo in an HOV lane is arguing her fetus should be considered a separate person given the state’s abortion views.




					nypost.com


----------



## DT

Joe said:


> If that letter doesn’t piss everyone off enough to go out and vote then we are screwed as a country. The downfall of America is happening.




We're thinking about selling the house and buying a big giant RV.  You want us to swing by and pick you up?  We're probably headed north ...


----------



## JayMysteri0

The hypocrisy is just more apparent now

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1545767225335975937/

What's being referred to



> https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/16/politics/rand-paul-new-jersey-judge/index.html






> (CNN)Sen. Rand Paul refused to speak Thursday with a federal judge whose son was shot by a man who ambushed their New Jersey home almost two years.
> 
> US District Judge Esther Salas, whose 20-year-old son, Daniel, was killed in the attack, carried out by a disgruntled attorney who had appeared before her in court, tried to stop the Kentucky Republican outside a hearing.
> 
> She wanted to persuade him to stop blocking legislation that would prohibit the publication of the private information of federal judges, such as home addresses, vehicle information and other data that could put them at risk of retaliation.
> 
> Paul says he supports the bill but is insisting it be changed so the privacy protections would be extended to members of Congress. He has refused to allow it to pass by unanimous consent despite multiple attempts by the bill's supporters, including New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez, whose staff informed CNN ahead of time that Salas intended to try to speak to Paul.
> 
> CNN witnessed Salas' effort to confront Paul in the Dirksen Senate Office Building. He shook her hand as he appeared, but he then kept walking down a long hall, saying that if she wanted to talk to him, she would have to make an appointment with his office.
> The judge replied, "Senator, you won't talk to me?" and he repeated, "If you've got an appointment. Call the office, please."




The justices knew this was coming, which is why the crying about people being mean to them.  I guess now some of them didn't realize they hadn't really seen mean yet, and felt they should not have to face the ire they raised.






We all know the phrase, "you reap what you sow".

The difference?  When it's AOC or other dems, that's a price they should be willing to pay.  When it's them, "what are we paying the police for?"


----------



## SuperMatt

JayMysteri0 said:


> The hypocrisy is just more apparent now
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1545767225335975937/
> 
> What's being referred to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The justices knew this was coming, which is why the crying about people being mean to them.  I guess now some of them didn't realize they hadn't really seen mean yet, and felt they should not have to face the ire they raised.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We all know the phrase, "you reap what you sow".
> 
> The difference?  When it's AOC or other dems, that's a price they should be willing to pay.  When it's them, "what are we paying the police for?"



A violent mob attacks the Capitol - tourism and legitimate political discourse.

Protesting peacefully outside a restaurant - terrorism!!!!

Also, I saw that Morton’s whined about the protest in a tweet, claiming the “right to eat dinner.” So does that mean they’re offering free food now? I agree that eating dinner is a human right. It’s not one every American gets to enjoy.


----------



## Alli

Joe said:


> If that letter doesn’t piss everyone off enough to go out and vote then we are screwed as a country. The downfall of America is happening.



But it’s only happening in Texas. Why doe people in Utah have to worry about it?

That’s the problem.


----------



## Yoused

Alli said:


> But it’s only happening in Texas. Why doe people in Utah have to worry about it?



Because it seems to me that Utah is right after Texas in alphabetical order.


----------



## GermanSuplex

Mayor Pete had a great rebuttal to those crying tears for Kavanaugh.


----------



## mac_in_tosh

GermanSuplex said:


> Mayor Pete had a great rebuttal to those crying tears for Kavanaugh.



Am I the only one who is suspicious of how the host kept bringing up "your husband?"


----------



## Renzatic

mac_in_tosh said:


> Am I the only one who is suspicious of how the host kept bringing up "your husband?"




Well, he did it the one time. He did kinda emphasize the word, but any connotations that could've been brought from it were quickly brushed aside by Buttigieg beating the host half to death with the pointed facts.


----------



## Hrafn

Renzatic said:


> Well, he did it the one time. He did kinda emphasize the word, but any connotations that could've been brought from it were quickly brushed aside by Buttigieg beating the host half to death with the pointed facts.



I counted two, and they were "your __husband_". _Did they all go to the Doocey skool of riporting?


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

I’m completely floored that the White House’s response is that they won’t bend to the will of activists who don’t represent mainstream voters. Poll, after poll, after fucking poll has shown that Roe v Wade was popular across the political spectrum for decades and most at least supported the minimum protections it set which many states are now flushing down the toilet. These aren’t the views of extremists by any measure. And these assholes want you to vote for them.


----------



## SuperMatt

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> I’m completely floored that the White House’s response is that they won’t bend to the will of activists who don’t represent mainstream voters. Poll, after poll, after fucking poll has shown that Roe v Wade was popular across the political spectrum for decades and most at least supported the minimum protections it set which many states are now flushing down the toilet. These aren’t the views of extremists by any measure. And these assholes want you to vote for them.



What response are you talking about? Can you post a link?


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

SuperMatt said:


> What response are you talking about? Can you post a link?












						POLITICO Playbook: White House slams ‘out of step’ liberal activists
					

And Democratic donors flood to Liz Cheney.




					www.politico.com
				




*KATE BEDINGFIELD, the outgoing comms director, with a statement making waves online: *“Joe Biden’s goal in responding to _Dobbs_ is not to satisfy some activists who have been consistently out of step with the mainstream of the Democratic Party. It’s to deliver help to women who are in danger and assemble a broad-based coalition to defend a woman’s right to choose now, just as he assembled such a coalition to win during the 2020 campaign.”


----------



## SuperMatt

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> *KATE BEDINGFIELD, the outgoing comms director*



One official, who is leaving the post? You should compare that to Biden’s speeches about the issue. I’ll take his word over the statement of somebody already packing up their desk. I don’t get the point of being so outraged over a minor comment like that from an outgoing official.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

SuperMatt said:


> One official, who is leaving the post? You should compare that to Biden’s speeches about the issue. I’ll take his word over the statement of somebody already packing up their desk. I don’t get the point of being so outraged over a minor comment like that from an outgoing official.




It was made by an official.  Doesn't matter that they were outgoing.  I haven't heard anybody in the current administration disputing it.  But there's also plenty to be outraged about beyond that statement.  They knew this decision was likely coming down for months before it happened and once again we get snail pace reactionary bullshit.  The only thing they had prepared instantly was telling people to vote Democrat.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Some more unintended consequences...

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1546555919294730252/

But is it really?     I mean we know how much those states hate elitist college types, until they elect them because those elitist college types told them to hate elitist coll-






How do these people not see the need for abortion, with the people they put in charge?


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

JayMysteri0 said:


> Some more unintended consequences...
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1546555919294730252/
> 
> But is it really?     I mean we know how much those states hate elitist college types, until they elect them because those elitist college types told them to hate elitist coll-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do these people not see the need for abortion, with the people they put in charge?




In a related unintended consequence of this unintended consequence will be more straight males taking this into consideration as well.

These red states are going to become statewide brodeos.


----------



## Joe

They want liberals to move and/or not come to red states. They know the demographics are changing and some states will eventually turn blue. Texas is closer to turning blue than people realize and they are hoping this keeps people from moving here.


----------



## ronntaylor

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> It was made by an official.  Doesn't matter that they were outgoing.  I haven't heard anybody in the current administration disputing it.  But there's also plenty to be outraged about beyond that statement.  They knew this decision was likely coming down for months before it happened and once again we get snail pace reactionary bullshit.  The only thing they had prepared instantly was telling people to vote Democrat.



What can they do to overturn the decision? Dems don't have the numbers in the Senate to bypass the filibuster and pass legislation passed by the Dem-lead House. Doing shit for show is ultimately pointless. They have to keep the House. They have to increase their numbers in the Senate. If voters don't get out and vote out bad pols/against horrible candidates, then it's a lost cause.


----------



## Deleted member 215

Joe said:


> They want liberals to move and/or not come to red states. They know the demographics are changing and some states will eventually turn blue. Texas is closer to turning blue than people realize and they are hoping this keeps people from moving here.




Well, when Moore vs. Harper is decided in favor of state legislatures having complete control over congressional elections, they can draw one district that includes all major cities of Texas and 35 districts for the rest of the state.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Joe said:


> They want liberals to move and/or not come to red states. They know the demographics are changing and some states will eventually turn blue. Texas is closer to turning blue than people realize and they are hoping this keeps people from moving here.





Texas may be immune to this, or slower to feel the impacts, but this decision along with many similar likely to come is just going to make red states dumber and poorer.  They'll be the first to strip gay rights as well.  There will be a major brain drain of people who leave as well as people who won't move there.  Eventually, corporations will get tired of rights outreach and lack of talent in these states and just leave.  Then watch them scream for help from the federal government.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

ronntaylor said:


> What can they do to overturn the decision? Dems don't have the numbers in the Senate to bypass the filibuster and pass legislation passed by the Dem-lead House. Doing shit for show is ultimately pointless. They have to keep the House. They have to increase their numbers in the Senate. If voters don't get out and vote out bad pols/against horrible candidates, then it's a lost cause.




I'm not sure exactly what they could do but that's also not my job.  All I know is "our hands are tied" isn't exactly a vote motivator along with a long history of not doing things when their hands weren't tied or less than tied.  It's a relationship that's bounced between neglect and abuse for decades.  A lot of initial Trump supporters (we need major change and an outsider) probably felt that more directly than the rest of us but then that movement went dark and south rapidly.  Imagine if that same energy (and threat) was on the side of those of us who want a better outcome for more people.   

Of course at this moment the only option is for everybody to hold their nose and vote Democrat to stop the authoritarian takeover, possibly the last opportunity to stop it, but if we give Democrats that win I would be seriously shocked if they did anything other than "nothing will fundamentally change" from the Democrat side of the aisle.


----------



## ronntaylor

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> I'm not sure exactly what they could do but that's also not my job.




It's your job to stay focused and not let a single vote be the end of your responsibility. Voting and then going home is pointless. Voting is such a small part. Supporting and engaging candidates is important. Holding pol to their promises is important. 



Chew Toy McCoy said:


> All I know is "our hands are tied" isn't exactly a vote motivator along with a long history of not doing things when their hands weren't tied or less than tied.




That is the reality in the here and now. Telling voters our hands are tied *and we need to get more on our side * is a vote getter if voters are engaged.



Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Of course at this moment the only option is for everybody to hold their nose and vote Democrat to stop the authoritarian takeover, possibly the last opportunity to stop it, but if we give Democrats that win I would be seriously shocked if they did anything other than "nothing will fundamentally change" from the Democrat side of the aisle.




Nope. There is plenty of time to vote in people that will vote the way voters like. The thought that only odious Dems become candidates is belied by AOC & The Squad. The other side gets their candidates when uninvolved, low information voters are not engaged and just vote in big elections. Primaries are super important. At the same time, if your preferred candidate doesn't win, wishing the alternatives to simply implement your wishes is naive at best. Dems/liberals/Socialists can't resort to "Just Do It Now" demands as if democracy is a game.

Biden-Harris can't simply wish things into place. They need at least a few more Dems in the Senate and continued control of the House.

All those that fault them for not having something in place giving the leaked ruling need to look in the mirror. The threat was coming down the road since the day after the Roe ruling nearly 50 years ago. What did they do to prepare for it *several weeks after the leak*? Well, besides whining about it *after* the actual ruling. Posting memes about camping and pics from The Handmaid's Tale doesn't count.


----------



## Herdfan

Joe said:


> They want liberals to move and/or not come to red states. They know the demographics are changing and some states will eventually turn blue.* Texas is closer to turning blue than people realize *and they are hoping this keeps people from moving here.




If true, how do you explain the election of Maya Flores?


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

ronntaylor said:


> It's your job to stay focused and not let a single vote be the end of your responsibility. Voting and then going home is pointless. Voting is such a small part. Supporting and engaging candidates is important. Holding pol to their promises is important.
> 
> 
> 
> That is the reality in the here and now. Telling voters our hands are tied *and we need to get more on our side * is a vote getter if voters are engaged.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. There is plenty of time to vote in people that will vote the way voters like. The thought that only odious Dems become candidates is belied by AOC & The Squad. The other side gets their candidates when uninvolved, low information voters are not engaged and just vote in big elections. Primaries are super important. At the same time, if your preferred candidate doesn't win, wishing the alternatives to simply implement your wishes is naive at best. Dems/liberals/Socialists can't resort to "Just Do It Now" demands as if democracy is a game.
> 
> Biden-Harris can't simply wish things into place. They need at least a few more Dems in the Senate and continued control of the House.
> 
> All those that fault them for not having something in place giving the leaked ruling need to look in the mirror. The threat was coming down the road since the day after the Roe ruling nearly 50 years ago. What did they do to prepare for it *several weeks after the leak*? Well, besides whining about it *after* the actual ruling. Posting memes about camping and pics from The Handmaid's Tale doesn't count.





I'm faulting the Democrat party for getting us to "the reality in the here and now" over many decades.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> If true, how do you explain the election of Maya Flores?



Why not take a stab at it yourself?


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> Why not take a stab at it yourself?




Ok, but you won't like my conclusions.

I think a lot of the Hispanic community is basically done with the Dems because of their hard turn left.  It is showing in polling done along the border counties.  And Flores election is a result.

We will know more in November.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> Ok, but you won't like my conclusions.
> 
> I think a lot of the Hispanic community is basically done with the Dems because of their hard turn left.  It is showing in polling done along the border counties.  And Flores election is a result.
> 
> We will know more in November.




Yes, one Republican won in a district that usually goes for Democrats.

But let’s look at the biggest factor: turnout.

The last election in that district had a Democrat win with over 111,000 votes. This election was a special election and the Republican won with under 15,000 votes. She ran on a far-right platform (including QAnon craziness) in an election ignored by most Democrats but watched by many far-right wingers specifically because of her going as far right as possible. In an election with turnout 85% lower than usual, this was a winning strategy. In the November election, her chances of winning are slim-to-none.

Also, the Flores campaign out-spent the other (Sanchez) campaign 10-to-1.

Now, why would they do that, especially if they are almost certain to lose the seat back to the Democrats in just a couple months?

Publicity. You’re talking about it as some sign of things to come. I saw many news outlets, including all the ones you’d consider “liberal” talking about it too.

I’m not sure if the spending was worth it for the GOP, or if it was wise for the Democrats to ignore the race almost completely.

But even the GOP redistricting committee didn’t think holding the seat was sustainable, because they gerrymandered the district to make it more “blue” in order to secure other “red” districts moving forward.

It’s not wise to claim some national trend when somebody wins one seat by a narrow margin in an off-season election with a minuscule turnout.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> It’s not wise to claim some *national trend* when somebody wins one seat by a narrow margin in an off-season election with a minuscule turnout.




I didn't.  The original post by @Joe was about Texas.



Joe said:


> They want liberals to move and/or not come to red states. They know the demographics are changing and some states will eventually turn blue. *Texas is closer to turning blue than people realize *and they are hoping this keeps people from moving here.




 I asked because he lives in TX so I thought he might have some insight.

You are the only one who said anything about a national trend.  Maybe you need to read a little closer.


----------



## Herdfan

ronntaylor said:


> What can they do to overturn the decision? Dems don't have the numbers in the Senate to bypass the filibuster and pass legislation passed by the Dem-lead House. Doing shit for show is ultimately pointless. *They have to keep the House. *They have to increase their numbers in the Senate. If voters don't get out and vote out bad pols/against horrible candidates, then it's a lost cause.




Even liberal news orgs are conceding the House.  I do not see the Dems keeping it.


----------



## Renzatic

Herdfan said:


> Even liberal news orgs are conceding the House.  I do not see the Dems keeping it.




It's looking pretty grim at the moment. 15% chance of Dems keeping the House according to 538.

That said, there's still a few months left until the election, and no one quite knows what, if any, effect nixing Roe v Wade will have on the voting populace.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> I didn't.  The original post by @Joe was about Texas.
> 
> 
> 
> I asked because he lives in TX so I thought he might have some insight.
> 
> You are the only one who said anything about a national trend.  Maybe you need to read a little closer.



So you were referring to only Texans in this statement?



Herdfan said:


> I think *a lot of the Hispanic community is basically done with the Dems because of their hard turn left*. It is showing in polling done along the border counties. And Flores election is a result.



Even if so, 15,000 votes is way too few to draw such a conclusion in a state of 30 million.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> So you were referring to only Texans in this statement?




Yes, because I was quoting @Joe's post about TX going Blue.

Scroll up and you will see.  I even bolded part of his post that I was referring to.  And you accuse me of not reading.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> Yes, because I was quoting @Joe's post about TX going Blue.
> 
> Scroll up and you will see.  I even bolded part of his post that I was referring to.  And you accuse me of not reading.



Well your response to me didn’t specifically refer to Texas, so I didn’t assume you were talking only about one state in such a general statement about the “Hispanic community.” So thank you for clarifying.

I will say that even claiming a state-wide trend is not reasonable based on the particulars of this election though.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> Well your response to me didn’t specifically refer to Texas, so I didn’t assume you were talking only about one state in such a general statement about the *“Hispanic community.”* So thank you for clarifying.
> 
> I will say that even claiming a state-wide trend is not reasonable based on the particulars of this election though.




Maybe calling them "breakfast tacos" will help.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Herdfan said:


> Ok, but you won't like my conclusions.
> 
> I think a lot of the Hispanic community is basically done with the Dems because of their hard turn left.  It is showing in polling done along the border counties.  And Flores election is a result.
> 
> We will know more in November.




As far as the southern border a lot of it has do with perception both inside and outside the country.  I won't deny that more people from south of the border attempt to do a border run when there is a Democrat president, but as far as border enforcement, and I'm being a bit lazy here (@SuperMatt with a data drop?) if data showed that enforcement and deportations are just as strong or more when there is a Democrat President would the right just drop it then?  Highly doubtful from both sides of the argument, they'd advertise outlier breaches as normal and frequent occurrences under a Democrat President and ignore or marginalize similar situations when a Republican President is at the helm.  Actually, scratch that second part.  As long as there is at least one Democrat breathing air in the US they will blame it entirely on them.


----------



## SuperMatt

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> As far as the southern border a lot of it has do with perception both inside and outside the country.  I won't deny that more people from south of the border attempt to do a border run when there is a Democrat president, but as far as border enforcement, and I'm being a bit lazy here (@SuperMatt with a data drop?) if data showed that enforcement and deportations are just as strong or more when there is a Democrat President would the right just drop it then?  Highly doubtful from both sides of the argument, they'd advertise outlier breaches as normal and frequent occurrences under a Democrat President and ignore or marginalize similar situations when a Republican President is at the helm.  Actually, scratch that second part.  As long as there is at least one Democrat breathing air in the US they will blame it entirely on them.



I’m not sure the president is the determining factor in the number of illegal border crossings. I think it has more to do with conditions in Central and South America.

But if we look at it by president? Reagan was president in 1986 with 1.6 million illegal crossings, which was the highest until 2021 with 1.7 million. But it is by fiscal year, so that is a split year, with Trump and Biden. 2020 was one of the lowest because of the pandemic, but 2019 was the highest in over a decade.

Obama’s years had some of the lowest numbers since the early 70s. Yet another reason that Trump’s rhetoric about a border invasion was absurd.

Here’s a link to the data from 1960-2020.





__





						Loading…
					





					www.cbp.gov


----------



## ronntaylor

SuperMatt said:


> It’s not wise to claim some national trend when somebody wins one seat by a narrow margin in an off-season election with a minuscule turnout.



Especially as the Dem nominee is an incumbent switching to this gerrymandered super Dem-heavy district (IIRC 67% which skews for Biden over Mango by 16%). He's a pro-life Catholic, a so-called Blue Dog, with "border protection" rhetoric during his years in the House. There will be a lot more voters, and the national party and Dem PACs will be heavily invested in this district as they try not to lose three seats in Texas alone. They may be able to keep the loss to 1/2 seats as the old 15th District could be a surprise keeper for them given the abortion ruling.

I recall all the talk about how the GOP would keep the Senate in 2020 -- both during the general and even at the start of the Georgia runoffs. A long way to go before November. We'll see if the most vocal on left can do more than whine about the abortion ruling by putting that energy into electing/re-electing Dems that forward legislation in the House *and *Senate so Joe can sign.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

ronntaylor said:


> Especially as the Dem nominee is an incumbent switching to this gerrymandered super Dem-heavy district (IIRC 67% which skews for Biden over Mango by 16%). He's a pro-life Catholic, a so-called Blue Dog, with "border protection" rhetoric during his years in the House. There will be a lot more voters, and the national party and Dem PACs will be heavily invested in this district as they try not to lose three seats in Texas alone. They may be able to keep the loss to 1/2 seats as the old 15th District could be a surprise keeper for them given the abortion ruling.
> 
> I recall all the talk about how the GOP would keep the Senate in 2020 -- both during the general and even at the start of the Georgia runoffs. A long way to go before November. We'll see if the most vocal on left can do more than whine about the abortion ruling by putting that energy into electing/re-electing Dems that forward legislation in the House *and *Senate so Joe can sign.




I respect that you challenge me with respect while not discounting my valid points.

Having said that, I give you the next viable Democrat candidate, the rain frog.  The requisite disapproval face while living most of its existence with its face in the sand.


----------



## SuperMatt

A story about a 10-year-old rape victim that had to leave the state for an abortion was called a lie by many on the right. Why? Because such a story shows the abject cruelty of the abortion laws. When they caught the rapist, what were the deniers on the right to do?

Jim Jordan just deleted his tweet calling the story a lie with no comment about it, and others also pretended like they hadn’t said anything.









						The right-wing smear campaign against a doctor who helped a 10-year-old rape victim
					

On July 1, the Indianapolis Star reported that a 10-year-old rape victim was forced to travel from Ohio to Indiana to receive an abortion. The trip was necessary because of the Supreme Court's decision overturning the constitutional right to an abortion. Shortly after the Supreme Court's ruling...




					popular.info


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> Maybe calling them "breakfast tacos" will help.



Remember a prior post in which Fox deceptively edited video of Karine Jean-Pierre? Yeah, here’s the actual quote from Biden.



> Raul helped build this organization with the understanding that the diversity of this community -- as distinct as the bodegas of the Bronx, as beautiful as the blossoms of Miami, and as unique as the breakfast tacos here in San Antonio -- is your strength,




Is she calling people from the Bronx “bodegas” or everybody in Miami a “blossom”? Of course not. Just another example of right-wing spin and intentionally twisting a quote into something it wasn’t. Although in this case we can blame Sam Stein (Politico) of being the original spin doctor.

And yet…this is the top story on Fox. Just think about how stupid that is with everything happening in the world right now.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1546941127680458756/


----------



## JayMysteri0

Wha?






https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1547370727699087366/

Demonstrating who the new "keystone cops" are, by going after everyone BUT the one truly responsible.  Because investigating even a little bit to find out where the story actually came from was too difficult, and "inconvenient" to their new reality.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> Remember a prior post in which Fox deceptively edited video of Karine Jean-Pierre? Yeah, here’s the actual quote from Biden.
> 
> 
> 
> Is she calling people from the Bronx “bodegas” or everybody in Miami a “blossom”? Of course not. Just another example of right-wing spin and intentionally twisting a quote into something it wasn’t. Although in this case we can blame Sam Stein (Politico) of being the original spin doctor.
> 
> And yet…this is the top story on Fox. Just think about how stupid that is with everything happening in the world right now.




It almost seems like you are disputing that she said it, but OK.

And I agree that by itself, it isn't much of a story.  But if comments like that move the needle in the Hispanic community, and they start voting GOP, then it is a big story.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> It almost seems like you are disputing that she said it, but OK.




You posted out-of-context bullshit, based on other out-of-context, deceptively edited bullshit. And then you say* I’m *disputing what she said when I provided the original full quote?


----------



## Deleted member 215

It was definitely kind of a cringe thing to say, but the right is saying "she called people breakfast tacos" when that's just simply fake news.


----------



## SuperMatt

TBL said:


> It was definitely kind of a cringe thing to say, but the right is saying "she called people breakfast tacos" when that's just simply fake news.



The sad thing is that it’s not even WHAT was said in this case. It’s “can this be edited and/or taken out of context in a way that makes it sound like I insulted people?"

And the same people who are attacking her for this voted for a guy that said the following (I’ll quote exactly to make sure we’re being fair):



> When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.




But somehow they’re outraged that she mentioned people and tacos in the same sentence?


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> You posted out-of-context bullshit, based on other out-of-context, deceptively edited bullshit. And then you say* I’m *disputing what she said when I provided the original full quote?






SuperMatt said:


> I put the EXACT quote into my post.
> 
> How is that POSSIBLY disputing what she said?




I will reply to your original post, not the edited one.

But yes, you are correct.  I missed that because you referred to her as Biden and not Dr. Biden or Jill so I thought you were referring to Joe.  So that coupled with the comment about Karine Jean-Pierre I missed it.  So yes, my bad.

But none of that changes my position that Hispanics are gravitating toward the GOP and comments like this and referring to them as Latinx aren't helping the Dems cause.


----------



## Herdfan

TBL said:


> It was definitely kind of a cringe thing to say, but the right is saying "she called people breakfast tacos" when that's just simply fake news.




It was an unforced error.  Coupled with Biden referring to the "Honor" of the Holocaust it was not a good week gaffewise for the WH.


----------



## Roller

Herdfan said:


> It was an unforced error.  Coupled with Biden referring to the "Honor" of the Holocaust it was not a good week gaffewise for the WH.



Not a good week for The Donald and his co-conspirators, either.


----------



## SuperMatt

Roller said:


> Not a good week for The Donald and his co-conspirators, either.



With the inflation right now, Republicans should simply shut up and go away until November. Instead, they keep spamming this culture war stuff. It makes them look petty. Plus, the SCOTUS overturning Roe v Wade is already energizing Democrats. And the Jan 6 committee is making Trump look worse and worse. And yet members of the GOP still cling to him. All of these are going to push people away from the Republican Party. They think it’s all about the base and that they can overcome disparities by depressing turnout and gerrymandering up the wazoo. At some point, that falls apart when they get more and more unpopular.


----------



## DT

Hmmm ...








"I'm sorry Mr. President ... did you say flies?"


----------



## SuperMatt

DT said:


> Hmmm ...
> 
> 
> View attachment 15864
> 
> 
> 
> "I'm sorry Mr. President ... did you say flies?"



I think they’re at the Vice President‘s house…


----------



## SuperMatt

JayMysteri0 said:


> Wha?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1547370727699087366/
> 
> Demonstrating who the new "keystone cops" are, by going after everyone BUT the one truly responsible.  Because investigating even a little bit to find out where the story actually came from was too difficult, and "inconvenient" to their new reality.



Follow up:

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1547715932167884800/

There was zero question about this in my mind, but it’s good to see it confirmed. And I really hope these pundits have to pay up for their lies. The doctor’s attorney:



> My client, Dr. Caitlin Bernard, took every appropriate and proper action in accordance with the law and both her medical and ethical training as a physician. She followed all relevant policies, procedures, and regulations in this case, just as she does every day to provide the best possible care for her patients. She has not violated any law, including patient privacy laws, and she has not been disciplined by her employer. We are considering legal action against those who have smeared my client, including Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, and know that the facts will all come out in due time.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

DT said:


> Hmmm ...
> 
> 
> View attachment 15864
> 
> 
> 
> "I'm sorry Mr. President ... did you say flies?"





First executive order: All no fly zones are illegal.


----------



## Herdfan

Roller said:


> Not a good week for The Donald and his co-conspirators, either.




Trump isn't President representing the county on an international stage.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> Trump isn't President representing the county on an international stage.



Thanks - I needed some good news this morning!


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> Thanks - I needed some good news this morning!




Touche'


----------



## Roller

Herdfan said:


> Trump isn't President representing the county on an international stage.



Thank God he doesn't represent the country (or the county) on any stage, though he probably thinks he does in his mass of protoplasm that doubles for a brain.


----------



## JayMysteri0

One reason I've really loathed this discussion, is because of what we normally would call "unintended consequences".   The honest brutal fact is, none of these things are "unintended", they are just plainly "unconcerned", or the party involved just didn't give a fuck about anyone or anything else but their own dogma.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1547913014279413761/
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1547925637905543168/

This is the true importance of "separation of church & state".  Decisions aren't made for the populace based on someone's feeling or beliefs, but what's good for citizenry of the state / country.  It was one thing when idiots followed other idiots and brought up medicines & products used for other things during the pandemic.  This instead can serious if not catastrophic medical harm.  It won't be just women of color dying more often in pregnancies, it will add more women dying unnecessarily due to this.

It's also causing effects on other things that shouldn't even be affected.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1548012136567189509/

Dafuk?!

Then there is just bizarre ass end arounds.  Such as the interaction posted earlier, where anti abortionists NOW want to insert exceptions into their draconian no exceptions policies, after the 10 year old needed to leave her state for an abortion.  According that "witness" that wouldn't have been considered an abortion.  When anyone past the age of learning about sex knows that an abortion is a medical procedure NOT a late added exception.  To the idiots in congress who now want to start child support payments way early on, using Social Security.  Something they try to eliminate every other day of the week.  All in an attempt to make the fetus a person, since it can collect payments?  Wha?  They really going to enforce rapists paying child support for children the mother didn't want to have to carry?  Really?  Are we really NOT seeing all the cruelty involved here?



> Republicans Use 'Child Support' As Back-Door Scheme to Make Fetuses People
> 
> 
> The Unborn Child Support Act would amend the Social Security Act to require child support payments within “the first month in which the child was conceived.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jezebel.com






> The bill, first introduced by Sens. Roger Wicker (R-MI), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MI), Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA), and other Congressional Republicans on Wednesday, would amend the Social Security Act “to ensure that child support for unborn children is collected and distributed under the child support enforcement program.”
> 
> In an almost comical attempt to market the bill as a benevolent act of feminism rather than a ploy to accord embryos legal personhood, Hyde-Smith said the Unborn Child Support Act “would help ensure women have opportunities to receive child-support payments from the earlier days of their pregnancy” in post-_Roe v. Wade_ America.
> 
> “I hope good legislation, like the Unborn Child Support Act, gets more support now that the [_Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health_] decision encourages us to look more seriously at supporting mothers and their unborn children,” Hyde-Smith, famous for “joking” about her desire to attend an old-fashioned Southern lynching, said this week.
> 
> Let’s call this bill what it is: an attempt to somehow dehumanize women and pregnant people even further. As Jezebel’s Caitlin Cruz has previously pointed out, shortly after Republicans in Congress introduced an eerily similar “Unborn Child Tax Credit” bill in February, fetal personhood is “the conservative endgame.” Why? “Eventually if a fetus is a person, you can legally control the reproductive process of others and subjugate those capable of pregnancy.”




This is becoming some serious off the rails religious shit, that won't stop at dictating what women can do with their bodies. 



> Texas Anti-Abortion Leader Openly Admits the Movement Is Coming for IVF
> 
> 
> Ultimately, "we want those embryos who are created through the IVF process protected," said a senior legislative associate at Texas Right to Life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jezebel.com






> “Ultimately, we believe that all human life is valuable and deserves our legal protection from that beginning moment of fertilization, whether that occurs through normal means or through IVF. And so certainly we want those embryos who are created through the IVF process protected,” Rebecca Parma, senior legislative associate with Texas Right to Life, told a local Texas news outlet on Wednesday.
> 
> “But, I think it’s going to be a process,” she added. “I don’t think it’s something that’s going to happen next legislative session because obviously, IVF is something that is part of our culture and something that I think is pretty near and dear to a lot of people who desire families and desire children.”
> 
> Reproductive rights advocates have long suspected this was coming, because the push for fetal “personhood” laws in several states defines a fertilized egg as a person, and IVF clinics store, donate and discard embryos. The 19th News reported Thursday that couples are already moving their embryos across state lines to avoid potential legal complications:




With Christofacism on the rise, this is about going after people who don't fit in the imagined world of 1950s America.  Say what you will about the 45th, but he tapped into some serious inner demented shit when his team came up with MAGA.

In case you aren't frightened enough, here's an opinion about the indicted Texas' AG's latest moves,



> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loading…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonpost.com




even exceptions aren't really enough.


----------



## SuperMatt

JayMysteri0 said:


> Wha?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1547370727699087366/
> 
> Demonstrating who the new "keystone cops" are, by going after everyone BUT the one truly responsible.  Because investigating even a little bit to find out where the story actually came from was too difficult, and "inconvenient" to their new reality.



Now that they‘ve been proven wrong on the Ohio-to-Indiana abortion story, the racist pieces of trash are trying to change the topic to:

It’s all because of the “illegal aliens.”

Such people are pure racist xenophobes who voted for Donald Trump SPECIFICALLY because he called Mexicans rapists. These disgusting individuals are everywhere. Just look around and you will probably see one.

Anything to distract from the fact that THEY are taking away women’s rights, and threatening the lives of little kids with these abortion laws.

You can have 1 million white men commit rape and they never ask for white men to be taken out of the country, but if 1 undocumented worker from Central or South America does so, they blame all immigrants for it. Such brazen racism.









						Some Republican politicians called a 10-year-old rape victim's story was a lie. Now, they're shifting the focus to immigration.
					

After an Ohio man was arrested for rape, some right-wing politicians are focusing in on his immigration status.




					www.insider.com
				




And it’s not JUST the politicians who are doing it. Lots of their voters are happily jumping onto this train. What a load of xenophobic bigots. Why not just quit pretending and just wear your KKK robe around town with the hood off?


----------



## SuperMatt

Following up on @JayMysteri0 ’s post…

The healthcare of women in states with abortion bans is already getting worse.









						Abortion laws spark profound changes in other medical care
					

A sexual assault survivor chooses sterilization so that if she is ever attacked again, she won't be forced to give birth to a rapist’s baby. An obstetrician delays inducing a miscarriage until a woman with severe pregnancy complications seems “sick enough.” A lupus patient must stop taking...




					apnews.com
				






> Munoz said he faced an awful predicament with a recent patient who had started to miscarry and developed a dangerous womb infection. The fetus still had signs of a heartbeat, so an immediate abortion — the usual standard of care — would have been illegal under Texas law.
> 
> “We physically watched her get sicker and sicker and sicker” until the fetal heartbeat stopped the next day, “and then we could intervene,” he said. The patient developed complications, required surgery, lost multiple liters of blood and had to be put on a breathing machine “all because we were essentially 24 hours behind.’’
> 
> In a study published this month in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, doctors at two Texas hospitals cited the cases of 28 women less than 23 weeks pregnant who were treated for dangerous pregnancies. The doctors noted that all of the women had recommended abortions delayed by nine days because fetal heart activity was detected. Of those, nearly 60% developed severe complications — nearly double the number of complications experienced by patients in other states who had immediate therapeutic abortions. Of eight live births among the Texas cases, seven died within hours. The eighth, born at 24 weeks, had severe complications including brain bleeding, a heart defect, lung disease and intestinal and liver problems.




THIS is the true effect of abortion bans. The failed pregnancies above produced no healthy children, and the mothers also suffered needlessly. Plus, I cannot imagine how much more all this emergency medical care costs compared with an abortion once it’s determined the fetus isn’t viable. I’m thinking at least 10x more if not way past that.

If this is the result only a few weeks in, it is certain mothers will die because of these laws.

And it doesn’t just affect pregnant women:



> Becky Schwarz, of Tysons Corner, Virginia, found herself unexpectedly thrust into the abortion controversy even though she has no plans to become pregnant.
> 
> The 27-year-old has lupus, an autoimmune disease that can cause the body to attack tissue surrounding joints and organs, leading to inflammation and often debilitating symptoms. For Schwarz, these include bone and joint pain, and difficulty standing for long periods of time.
> 
> She recently received a notice from her doctor saying she’d have to stop taking a medication that relieves her symptoms — at least while the office reviewed its policies for methotrexate in light of the Supreme Court ruling. That’s because the drug can cause miscarriages and theoretically could be used in an attempt to induce an abortion.



Whatever happened to the Republicans caterwauling about the need to be able to pick our own doctors and to keep medical decisions between the patient and doctor instead of getting Obamacare involved? It was all . THEY want to be the ones making healthcare decisions for women instead of their doctors.


----------



## SuperMatt

Those opposed to abortion rights insist that the unwanted babies will be adopted. But then you find out what they REALLY think about adoptive parents:

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1548294384663220229/


----------



## JayMysteri0

Maybe I missed this posted earlier, but could someone explain this to me?



> Pregnant Women Can't Get Divorced in Missouri
> 
> 
> The state's divorce law has come under more scrutiny since the overturning of Roe v. Wade
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.riverfronttimes.com





> December 2020 was a turbulent month for Danielle Drake, 32, of Lake of the Ozarks. On December 1, her husband said he was going out with a friend, but he lied. He was actually having an affair. She filed for a divorce less than a week later, on December 7.
> 
> Then, not long before Christmas, Drake found out she was pregnant.
> 
> Drake knew immediately she had to file a second, amended petition for divorce. She also knew the impact her pregnancy would have on the divorce proceedings. Drake, who earned a law degree from University of Missouri Kansas City has been practicing family law for two years, was well aware that in Missouri, women who are pregnant can't get a divorce.
> 
> Missouri law states that a petition for divorce must  provide eight pieces of information, things like the residence of each party, the date of separation, and, notably, “whether the wife is pregnant.” If the answer is yes, Drake says, "What that practically does is put your case on hold."





> There is a lot of disagreement online about whether pregnant Missouri women can get divorced. The _RFT_ spoke to multiple lawyers who handle divorce proceedings and they all agreed that in Missouri a divorce can't be finalized if either the petitioner (the person who files for divorce) or the respondent (the other party in the divorce) is pregnant.
> 
> Dan Mizell, an attorney in Lebanon, Missouri, who has been practicing law since 1997, says that certain aspects of the divorce can proceed, but everything having to do with custody of the unborn child is frozen in place until birth or a pregnancy-ending event like a miscarriage. The court can issue temporary orders related to things like dividing up property, Mizell says. "But they can't do a final decree of divorce until she delivers the baby."
> 
> Drake says that this is true even in the case of a divorce that is completely uncontested. "If the couple is not fighting, and they're just saying, ‘Nope, she's gonna take the baby and 100 percent of the things’ they still cannot go before a judge and have that finalized until after there's a baby born," she says.





> "It is a shock to some people," Mizell adds. "Sometimes it comes up at the very last minute, because the wife is usually asked to say under oath whether she is pregnant or not, which can be offensive at times, and also a bit ridiculous at others."
> 
> Drake also points out what seems to be a double standard in regards to how the state treats an unborn child in a divorce proceeding compared to in abortion law.





> She says that the whole basis for Missouri putting the pause on a divorce proceeding until a child is born is because Missouri divorce law "does not see fetuses as humans."
> 
> "You can't have a court order that dictates visitation and child support for a child that doesn't exist," she says. "I have no mechanism as a lawyer to get that support going. There's nothing there because that's not a real person."
> 
> This aspect of Missouri divorce law has gotten more attention in the weeks since the Supreme Court overturned _Roe v. Wade_, triggering a ban on abortion in Missouri except in cases of medical emergency. Though what is meant by medical emergency is still ambiguous.




Wha?!!



> "This all goes back to the fact that we don't trust women," says Jess Piper, an outspoken advocate for reproductive rights who is running as a Democrat to be the state representative for the 1st District, in the rural northwest corner of the state. "I've heard actual reports of women who have been in domestic violence situations where their husbands withheld birth control from them, purposely creating a pregnancy so that she can't leave."
> 
> Piper adds that for some women, the new abortion law in Missouri will be just another obstacle in what can already be a fraught process of leaving a marriage.
> 
> Drake and Mizell both say the law is in need of updating.
> 
> Mizell says that even if the woman is pregnant by a man other than her husband, the divorce is still on hold.
> 
> Drake says that this outdated law is symptomatic of a much larger issue in family law, which is that the "large and clunky legal system" provides only a one-size-fits-all approach, but no two families are alike.
> 
> "It's very, very hard to write broad, sweeping laws with families, because every family is different. Every family has unique circumstances."





> Drake's divorce is still working its way through the courts. Her son was born in August 2021, and she filed a third petition, this time affirming to the state she is in fact not pregnant.




https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1548508780157030401/


----------



## fooferdoggie

SuperMatt said:


> Those opposed to abortion rights insist that the unwanted babies will be adopted. But then you find out what they REALLY think about adoptive parents:
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1548294384663220229/



like trailer grease should be telling anyone about biblical marriage.


----------



## SuperMatt

Idaho will not allow abortions, even to save a mother’s life.









						Idaho Republicans reject amendment allowing abortion to save woman's life
					

Delegates at the Idaho GOP convention approved changes to the party platform that criminalize abortions without exceptions for rape, incest or to save a mother's life.




					www.newsweek.com
				




It hasn’t even been a MONTH since the court’s decision in _Dobbs._ The fascists are just getting started.


----------



## Edd

Didn’t want to make a separate thread but related to the topic:









						Diablo Cody Meditates on ‘Juno’ and Its Critics 15 Years Later: “I Am Emphatically Pro-Choice”
					

The award-winning screenwriter looks back on her story about a teen's unplanned pregnancy in the wake of anti-abortion legislation and why she "stayed out of the discourse" around its anti-choice interpretation until now.




					www.hollywoodreporter.com
				




In the article Diablo Cody says that she can see why some would view Juno as having an anti-choice message. I don’t get this at all. In the film Juno communicates that she simply doesn’t want an abortion and is willing to birth and give the child up for adoption. 

To say that the film is anti-choice seems a willful misrepresentation to me. Drives me nuts and is not helpful for these discussions generally.


----------



## Nycturne

Edd said:


> To say that the film is anti-choice seems a willful misrepresentation to me. Drives me nuts and is not helpful for these discussions generally.




Thanks for sharing. Yes, being pro-choice absolutely means that a valid choice is to keep the pregnancy or look at adoption.

The crux though is that I believe that choice needs to be free from coercion, which it isn’t in the film. So I can see how folks can latch onto that moment and suggest that the writer is giving credibility to the anti-abortion protesters. But I think the writer is also correct to write from her real experience, rather than ignore the fact that there _is_ coercion happening.


----------



## Edd

Nycturne said:


> Thanks for sharing. Yes, being pro-choice absolutely means that a valid choice is to keep the pregnancy or look at adoption.
> 
> The crux though is that I believe that choice needs to be free from coercion, which it isn’t in the film. So I can see how folks can latch onto that moment and suggest that the writer is giving credibility to the anti-abortion protesters. But I think the writer is also correct to write from her real experience, rather than ignore the fact that there _is_ coercion happening.



What’s the coercion? The young girl outside the clinic protesting? If that’s it, then I don’t find it compelling.


----------



## Nycturne

I guess my memory of that film isn't so good. I went back and yeah, that's nothing like a real protest outside a clinic. I am not sure how you can draw a specific conclusion one way or another from that scene unless you were projecting onto it some sense that the writer was presenting the anti-abortion protesters in a favorable light intentionally.


----------



## Deleted member 215

It's interesting to note the outsize influence Catholics have on the U.S. government now. 5 of the 6 conservative justices are Catholic and one (Gorsuch) was baptized Catholic although his current Catholicism is debatable.

The pro-life movement has its origins in Catholicism. In its early days it was associated with pro-social welfare anti-war left-leaning Catholics (a demographic that still exists but is much diminished); Protestants were more hesitant to get on board with it, though it soon became an evangelical rallying cry. 

Catholicism is also the preferred religion of the "new/alt right", along with Eastern Orthodoxy. Many American right-wing intellectuals and pundits have converted. Conservative Catholics have been having a bit of a crisis re. the ascension of the notably liberal (though by no means progressive) Pope Francis. 

Just some stray observations, as one who was raised in the Catholic Church.


----------



## Renzatic

"


SuperMatt said:


> It hasn’t even been a MONTH since the court’s decision in _Dobbs._ The fascists are just getting started.




"We will never win this human rights issue, the greatest of our time, if we make allowances for the intentional killing of another human being."

So our only option is to allow an entirely preventable death to take place, killing both the mother and the child. That way, we can say God did it.


----------



## SuperMatt

TBL said:


> It's interesting to note the outsize influence Catholics have on the U.S. government now. 5 of the 6 conservative justices are Catholic and one (Gorsuch) was baptized Catholic although his current Catholicism is debatable.
> 
> The pro-life movement has its origins in Catholicism. In its early days it was associated with pro-social welfare anti-war left-leaning Catholics (a demographic that still exists but is much diminished); Protestants were more hesitant to get on board with it, though it soon became an evangelical rallying cry.
> 
> Catholicism is also the preferred religion of the "new/alt right", along with Eastern Orthodoxy. Many American right-wing intellectuals and pundits have converted. Conservative Catholics have been having a bit of a crisis re. the ascension of the notably liberal (though by no means progressive) Pope Francis.
> 
> Just some stray observations, as one who was raised in the Catholic Church.



The evangelicals USED TO say that Catholics were not Christians at all. Heck, people attacked Kennedy for being a Catholic. And you can find Jack Chick tracts comparing the Pope to the Devil.

Then the evangelical church got more involved in politics, and abortion became the wedge issue. Suddenly they forgot all about Catholics being evil heretics.


----------



## Eric

Herdfan said:


> Trump isn't President representing the county on an international stage.



He doesn't need to be, installing the SCOTUS justices was enough to screw the country for a generation. Not that I even blame him for it, it just all happened under his watch and he got them through, as to where Democratic leaders are like scared little rats afraid to offend anyone so they regularly get stomped by Republicans.


----------



## Herdfan

Eric said:


> He doesn't need to be, installing the SCOTUS justices was enough to screw the country for a generation. Not that I even blame him for it, it just all happened under his watch and he got them through, as to where Democratic leaders are like scared little rats afraid to offend anyone so they regularly get stomped by Republicans.




I see it the opposite way.  Trump had appeal because he was willing to fight back (sadly he was also willing to fight forward) which was missing with the last 2 GOP Presidential candidates.  The GOP was so afraid of the press they weren't willing to fight figuring it would end up worse for them.

In RvW news, a WV Circuit Judge has barred the state from enforcing its abortion laws that date back to before it was a state.  How long that lasts is up for conjecture.


----------



## Eric

Herdfan said:


> I see it the opposite way.  Trump had appeal because he was willing to fight back (sadly he was also willing to fight forward) which was missing with the last 2 GOP Presidential candidates.  The GOP was so afraid of the press they weren't willing to fight figuring it would end up worse for them.
> 
> In RvW news, a WV Circuit Judge has barred the state from enforcing its abortion laws that date back to before it was a state.  How long that lasts is up for conjecture.



Well, the party as a whole has always done a better job at sticking together to get things passed, whether we agree with them or not, I mean even going back to GW and the war they collectively said F you to anyone and did what they thought was right. Democrats just don't have it in them to do that and I think a lot of people are pretty disenfranchised with them at this point.


----------



## Eric

This is sad, man I just can't believe all Republicans are on board with these stringent laws. The fetus was dead FFS.









						Video: Texas woman speaks out after being forced to carry her dead fetus for 2 weeks | CNN
					

The same surgical procedure that is used to treat a miscarriage is also used for terminating pregnancies. New Texas anti-abortion laws have doctors nervous to perform procedures for miscarriages, forcing this woman to carry her dead fetus in her womb for two weeks. CNN's Elizabeth Cohen has more.




					www.cnn.com


----------



## mollyc

Eric said:


> This is sad, man I just can't believe all Republicans are on board with these stringent laws. The fetus was dead FFS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Video: Texas woman speaks out after being forced to carry her dead fetus for 2 weeks | CNN
> 
> 
> The same surgical procedure that is used to treat a miscarriage is also used for terminating pregnancies. New Texas anti-abortion laws have doctors nervous to perform procedures for miscarriages, forcing this woman to carry her dead fetus in her womb for two weeks. CNN's Elizabeth Cohen has more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com



definitely not all republicans feel this way.


----------



## Herdfan

mollyc said:


> definitely not all republicans feel this way.




No we don't.  And I think the doctor was just afraid to do anything, not that the law prevented it.


----------



## Eric

Herdfan said:


> No we don't.  And I think the doctor was just afraid to do anything, not that the law prevented it.



Maybe it's because everyone and anyone in Texas can sue him into obscurity, their laws have become draconian.


----------



## SuperMatt

Eric said:


> Maybe it's because everyone and anyone in Texas can sue him into obscurity, their laws have become draconian.



And because the laws are new and vague. A doctor could easily end up in prison AND bankrupt if they guess wrong.

Somebody who previously said they wanted to keep abortion legal is now attacking doctors trying to navigate these laws.


----------



## Eric

SuperMatt said:


> And because the laws are new and vague. A doctor could easily end up in prison AND bankrupt if they guess wrong.
> 
> Somebody who previously said they wanted to keep abortion legal is now attacking doctors trying to navigate these laws.



After the doctor was attacked for giving the abortion to that raped 10 year old they're probably all spooked. Shout out to Fox News for pasting that doctors face all over their network.


----------



## Deleted member 215

It doesn't really matter if "not all Republicans" or whatever. They voted for these people, they supported these laws, they attacked the doctor who performed an abortion on a raped 10-year-old. What is it that Republicans are always saying about Muslims, that the moderate ones need to denounce the extremists? Maybe denounce the extremists by not supporting this shit. 

We on the left were constantly told we need to repudiate "defund the police", but defund the police was mostly not even a thing. This, however, is spreading across various red states and may lead to a federal abortion ban.


----------



## SuperMatt

TBL said:


> It doesn't really matter if "not all Republicans" or whatever. They voted for these people, they supported these laws, they attacked the doctor who performed an abortion on a raped 10-year-old. What is it that Republicans are always saying about Muslims, that the moderate ones need to denounce the extremists? Maybe denounce the extremists by not supporting this shit.
> 
> We on the left were constantly told we need to repudiate "defund the police", but defund the police was mostly not even a thing. This, however, is spreading across various red states and may lead to a federal abortion ban.



Many Trump voters claim they didn’t support his racist ideology; they only voted to get a conservative court. Now that the court made abortion illegal (as promised), they claim they didn’t want that either.

So what, pray tell, is the REAL reason they voted for Trump? Because I can’t keep up.


----------



## SuperMatt

Arrested for blocking traffic as part of a protest:

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1549462189895041024/

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1549448114179870720/

But they let the violent insurrectionists go home on Jan 6.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Yes.  Yes.  Yes.



> Doctor moves to sue Indiana attorney general who threatened to investigate her for performing abortion on 10-year-old rape victim
> 
> 
> A 27-year-old man has been charged with raping the 10-year-old girl in Columbus, Ohio.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com





> An Indianapolis doctor who performed an abortion on a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio took the first step Tuesday toward suing Indiana's attorney general for defamation.
> 
> Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist who gave the girl a medication-induced abortion on June 30, filed a tort claim notice over what she says are false statements that Attorney General Todd Rokita has made about her and her work.
> 
> Bernard received widespread attention after she gave an interview to the Indianapolis Star about the child, who traveled to Indiana from Ohio for the abortion. A so-called fetal heartbeat law took effect in Ohio last month after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Such laws ban abortions from the time a fetus' heartbeat can be detected, which is typically around the sixth week of pregnancy.
> 
> A 27-year-old man was charged last week in Columbus, Ohio, with raping the girl, confirming the existence of a case that was initially met with skepticism by some news outlets and Republican politicians.
> 
> Bernard's lawyer, Kathleen DeLaney, filed the "tort claim notice" against Rokita just days after she sent a cease and desist letter. The claim starts a 90-day period for the state to settle it. If it's not settled, Bernard could file a lawsuit. The claim didn't say how much money Bernard is seeking, noting that "the harm is ongoing."





> "Mr. Rokita's false and misleading statements about alleged misconduct by Dr. Bernard in her profession constitute defamation," the claim states. "The statements have been and continue to be published by or on behalf of Mr. Rokita and the Office of the Attorney General."
> 
> After the news of the 10-year-old's abortion broke, Rokita told Fox he would investigate whether Bernard violated child abuse notification or abortion reporting laws. He also said his office would look into whether anything Bernard said to the Indianapolis Star about the girl's case violated federal medical privacy laws. Rokita offered no specific allegations of wrongdoing.
> 
> Records obtained by The Associated Press and local news outlets show that Bernard submitted her report about the girl's abortion on July 2, which is within Indiana's required three-day reporting period for an abortion performed on a girl younger than 16.
> 
> Rokita did not immediately respond to a request for comment.




And, Yes.  Yes.  Yes.



> Indiana AG Faces Ethics Complaint For Going After Abortion Doctor Who Helped 10-Year-Old Rape Victim
> 
> 
> The former dean of Indiana University’s law school is asking for a misconduct investigation into Attorney General Todd Rokita.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.forbes.com





> Indiana’s attorney general faces an ethics complaint and possible investigation after he publicly launched a probe into a doctor who performed an abortion for a 10-year-old rape victim, multiple outlets report, a case that has become central in the debate over abortion rights in the U.S. and as evidence has suggested the physician did nothing wrong.





> Former IU Maurer School of Law dean Lauren Robel sent a letter to the state’s Supreme Court disciplinary commission alleging AG Todd Rokita committed misconduct by launching the investigation into Dr. Caitlin Bernard without doing the proper “due diligence” first and “recklessly” made false allegations, the _Indianapolis Star_ reports.
> 
> Robel accused Rokita of making “dangerous, politicized, and factually baseless assaults against” Bernard, going against his duty to “protect our citizens,” as quoted by the _Star_.
> 
> Rokita announced on Fox News last week his office had started investigating Bernard following confirmation that her story about a 10-year-old rape victim who was denied an abortion in Ohio was true, questioning without evidence whether Bernard failed to properly disclose the abortion as required under state law.
> 
> Public records obtained by multiple news outlets show Bernard did, in fact, report the abortion in line with state law, and Indiana University Health, Bernard’s employer, said in a statement it had investigated whether she had properly followed privacy laws—which Rokita said he was also investigating—and determined she had.
> 
> Rokita said he would continue the investigation despite that, and the AG’s office told _Forbes_ Tuesday it would also not be deterred by Robel’s letter, accusing her allegations of being “without basis.”




This has to happen MORE, with elected officials more interested in grandstanding & pandering, than actually doing their jobs properly.  Rushing to be on Faux News to whine about the Biden administration & immigration, THEN threaten to go after a doctor before learning all the facts, is NOT doing your job properly.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> Arrested for blocking traffic as part of a protest:
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1549462189895041024/




I love how she walks like she has been cuffed.  But she wasn't.  All for show.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Herdfan said:


> I love how she walks like she has been cuffed.  But she wasn't.  All for show.



You do understand that cuffed or not, police may often ask you to keep your hands behind your back as they do a version of the "perp walk"?

But it isn't surprising to see who focused on whether or not AOC was actually handcuffed, and not that being arrested for peaceful protest is how things are supposed to be done.  Making a show of being arrested is often part of the protest as part of civil disobedience.  I realize that concept may have fallen out of vogue with a certain crowd since a certain January 6th, who've opted for a different more forceful approach.

Let alone give a whit about WHAT she's protesting.



> Right-wingers accuse AOC of pretending to be handcuffed at abortion protest
> 
> 
> Several right-wingers on social media are accusing congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and Ilhan Omar of 'faking' being handcuffed after 35 people were detained following a demonstration at the Supreme Court. On Tuesday, activists were arrested at the Supreme Court by Capitol Police...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.indy100.com






> It is unclear if Capitol Police requested the congresswomen put their hands behind their back or if it was a personal choice. We reached out to Capitol Police, AOC, and Omar's office for comment.
> 
> But many conservatives took the opportunity to assume the two women were doing so for dramatic effect.
> 
> "Why are Democrats faking being arrested? Embarrassing", conservative comedians Hodgetwins wrote on Twitter.
> 
> "She was not arrested," conservative commentator Matt Walsh wrote in response to a video of AOC being arrested.




You know as opposed to storming the capital, threatening to hang a VP, zip tie/handcuff other members of congress, take souvenir's, prevent a peaceful transition of power, and more.  THEN go home NOT arrested at the time.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> I love how she walks like she has been cuffed.  But she wasn't.  All for show.




It speaks volumes when somebody excuses themselves from a discussion of a violent riot, but feels the need to chime in and insult those peacefully protesting.


----------



## SuperMatt

JayMysteri0 said:


> You do understand that cuffed or not, police may often ask you to keep your hands behind your back as they do a version of the "perp walk"?
> 
> But it isn't surprising to see who focused on whether or not AOC was actually handcuffed, and not that being arrested for peaceful protest is how things are supposed to be done.  Making a show of being arrested is often part of the protest as part of civil disobedience.  I realize that concept may have fallen out of vogue with a certain crowd since a certain January 6th, who've opted for a different more forceful approach.
> 
> Let alone give a whit about WHAT she's protesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know as opposed to storming the capital, threatening to hang a VP, zip tie/handcuff other members of congress, take souvenir's, prevent a peaceful transition of power, and more.  THEN go home NOT arrested at the time.



And now you’ve got Roger Stone calling for AOC and Ilhan Omar to be “SWATted” and go to prison for treason. All for peacefully protesting.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1549794474435530755/

And Lauren Boebert couldn’t miss her chance:

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1549485749539594242/

And when I clicked on the link to Matt Walsh’s statement in your post, it went to a right-wing rabbit hole that was a bit disturbing, and also proved that Twitter is NOT censoring even the nuttiest of far-right rabble-rousers. Enough with the “I’m being censored” talk from the right already....


----------



## Joe

SuperMatt said:


> It speaks volumes when somebody excuses themselves from a discussion of a violent riot, but feels the need to chime in and insult those peacefully protesting.




That is what the right wing media has told them to focus on. It's literally what they're tweeting lol

The cult members have to fall in line.


----------



## SuperMatt

Joe said:


> That is what the right wing media has told them to focus on. It's literally what they're tweeting lol
> 
> The cult members have to fall in line.



True; after glancing through the tweet-storm of replies to Matt Walsh, the genesis of the comment I replied to is apparent.


----------



## Joe

SuperMatt said:


> True; after glancing through the tweet-storm of replies to Matt Walsh, the genesis of the comment I replied to is apparent.




It's sad how they all parrot the same things over and over. I'll read comments on tik tok from conservatives and they will all be saying the same things that were said on Fox News.


----------



## SuperMatt

Joe said:


> It's sad how they all parrot the same things over and over. I'll read comments on tik tok from conservatives and they will all be saying the same things that were said on Fox News.



Tik tok? Maybe they are all communists. According to Marco Rubio (who has been calling everybody communists lately), that’s how it works:









						Rubio test-drives a new attack on Demings: She's on TikTok
					

Sen. Marco Rubio is looking to make Rep. Val Demings' use of the wildly popular app an issue in the Florida Senate race as he raises privacy and national security concerns related to the  app's Chinese owners.




					www.nbcnews.com
				




He also wrote a piece printed in the Wall Street Journal claiming there are secret Chinese communist cells all over America.

I guess he wants to be the Joe McCarthy of the 21st century, but I doubt anybody outside of the right-wing of the Cuban immigrant base in his state cares about such rhetoric.


----------



## Joe

SuperMatt said:


> Tik tok? Maybe they are all communists. According to Marco Rubio (who has been calling everybody communists lately), that’s how it works:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rubio test-drives a new attack on Demings: She's on TikTok
> 
> 
> Sen. Marco Rubio is looking to make Rep. Val Demings' use of the wildly popular app an issue in the Florida Senate race as he raises privacy and national security concerns related to the  app's Chinese owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nbcnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He also wrote a piece printed in the Wall Street Journal claiming there are secret Chinese communist cells all over America.
> 
> I guess he wants to be the Joe McCarthy of the 21st century, but I doubt anybody outside of the right-wing of the Cuban immigrant base in his state cares about such rhetoric.




They're trying to ban tik tok because it's helping to show the scam that is America.


----------



## JayMysteri0

When you have to explain

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1549809724513722374/

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1549818514579591168/

But hey, they will give her attention while whining about her, then complain she gets too much attention.

But still no talk about why she & others were arrested for protesting.

You know, actually protesting, then actually getting arrested.  Because some on the supreme court lied saying that abortion was settled as precedent, then it suddenly wasn't.


----------



## SuperMatt

JayMysteri0 said:


> When you have to explain
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1549809724513722374/
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1549818514579591168/
> 
> But hey, they will give her attention while whining about her, then complain she gets too much attention.
> 
> But still no talk about why she & others were arrested for protesting.
> 
> You know, actually protesting, then actually getting arrested.  Because some on the supreme court lied saying that abortion was settled as precedent, then it suddenly wasn't.



I also saw the video of her getting arrested and she pumped her fist in the air as she was led off. Not sure how you can simultaneously fake being handcuffed while thrusting one fist into the air… But it’s not really about that. We have an entire thread about the hate-boner the right wingers have for AOC.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Another unintended consequence of this decision, men trapped by psychotic women who feel the way to keep them in a long term relationship is to have their kid.


----------



## Yoused

Going off the deep end,









						Dem blasts 'insane' GOP bill that would authorize 'deadly force' to stop abortions in North Carolina
					

A Democratic state senator from North Carolina this week shined a light on a bill proposed by his Republican colleagues that he described as "completely insane" because it would authorize using "deadly force" to stop people in the state from getting abortions.In a video posted on his social...




					www.rawstory.com
				




you would be able to kill the woman to prevent her from getting an abortion.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Another unintended consequence of this decision, men trapped by psychotic women who feel the way to keep them in a long term relationship is to have their kid.



Men trapped by "psychotic" women by "having their kid"?

Come on.

Women can be trapped by pregnancy, - and all too often are - but men do have options in such situations but rarely choose to exercise them, because, as a rule, they don't have to, can't be forced to, and generally prefer not to - in the context of this discussion, the use of, and wearing of, condoms comes to mind.


----------



## SuperMatt

Scepticalscribe said:


> Men trapped by "psychotic" women by "having their kid"?
> 
> Come on.
> 
> Women can be trapped by pregnancy, - and all too often are - but men do have options in such situations but rarely choose to exercise them, because, as a rule, they don't have to, can't be forced to, and generally prefer not to - in the context of this discussion, the use of, and wearing of, condoms come to mind.



In addition to the cringeworthiness of the statement, it is nonsensical because there was no law requiring women to get abortions if the father wanted them to, so Dobbs changes nothing in such situations.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Scepticalscribe said:


> Men trapped by "psychotic" women by "having their kid"?
> 
> Come on.
> 
> Women can be trapped by pregnancy, - and all too often are - but men do have options in such situations but rarely choose to exercise them, because, as a rule, they don't have to, can't be forced to, and generally prefer not to - in the context of this discussion, the use of, and wearing of, condoms come to mind.




I understand that view and agree, but you know what I mean.  Plus I wager a good amount of men celebrating this decision don’t like condoms. (Another unintended side effect, they might have to start liking them) These aren’t the most evolved deep thinkers in the pool and are somehow always the victim.

Having said that, the pregnancy trap is a thing.  Now add "I’d get an abortion but I can’t. Sorry, not sorry."


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

SuperMatt said:


> In addition to the cringeworthiness of the statement, it is nonsensical because there was no law requiring women to get abortions if the father wanted them to, so Dobbs changes nothing in such situations.




So you believe a woman has never gotten pregnant to keep a man around and all people act responsibly in the height of passion. Fascinating.


----------



## SuperMatt

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> So you believe a woman has never gotten pregnant to keep a man around and all people act responsibly in the height of passion. Fascinating.




Another unintended consequence of the decision: misogynists with poor reading comprehension are coming out of the woodwork.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> I understand that view and agree, *but you know what I mean.*  Plus I wager a good amount of men celebrating this decision don’t like condoms. (Another unintended side effect, they might have to start liking them) These aren’t the most evolved deep thinkers in the pool and are somehow always the victim.
> 
> Having said that, the pregnancy trap is a thing.  Now add "I’d get an abortion but I can’t. Sorry, not sorry."






Chew Toy McCoy said:


> So you believe a woman has never gotten pregnant to keep a man around and all people act responsibly in the height of passion. Fascinating.



The "pregnancy trap" is a thing, agreed, but is one that is invariably over-stated by men, who do have options (including walking away) and tends, unfortunately, to be disproportionately experienced by women, for whom pregnancy - especially an unwanted pregnancy - very often is, indeed, a trap, physically, economically, and psychologically.  

Moreover, I find that men toss around adjectives such as "psychotic", or "crazy" far too casually. All too often, a man labels a woman "psychotic" or "crazy" if she calls him out, or, if she doesn't do what he wants her to do, or would like her to do.

And, as for "height of passion" argument: Precisely because the cost of the possible consequences of the "height of passion" is so disproportionate - (for women, there is the threat of unwanted pregnancy, the threat of possible violence, the social stuff, such as "slut-shaming", the sheer tedium of enduring underwhelming sex - a surprising number of men think that they are terrific lovers, just as they think they are "naturally good" at driving a car, when they are nothing of the sort), women will think about birth control because they have to, - or, rather, usually, or, very often, birth control will be to the fore of a woman's mind - whereas men have the luxury of not having to worry about any of this.

Seriously, if men do not wish a partner to become pregnant, they can do something about it; generally, they choose not to, because they do not have to bear - quite literally - the consequences, and because it is much more enjoyable for them not to do so.


----------



## SuperMatt

Moving back to serious issues stemming from this court’s attempt to return us to the dark ages:









						Indiana doctor says she has been harassed for giving an abortion to a 10-year-old
					

The harassment began soon after her young patient became flashpoint in the national debate over abortion, Dr. Caitlin Bernard told NPR. "It's honestly been very hard for me, for my family," she said.




					www.npr.org
				






> An Indiana doctor says she has faced harassment after the story of one of her patients — a 10-year-old Ohio girl who became pregnant as a result of rape — captured the nation's attention as a flashpoint in the debate over abortion rights.
> 
> In the weeks since Roe v. Wade was overturned, Dr. Caitlin Bernard has become a household name, with her face shown on right-wing television and her work criticized by public officials, including Indiana's attorney general, Todd Rokita.
> 
> She has worried about her own safety and the safety of her family, Bernard said Tuesday in an interview with NPR's Sarah McCammon.




One might think the fanatics who screamed and harassed women going to abortion clinics in the past would find a new hobby now that they “won” their fight. Nope. They just find new targets for their harassment.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Scepticalscribe said:


> Moreover, I find that men toss around adjectives such as "psychotic", or "crazy" far too casually. All too often, a man labels a woman "psychotic" or "crazy" if she calls him out, or, if she doesn't do what he wants her to do, or would like her to do.




I think that’s the main issue being attacked here, the way I worded it. I’m not going to walk it back because that’s how some people feel about that scenario. Whether you think that’s how I really feel about it I don’t really care, and I’m not saying that righteously. I get labeled and pigeonholed on here constantly for sharing a viewpoint. There’s some real purity of thought police here.

This isn’t entirely a one-sided scenario all the time. Maybe the woman lied about being on the pill. Maybe she was and stopped. Maybe there was a history of trust that deteriorated. Maybe it’s a last-ditch ill-conceived plan to save the relationship. The men’s options to leave is kind of a moot point. A child was born.

Clearly a woman who has that mentality probably wouldn’t get an abortion anyway, but my main point to the post is that option has been taken off the table for the men who really didn’t quite think about all the implications of the court decision and are big fans of controlling women’s autonomy. They’re probably all hopped up on seeing it as a punishment for women having sex with men who aren’t them and don’t look much past that to where it also means it could also lead to them being a father they don’t want to be with a woman they don’t want to be with. And while they could walk away, I’d like to think the legal system has advanced past the point of when they could just disappear and not be bothered for the rest of their lives.


----------



## Alli

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Having said that, the pregnancy trap is a thing. Now add "I’d get an abortion but I can’t. Sorry, not sorry."



Thirty some years ago my brother had a girlfriend. He was never serious about her, and corrected her often when she told her mother that they were engaged. She told him she was on the pill. But guess what…. And she never suggested an abortion cause she’s Catholic. Yea, it’s definitely a thing.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Drunk on their success, some are showing their asses



> Indiana AG’s Probe of Doctor Who Gave 10-Year-Old Abortion ‘Riddled With Inaccuracies’
> 
> 
> “We urge Mr. Rokita to stop wasting taxpayer money and our time on his nonsensical campaign against Dr. Bernard."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jezebel.com






> Since Rokita made this declaration on Fox News, all but inciting anti-abortion extremists to (once again) stalk and attack Bernard, the _Indianapolis Star_ confirmed Bernard had in fact reported the child’s abortion within two days—within the three-day time frame that Indiana law requires for the abortions of patients under 16-years-old to be reported. “None of the complaints came from a ‘consumer’ who purchased any goods or services from Dr. Bernard or even from a person who has had direct communication with Dr. Bernard,” Bernard’s lawyer, Kathleen DeLaney, said in a statement shared with HuffPost. Further, the complaints against the doctor “rely on [individuals with] no first-hand knowledge.”





> In Rokita’s suit against Bernard, DeLaney says the attorney general cites a complaint that lists the doctor’s phone number as “555-555-5555”—sounds trustworthy to me! The ostensibly tough-on-crime AG, so tough-on-crime he’ll bully and harass a doctor, also cites complaints against Bernard from someone who has a “significant criminal history,” DeLaney noted.
> 
> “Unfortunately, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita continues to use his office to try and intimidate Dr. Caitlin Bernard,” Bernard’s lawyer said. “We urge Mr. Rokita to stop wasting taxpayer money and our time on his nonsensical campaign against Dr. Bernard for doing her job as a physician properly and in accordance with the law.”





> Within days of _Roe v. Wade_ being overturned last month, the child rape victim from Ohio had to travel across state lines for care after Ohio’s six-week abortion ban went into effect. The child was reportedly six weeks and three days pregnant. Right-wing politicians and media wasted no time pretending the harrowing story was fake news, beginning with Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R) pretending stating he simply had no knowledge of the case and couldn’t comment and escalating to Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost telling Fox, “Every day that goes by, the more likely that this is a fabrication.”
> 
> The _Wall Street Journal_, not to be outdone, ran a story under the truly ghoulish headline—again, about a 10-year-old rape victim—“An Abortion Story Too Good to Confirm,” and suggested the child’s trauma was a “fanciful” figure of left-wing imagination. Eventually, on July 13, the victim’s alleged rapist was arrested, but the damage inflicted by these attacks on Bernard and a literal child had already been done.





> “I feel anguished, desperate and angry,” Bernard wrote in a _Washington Post_ op ed last week. “I don’t want to be the one who loses a patient because her pregnancy killed her before I could save her. I don’t want to live in a place where my government tells me that child sex abuse victims must become mothers. I don’t want to have to accept that a particular religious ideology eclipses my duty as a physician.”
> 
> Bernard, who’s currently preparing to sue Rokita for defamation, is unfortunately well acquainted with the consequences of viral right-wing conspiracy theories and anti-abortion extremism. In 2020, the FBI informed her of a threat from anti-abortion activists to kidnap her young daughter. We already know the violence of which anti-abortion activists are more than capable. And Rokita knew what he was doing when he said on Fox, “This is a child, and there’s a strong public interest in understanding if someone under the age of 16 or under the age of 18 or really any woman is having abortion in our state.”
> 
> The lies lodged against Bernard and, by extension, her 10-year-old patient enduring unthinkable trauma, are a transparent attempt to downplay and erase the horrific, everyday consequences of overturning _Roe_. Much like increased maternal deaths, increased domestic violence against pregnant people, denial of life-saving medications, and more women and pregnant people jailed, child rape victims are denied care all too often in countries that ban abortion. Days prior to _Roe_ being overturned, an 11-year-old rape victim in Brazil was denied an abortion.
> 
> That anti-abortion activists’ response in the face of all this harm is to smear and lie, rather than self-reflect on the gender-based violence innate to their bans, presents an important lesson: There’s no experience that will ever be sympathetic enough to a movement that simply does not care about the suffering it’s causing.


----------



## JayMysteri0

This shit is going to get scarier & scarier... by design.



> These Companies Know You're Pregnant—And They're Not Keeping It Secret
> 
> 
> Gizmodo identified 32 brokers selling data on 2.9 billion profiles of U.S. residents pegged as "actively pregnant" or "shopping for maternity products."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gizmodo.com





> In early 2012, the New York Times Magazine put out a cover story about Andrew Pole, a statistician working for Target who was tasked with inventing a way to identify potentially pregnant shoppers, even if those shoppers didn’t want the company to know. The rationale, Pole said, was that moms-to-be are a multi-million dollar market, and Target wanted a way to pepper these moneymakers with promos and coupons before its competitors did the same.
> 
> Pole obliged. After crawling through the freight of sale data from statewide shoppers on Target’s public baby registry, he came up with a “pregnancy prediction” score that the company would internally assign to each of its regular customers. If you believe the rumors (not everyone does!), Target’s algos were so accurate that the company sent coupons for cribs to a teenage girl before her own father knew she was due.
> 
> A decade later, the story reads less like a quirk of capitalism and more like an ominous sign. Now it’s not just Target, every company is hounding you for data. And thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision to overthrow _Roe v. Wade_, a good chunk of the nation’s police and private citizens can go after people seeking abortions and the doctors that would serve them if there’s enough evidence.






> In total, Gizmodo identified 32 different brokers across the U.S. selling access to the unique mobile IDs from some 2.9 billion profiles of people pegged as “actively pregnant” or “shopping for maternity products.” Also on the market: data on 478 million customer profiles labeled “interested in pregnancy” or “intending to become pregnant.” You can see the full list of companies for yourself here.
> 
> In all cases, these datasets were sold on what’s known as a “CPM” or “cost per mille” basis—which essentially means that whoever buys them only pays for the number of end-users that are reached with a given ad. Depending on who was offering up a dataset, the price per user ranged from 49 cents per user reached to a whopping $2.25.
> 
> The datasets offer information on some 3.4 billion people in total, though how many unique individuals those data cover is unclear, as the datasets obviously overlap. Multiple brokers are likely hawking the same information, as half the world does not live in the United States, and half the world is not pregnant. Their sources do differ, however. Some brokers were gleaning this information directly from pregnant people who had agreed to have their data shared through these channels when they signed up for coupon sites or downloaded a given app. In other cases, these companies were doing exactly what Target had done all those years before: instead of collecting data from end-users that were explicitly saying they’re pregnant, the brokers instead modeled a core base of potentially pregnant users with internal data analysis.
> 
> Gizmodo was able to find likely data sources for 19 of the data brokers by scouring announcements about past partnerships and integrations. For the remaining handful of these players, the mind-boggling complexity of the data-sharing ecosystem meant it was completely impossible to suss out where, exactly, they were deriving their data. Eerie.






> In one case, for example, a company called AlikeAudience was selling access to an estimated 61 million iOS users who were at a “Pregnancy & Maternity Life Stage,” but the listing didn’t go into detail about the source of that data. It simply notes that “AlikeAudience collects data from various sources such as users’ mobile app downloads & usage, geolocations, public records such as POI and self-declared information.”
> 
> One possibility is that AlikeAudience leveraged its relationship with Mastercard to see who was buying items in the “Maternity Care” category. While the company’s listing didn’t go into specifics about what a “maternity care” product _is _in this particular listing, you can kind of fill in the blanks yourself: maternity clothes, prenatal vitamins, etc.







> Another data broker called Quotient was more explicit, offering marketers access to the iOS and Android devices of 9.6 million “pregnancy test kit” and 960,000 “female contraceptive” buyers.
> 
> Quotient didn’t make it clear in either of those cases where it was getting that purchasing data from, but Gizmodo’s investigation revealed that the company also owns the popular couponing site, coupons.com. The site has offered coupons for products like Plan B in the past, though it does not currently. Gizmodo also found that Quotient had access to purchasing data from shoppers at Giant Eagle—a chain of small pharmacies across the Pennsylvania area—via a proprietary ad network the data broker operates.
> 
> AlikeAudience and Quotient have yet to respond to Gizmodo’s requests for comment.




It's crazy to think that many of the people all in on getting rid or Roe Vs Wade, are also some of the people most vocal about the threat of "Big Brother".  Except it seems when "Big Brother" is aimed squarely at others.


----------



## SuperMatt

JayMysteri0 said:


> It's crazy to think that many of the people all in on getting rid or Roe Vs Wade, are also some of the people most vocal about the threat of "Big Brother".  Except it seems when "Big Brother" is aimed squarely at others.



Justice Thomas was very clear in his concurring opinion on Dobbs. He doesn’t believe the constitution gives Americans a right to privacy. He is an “outlier” they say, but they also said Roe would never get overturned.


----------



## mollyc

JayMysteri0 said:


> This shit is going to get scarier & scarier... by design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's crazy to think that many of the people all in on getting rid or Roe Vs Wade, are also some of the people most vocal about the threat of "Big Brother".  Except it seems when "Big Brother" is aimed squarely at others.



most targeted ads at me have figured out i am female, but i get an equal amount of ads thinking i am trying to get pregnant or entering menopause.


----------



## JayMysteri0

This is just going to get more & more stupid & cruel

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1553773183697829893/



> West Virginia Republican wants to ban child support because he thinks it'll incentivize abortions
> 
> 
> Chris Pritt owns his own law practice, Pritt Law, where he specializes in divorce, custody arguments and child support. But standing before the state legislature in West Virginia, his argument was a linguistic pretzel to justify eliminating all child support for the parent who gets custody of a...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.rawstory.com





> Chris Pritt owns his own law practice, Pritt Law, where he specializes in divorce, custody arguments and child support. But standing before the state legislature in West Virginia, his argument was a linguistic pretzel to justify eliminating all child support for the parent who gets custody of a child.
> 
> According to Pritt, there are fathers who don't want to be involved in the lives of their children.
> 
> "If she carries through with the pregnancy, he's going to have, possibly, some sort of child support obligation," said Pritt. "And, so, what he wants to do is, he wants to — in a sense — encourage her to go and find a way for her to get an abortion. Because he knows that a certain individual — if he has any kind if familiarity with her, he knows that she might be of such a state of mind, she must be in such a vulnerable position that it's not worth everything that he's going to put me through to carry this pregnancy forward. It's going to be easier, it's going to be better, for me to just go and terminate this 'life.' So she goes over to Virginia or to some other state where she goes and gets the abortion. So, I think that's a really clear possibility if we enact the Second Amendment here, I don't want to be doing anything that is encouraging thugs to go and get an abortion."
> 
> It's unclear what he means by referencing the Second Amendment.
> 
> Parents fighting to not get child support for the child they're raising isn't something that happens. Single parents are generally cash strapped and any opportunity to ensure the other parent helps is important. Having financial support is typically more of an incentive to have a child, as the number one reason women give for getting an abortion is financial.


----------



## SuperMatt

JayMysteri0 said:


> This is just going to get more & more stupid & cruel
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1553773183697829893/



And now we see what the danger and harm to women of statements like this can have:



Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Another unintended consequence of this decision, men trapped by psychotic women who feel the way to keep them in a long term relationship is to have their kid.




Because the GOP men in charge don’t give a crap about the kids or the women. They have the same thought about being “trapped” by a baby, and their solution is to force the birth anyway, but remove all responsibility from themselves to care for it.


----------



## lizkat

SuperMatt said:


> And now we see what the danger and harm to women of statements like this can have:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the GOP men in charge don’t give a crap about the kids or the women. They have the same thought about being “trapped” by a baby, and their solution is to force the birth anyway, but remove all responsibility from themselves to care for it.




Yeah...   the phrase "went and got herself pregnant" is the fallback. 

That concept lets red states cut taxes or reallocate federal block grants to other than adequate support for dependent women and children -- e.g., subsidized daycare so the woman can work.

They also signal that if a woman "can't afford to bring up a kid" then she should keep her legs crossed.   Nothing in that picture about a man exercising similar discretion...  because he's just doing what comes naturally?

What comes naturally to women is...  _well, who cares_.  What matters to the GOP is tax cuts and personal freedom.  For men.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

SuperMatt said:


> And now we see what the danger and harm to women of statements like this can have:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the GOP men in charge don’t give a crap about the kids or the women. They have the same thought about being “trapped” by a baby, and their solution is to force the birth anyway, but remove all responsibility from themselves to care for it.




Well, at least they waited the customary Republican 5 seconds to reveal their bigger idealogy and so far they are hitting it out of the park with a vile response to a horrific scenario.  

One would think a state that already struggles to take care of its existing population would be against adding even more people to the roster, but it appears that doing that is some kind of solution in their view with struggling state after struggling state  trying to one-up each other with these "solutions".


----------



## Alli

mollyc said:


> most targeted ads at me have figured out i am female, but i get an equal amount of ads thinking i am trying to get pregnant or entering menopause.



And my lack of breasts confuses the hell out of the algorithm. LOL


----------



## lizkat

Alli said:


> And my lack of breasts confuses the hell out of the algorithm. LOL




I usually click my way through a bunch of newspaper subscriptions so after years of that, the algorithms have deduced that I'm either a journo, a politician or at least over the age of 65.  So the ads run to either invitations to subscribe to pricey journals or to try out this or that vitamin or exercise regime.   But then every year comes summer,  when often enough the newspaper fare I bother with is about baseball or book reviews.   Suddenly the algos are confused anew.... eventually pitching me ads for custom t-shirts and beach reads.


----------



## SuperMatt

Is there a limit to the insanity of the “pro-life” laws in the wake of overturning Roe V Wade?









						Pregnant? Georgia says that fetus counts as a dependent on your taxes
					

A person at least six weeks pregnant on or after July 20 through Dec. 31, 2022, can submit the fetus as a dependent on their state tax returns starting next year.




					www.npr.org
				




Maybe not…


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

SuperMatt said:


> Is there a limit to the insanity of the “pro-life” laws in the wake of overturning Roe V Wade?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pregnant? Georgia says that fetus counts as a dependent on your taxes
> 
> 
> A person at least six weeks pregnant on or after July 20 through Dec. 31, 2022, can submit the fetus as a dependent on their state tax returns starting next year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.npr.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not…




Sounds like a bribe for the state government to efficiently track if a woman has ever been pregnant.  And in the following year if she doesn't claim a dependent I'm sure they won't investigate, nope.


----------



## SuperMatt

It looks like the Kansas ballot measure to change the constitution and allow the legislature to ban abortions is going to fail, by a 2-to-1 margin.

I have 2 thoughts about this.

First, banning abortion is very unpopular, even with some Republicans apparently. The “no” vote on the constitutional amendment got 20 points more support than Biden in 2020.

Second, this is in a state with a solid Republican legislature, even though it looks like a majority of people in the state aren’t voting Republican. Yet another example of how gerrymandering perverts democracy.


----------



## Alli

SuperMatt said:


> Is there a limit to the insanity of the “pro-life” laws in the wake of overturning Roe V Wade?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pregnant? Georgia says that fetus counts as a dependent on your taxes
> 
> 
> A person at least six weeks pregnant on or after July 20 through Dec. 31, 2022, can submit the fetus as a dependent on their state tax returns starting next year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.npr.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not…



Hey, as long as they’re going to go all the way….


----------



## GermanSuplex

I pray this is a sign of the midterms. Although they've already laid the groundwork to just claim "fraud" if the elections don't go to their likings.

Dems will either lose the house (and possibly senate) and republicans will celebrate, or they'll keep control of one or both and republicans will just say its more proof of voter fraud.

We need one of these nut jobs to win a governor seat and end up screwing their own constituents, and then they need to have a hard time getting rid of said governor after they've successfully rigged the vote. I hate to say that, but business as usual won't work with these nut jobs. They will not change their mind until they fall victim to their own brand of fucked up politics. Maybe arresting a wealthy conservative woman when she's found to have gotten an abortion against her state's laws.

Nevertheless, I'm glad the constitutional amendment change failed in Kansas. That's a damn good sign from a very religious, red state. And I hope women, moderates, independents and liberals send a clear message to pro-life crusaders this year, and hand the republicans some defeats in the process.


----------



## SuperMatt

GermanSuplex said:


> I pray this is a sign of the midterms. Although they've already laid the groundwork to just claim "fraud" if the elections don't go to their likings.
> 
> Dems will either lose the house (and possibly senate) and republicans will celebrate, or they'll keep control of one or both and republicans will just say its more proof of voter fraud.
> 
> We need one of these nut jobs to win a governor seat and end up screwing their own constituents, and then they need to have a hard time getting rid of said governor after they've successfully rigged the vote. I hate to say that, but business as usual won't work with these nut jobs. They will not change their mind until they fall victim to their own brand of fucked up politics. Maybe arresting a wealthy conservative woman when she's found to have gotten an abortion against her state's laws.
> 
> Nevertheless, I'm glad the constitutional amendment change failed in Kansas. That's a damn good sign from a very religious, red state. And I hope women, moderates, independents and liberals send a clear message to pro-life crusaders this year, and hand the republicans some defeats in the process.



I was reading the coverage from 538, and I was a bit surprised that they didn’t see the Kansas vote coming. They thought it would go for the anti-abortion amendment. This is despite polls showing what people think about abortion nationwide. It makes me wonder if their models that show a high likelihood of Republicans re-taking the house are way off. This vote wasn’t close. Women don’t want their rights taken away, regardless of party. When you factor in the insane candidates being put forward byes the GOP, i wouldn‘t be surprised if all the pundits are wrong and the Democrats hold the house and the Senate despite the current global economic trouble.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

In summary…you don’t get to embark on a decades’ long crusade to strip away rights and then claim you are champions of democracy when the people vote against those actions.  

On top of that there are still many states where decisions are just being made by politicians.   If you are really champions of democracy then you would insist similar votes be made in every state and no changes will be made before that vote.


----------



## Yoused

GOP Sen. Tim Scott Claims Democrats Want Abortions Up To 52 Weeks
					

Human pregnancies last for about 40 weeks.




					www.huffpost.com
				




I mean, by the 39th week, I think most women want this thing out, one way or another.


----------



## Roller

Yoused said:


> GOP Sen. Tim Scott Claims Democrats Want Abortions Up To 52 Weeks
> 
> 
> Human pregnancies last for about 40 weeks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean, by the 39th week, I think most women want this thing out, one way or another.



Well, the average gestational period for a donkey is 52 weeks, which is appropriate for someone who made an ass of himself by his ignorance.


----------



## lizkat

These guys.    Their sometimes willful ignorance.   Their power to ruin women's lives. 

It doesn't have to be this way.  I really hope the Rs have overstepped themselves and underestimated public reaction to draconian anti-choice legislation.


----------



## Eric

Facebook turns over mother and daughter’s chat history to police resulting in abortion charges
					

Unencrypted chat history is a prime target for police




					www.theverge.com


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Eric said:


> Facebook turns over mother and daughter’s chat history to police resulting in abortion charges
> 
> 
> Unencrypted chat history is a prime target for police
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theverge.com




For once, the "angry" emoji is insufficient to express my emotions.

Do you have an emoji to express pure rage, or livid with undiluted, incandescent, fury?


----------



## Eric

Scepticalscribe said:


> For once, the "angry" emoji is insufficient to express my emotions.
> 
> Do you have an emoji to express pure rage, or undiluted, incandescent, fury?



Best I can do here...


----------



## rdrr

Eric said:


> Facebook turns over mother and daughter’s chat history to police resulting in abortion charges
> 
> 
> Unencrypted chat history is a prime target for police
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theverge.com



Holy cow!  Read those Terms of Service and End User Agreements people.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Eric said:


> Best I can do here...
> View attachment 16587View attachment 16588



Thanks, but no thanks.

I'll pass on this.

However, the thread does suggest that there will be a day of reckoning for social media platforms.

Such actions will (inevitably) raise questions on subjects such as one's rights to privacy and indeed, issues of freedom of expression, as well as, wider questions of social and political responsibility for what appears on these platforms, for, the old days of "net neutrality" will no longer wash in the current political climate.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Eric said:


> Facebook turns over mother and daughter’s chat history to police resulting in abortion charges
> 
> 
> Unencrypted chat history is a prime target for police
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theverge.com





Freedom and small government!!


----------



## GermanSuplex

Republicans get abortions too. I think a lot of conservatives have this dumb idea that anyone getting an abortion must be a pro-choice liberal. They don’t consider many people may be against abortion in theory but would get one in a hot second if they felt it was necessary for them, regardless of any political ideology or lack of, and there are many pro-choice liberals who would never consider abortion for themselves except as a last resort.

If a state like Kansas voted down an amendment to remove abortion rights, you can bet your ass the polling numbers we’ve seen across the nation are pretty accurate. This is a losing stance for conservatives.

Between this, Trump’s refusal to go away and the insane rhetoric coming from the right in the wake of investigation activity surrounding their cult leader (not to mention Biden’s string of legislative success in his 20 months in office), I feel a lot better about democrat chances in November.


----------



## Deleted member 215

Interesting article about why the abortion ban in Ireland failed:









						The Irish Lesson | Fintan O’Toole
					

In 1973, soon after the US Supreme Court established a right to abortion in Roe v. Wade, Charles E. Rice concluded that “the essential remedy to the




					www.nybooks.com
				




In 1983, Ireland passed a Constitutional amendment to ban abortion, though it was already banned according to 19th century laws that had never been overturned. O'Toole cites three major reasons the ban failed:

1. The ban had an exception to save the life of the mother, thus losing its absolutism that made it powerful in the first place. 
2. The ban did not stop women from seeking abortions in England. It allowed women to travel abroad for an abortion, thus essentially carving out another exception.
3. Women died because doctors feared treating them for dangerous complications lest they be accused of performing an abortion and these stories disgusted and horrified the public.

In other words, the ban failed over time as these issues accumulated. I wonder if a similar thing will happen here. In either case, the pro-life movement knows that the next step is a nationwide ban to shield against issue #2.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

DL;DW.  Eli Lilly headquartered in Indian for almost 150 years put out a statement saying they are looking to expand or move elsewhere due to the abortion restrictions in the state potentially keeping talent from moving there.  So it begins.


----------



## lizkat

TBL said:


> Interesting article about why the abortion ban in Ireland failed:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Lesson | Fintan O’Toole
> 
> 
> In 1973, soon after the US Supreme Court established a right to abortion in Roe v. Wade, Charles E. Rice concluded that “the essential remedy to the
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nybooks.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1983, Ireland passed a Constitutional amendment to ban abortion, though it was already banned according to 19th century laws that had never been overturned. O'Toole cites three major reasons the ban failed:
> 
> 1. The ban had an exception to save the life of the mother, thus losing its absolutism that made it powerful in the first place.
> 2. The ban did not stop women from seeking abortions in England. It allowed women to travel abroad for an abortion, thus essentially carving out another exception.
> 3. Women died because doctors feared treating them for dangerous complications lest they be accused of performing an abortion and these stories disgusted and horrified the public.
> 
> In other words, the ban failed over time as these issues accumulated. I wonder if a similar thing will happen here. In either case, the pro-life movement knows that the next step is a nationwide ban to shield against issue #2.




They're behind the eight ball on a nationwide ban.  The pendulum has swung too far the other way, and in no little part because of the excessive behavior of anti-choice activists over the years.   We've already seen rise in maternal mortality rates, for instance, in states where the leading edge of state-level laws restricting abortion access occurred years ago.  Physicians will point to that and say what do you think will happen when we can't even surgically assist a woman who miscarried naturally with medical complications?   They'll leave states like Indiana and Ohio and Texas in droves.   If you can't find an abortion provider locally, that's one thing.  If you can't find a obstetrician or an ER doctor, well...    maybe you look work elsewhere, same as your doctor will be doing.


----------



## Alli

Yesterday I had the worst urge to message my mother on Facebook and tell her I’d just discovered I was pregnant and planning on heading north for an abortion. You know, just to fuck with those ass monkeys.


----------



## GermanSuplex

You know how republicans always responded to examples of abortion as being “extremely rare” or “uncommon”? I guess they think women need to be punished for one-night stands, or perhaps they think only young black women get abortions, and then they can demonize them later when they seek government assistance.

Now that the dog has caught the car, we’re seeing just how often those “extreme” cases happen.

Should be interesting to see what happens when this starts affecting families of pro-choice conservatives who support this “pro-life” crap.

The irony of determining a 16 year old isn’t mature enough to make a decision on having an abortion, but is mature enough to be a parent, is wild.









						Fl. court rules pregnant teen girl isn't 'mature enough' for abortion
					

A 16-year-old pregnant and parentless Florida girl may be forced to give birth after a judge ruled she was not 'sufficiently mature' enough to make the decision to have an abortion.



					www.dailymail.co.uk


----------



## lizkat

AZ's 15-week abortion limit takes effect tomorrow. Court just ruled a stricter 1864 near-ban takes precedence and must be enforced.  Arizona not even a state in 1864; the ban was codified in 1901.

Honestly  wtf wrong with these people.

*Arizona Judge Reinstates Strict Abortion Ban From 1864* (NYT, paywall removed)



> The stricter ban, which can be traced to 1864, was blocked by a court injunction in 1973 shortly after the Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, determined that there was a constitutional right to abortion.
> 
> On Friday, Judge Kellie Johnson of Pima County Superior Court lifted that injunction, noting that Roe had been overruled in June and that Planned Parenthood’s request for the court to “harmonize the laws” in Arizona was flawed.
> 
> The 1864 law, first established by the state’s territorial legislature, mandates a two- to five-year prison sentence for anyone who helps a woman obtain an abortion. In 1901, the state updated and codified the law.






> Planned Parenthood Arizona had argued that the state’s conflicting laws should be reconciled so licensed physicians could continue providing abortions under the 15-week regulation, with the much earlier law only applying to others performing the procedure.
> 
> Judge Johnson, who was appointed by the governor, disagreed. “The court finds that because the legal basis for the judgment entered in 1973 has now been overruled, it must vacate the judgment in its entirety,” she wrote. “The court finds an attempt to reconcile 50 years of legislative activity procedurally improper.”
> 
> Abortion rights supporters like Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, the Democratic candidate for governor, were critical of the decision. “Medical professionals will now be forced to think twice and call their lawyer before providing patients with oftentimes necessary, lifesaving care,” she said in a statement.


----------



## fooferdoggie

let's hope it costs them big time in the elections. it has nothing to do with abortions at this point.


----------



## GermanSuplex

Their messaging is all over the map right now. You have conservatives in swing districts who ran as full-on pro-lifers in the primaries, and are now trying to walk back to the middle for the general. In fact, some of them are scrubbing their websites, dodging questions or pretending it isn't even an issue at all.

I have no clue what Senator Graham is doing with this pro-life bill he's introduced. Is it to take heat off of himself in the GA probe? Is it some gamble he's taking that he is going to the be the hero to spin this in a more positive light?

I would LOVE it if republicans failed to take back the house in November. It seems like a longshot, but not outside the realm of possibility. Biden's numbers are going up the highest they've been this year after a string of legislative victories. Trump is dominating the news cycle, and none of it is good news. The people still in the bag for Trump and taking his side on things like all these criminal and civil suits are probably all going to vote republican, but they can't count on those people alone. They seem to want to drive turnout from "the base", but seem to have abandoned the folks in the middle.

It's hard for me to imagine the overturning of Roe v. Wade won't cause a surge of new and swing voters to vote for the democrat candidates this fall, but who knows. It does seem like entirely new territory though... republicans have been trying to accomplish this for fifty years, and now they've accomplished it, but I don't hear very many republicans campaigning on this "victory" - quite the opposite. Good or bad, it IS a pretty big deal and a culmination of a lot of hard work by republicans. Yet they don't seem to be treating it as such... for obvious reasons.


----------



## Yoused

GermanSuplex said:


> I would LOVE it if republicans failed to take back the house in November. It seems like a longshot, but not outside the realm of possibility. Biden's numbers are going up the highest they've been this year after a string of legislative victories. Trump is dominating the news cycle, and none of it is good news.




Per 538, Joe the President is very close to where Individual-ONE was at this point 8 years ago (B: -9.6 / T:-12.1, net) when he lost the House.


----------



## Herdfan

Yoused said:


> Per 538, Joe the President is very close to where Individual-ONE was at this point 8 years ago (B: -9.6 / T:-12.1, net) when he lost the House.




????

8 years ago Obama was President.  Do you mean 4 years ago?


----------



## GermanSuplex

Yoused said:


> Per 538, Joe the President is very close to where Individual-ONE was at this point 8 years ago (B: -9.6 / T:-12.1, net) when he lost the House.




Yeah, but there's always surprises. I'm definitely not betting on it, but what I would hope for if/when republicans win the house is that they may pick up a few close seats - seats that could have went either way - but that any major upsets happen on their side as well. Meaning, they may gain some seats, but lose some influential and well-known members.

I hope the same happens on the senate side, in even grander fashion if the democrats pick up a seat or two to break the tie and give less influence to Manchin and Sinema, as well as the GOP.


----------



## Herdfan

GermanSuplex said:


> I hope the same happens on the senate side, in even grander fashion if the democrats pick up a seat or two to break the tie and give less influence to Manchin and Sinema, as well as the GOP.




Part of me wants the Dems to win the Senate (But only if the GOP takes the House) because VP Harris has said if they take the Senate, the Filibuster is done.  Have at it.  Be the party that does away with it because at some point in the future, the GOP will control all 3 again so if there is no Filibuster, they will be able to do basically what they want without having to have been the party that did away with it.


----------



## Yoused

Herdfan said:


> ????
> 
> 8 years ago Obama was President.  Do you mean 4 years ago?




Oh, was it only 4? Times flies when you are partying down.


----------



## lizkat

Herdfan said:


> Part of me wants the Dems to win the Senate (But only if the GOP takes the House) because VP Harris has said if they take the Senate, the Filibuster is done.  Have at it.  Be the party that does away with it because at some point in the future, the GOP will control all 3 again so if there is no Filibuster, they will be able to do basically what they want without having to have been the party that did away with it.




I am still not a fan of ditching the filibuster.   I get it (and it's frustrating) that the Senate now tends to undervalue the will of constituents of  Democratic Senators, because of the population differences in rural states and urban ones. 

Still we do see some rural states ending up with at least one Dem in the Senate, and that's likely to be more common over time unless the Republicans can shift gears on some of their past platforms regarding not only social issues but the economic ones that affect equality of opportunity.

Meanwhile though, taking a 60-vote bar for key legislation down to a 50-50 split with a tie-breaking VP in the wings would make it worse for Democrats' representation,  not better,  whenever the Senate happens to have either a 50-50 split in an R administration or else an outright Republican majority. 

So really I don't get why Democrats want to go for killing the filibuster. They'd do better just trying to regain a few more seats to reduce that population weighting unfairness and bring them closer to being able to overcome a filibuster more easily.

Anyway the Rs are aware their favored demographics are on the wane,  and yet they don't seem inclined to update their platform or outreach well enough to stem the tide of more blue Senators as time goes on.  It's not clear to me that the pro-Trump GOP's craze for legslating state level rigging of  election results they don't like is really a big seller in the USA either.


----------



## Yoused

University of Idaho releases memo warning employees that promoting abortion is against state law - Idaho Capital Sun
					

The University of Idaho has warned its employees not to provide reproductive health counseling, including abortion, to their students.




					idahocapitalsun.com
				




they are allowed to provide condoms for disease prevention but not for birth control


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

GermanSuplex said:


> Their messaging is all over the map right now. You have conservatives in swing districts who ran as full-on pro-lifers in the primaries, and are now trying to walk back to the middle for the general. In fact, some of them are scrubbing their websites, dodging questions or pretending it isn't even an issue at all.
> 
> I have no clue what Senator Graham is doing with this pro-life bill he's introduced. Is it to take heat off of himself in the GA probe? Is it some gamble he's taking that he is going to the be the hero to spin this in a more positive light?
> 
> I would LOVE it if republicans failed to take back the house in November. It seems like a longshot, but not outside the realm of possibility. Biden's numbers are going up the highest they've been this year after a string of legislative victories. Trump is dominating the news cycle, and none of it is good news. The people still in the bag for Trump and taking his side on things like all these criminal and civil suits are probably all going to vote republican, but they can't count on those people alone. They seem to want to drive turnout from "the base", but seem to have abandoned the folks in the middle.
> 
> It's hard for me to imagine the overturning of Roe v. Wade won't cause a surge of new and swing voters to vote for the democrat candidates this fall, but who knows. It does seem like entirely new territory though... republicans have been trying to accomplish this for fifty years, and now they've accomplished it, but I don't hear very many republicans campaigning on this "victory" - quite the opposite. Good or bad, it IS a pretty big deal and a culmination of a lot of hard work by republicans. Yet they don't seem to be treating it as such... for obvious reasons.




The main reason I think it’s not a slam dunk for Democrats is that they want to return us to 2015 completely oblivious (STILL) that it was our failed and corrupt duopoly that made Trump look like an appealing gamble to many. The Republicans want to return us to the 1800’s which no living person has memory of but they do have the memory that 2015 and the decades leading up to it sucked.


----------



## fooferdoggie

Yoused said:


> University of Idaho releases memo warning employees that promoting abortion is against state law - Idaho Capital Sun
> 
> 
> The University of Idaho has warned its employees not to provide reproductive health counseling, including abortion, to their students.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idahocapitalsun.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they are allowed to provide condoms for disease prevention but not for birth control



pregnancy is now a disease I guess. its amazing they dont want unwanted pregancies but they dont want to prevent them either.


----------



## Herdfan

What pisses me off about this whole thing is that Lindsey Graham, and think of him what you wish because it could have been any Republican member, introduced a bill that would have capped abortions at 15 weeks.  Nationwide.  And all the left could focus on was the 15-week limit completely ignoring it would legalize it up to 15 weeks Nationwide.

This could have been the stepping stone to a compromise that could have ended at 20 or 24 weeks.  Something that 70-80% of the country would have been happy with.  But no, the left is too afraid of agreeing to ANY limits.  Who or what are they afraid of?  Are there that many rabid abortion supporters that want abortion up until her water breaks that they need to appease them?


----------



## quagmire

Herdfan said:


> What pisses me off about this whole thing is that Lindsey Graham, and think of him what you wish because it could have been any Republican member, introduced a bill that would have capped abortions at 15 weeks.  Nationwide.  And all the left could focus on was the 15-week limit completely ignoring it would legalize it up to 15 weeks Nationwide.
> 
> This could have been the stepping stone to a compromise that could have ended at 20 or 24 weeks.  Something that 70-80% of the country would have been happy with.  But no, the left is too afraid of agreeing to ANY limits.  Who or what are they afraid of?  Are there that many rabid abortion supporters that want abortion up until her water breaks that they need to appease them?




You also realize it completely turns the GOP argument of it being a states right issue on its head too right?

It destroys the message on why they wanted to over turn Roe. Graham now has given the democrats ammo in that’s the GOP is gunning to ban abortion federally. 

Also that bill allows states to still ban it outright or have further restrictions. Plus the post-15 week exceptions still doesn’t cover health issues with the fetus. They have to wait until that health issue is literally about to kill the mom or dies on its own before doctors can do anything. No one, but the wackos support abortions all the way to birth as an elective procedure. The right needs to stop pushing that narrative, it’s not even close to being true.


----------



## Deleted member 215

Yoused said:


> University of Idaho releases memo warning employees that promoting abortion is against state law - Idaho Capital Sun
> 
> 
> The University of Idaho has warned its employees not to provide reproductive health counseling, including abortion, to their students.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idahocapitalsun.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they are allowed to provide condoms for disease prevention but not for birth control




The Catholicization of America 

@Herdfan I wouldn't be opposed to a nationwide 15-week limit, provided that it applies to all states and no full bans are allowed.


----------



## quagmire

TBL said:


> The Catholicization of America
> 
> @Herdfan I wouldn't be opposed to a nationwide 15-week limit, provided that it applies to all states and no full bans are allowed.




I would be. The previous line that Roe established of viability is the best cut off for elective abortions and anything past viability is purely a  medical decision due to defect, life of the mother, etc.


----------



## Deleted member 215

In either case, staunch pro-lifers would not have been happy with this either. If you think abortion is murder, then 15 weeks, the next day, it doesn't matter.


----------



## ronntaylor

We all know a National 15-week abortion cutoff ain't happening. As @quagmire already said, it contradicts the GOP's States Rights BS. And if flies in the face of states that have more expansive abortion rights. I can't imagine New York, California and many others allowing harsh restrictions to hamstring the rights of women.

The GOP would rather hide the issue and run on social BS.


----------



## Pumbaa

Herdfan said:


> What pisses me off about this whole thing is that Lindsey Graham, and think of him what you wish because it could have been any Republican member, introduced a bill that would have capped abortions at 15 weeks.  Nationwide.  And all the left could focus on was the 15-week limit completely ignoring it would legalize it up to 15 weeks Nationwide.



The left probably completely ignored that it would legalize it up to 15 weeks nationwide because it absolutely wouldn’t legalize it nationwide at all. It would leave stricter state-level bans in place. Where did you get the idea that it would legalize it up to 15 weeks nationwide?









						Graham Introduces Legislation to Protect Unborn Children, Bring U.S. Abortion Policy in Line with Other Developed Nations
					

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today introduced the Protecting Pain-Capable Unborn Children from Late-Term Abortions Act in the United States Senate. The legislation would set a federal minimum protection for unborn children that is in line with European limits and...



					www.lgraham.senate.gov
				






> The Graham legislation:
> 
> Prohibits doctors from performing abortions after 15 weeks gestation – when an unborn child can feel pain – except in situations involving rape, incest, or risks to the life and physical health of the mother.
> *Leaves in place state laws that are more protective of unborn life.*


----------



## Alli

Herdfan said:


> What pisses me off about this whole thing is that Lindsey Graham, and think of him what you wish because it could have been any Republican member, introduced a bill that would have capped abortions at 15 weeks.  Nationwide.  And all the left could focus on was the 15-week limit completely ignoring it would legalize it up to 15 weeks Nationwide.
> 
> This could have been the stepping stone to a compromise that could have ended at 20 or 24 weeks.  Something that 70-80% of the country would have been happy with.  But no, the left is too afraid of agreeing to ANY limits.  Who or what are they afraid of?  Are there that many rabid abortion supporters that want abortion up until her water breaks that they need to appease them?



It was never about the 15 weeks. There cannot be a time limit. You can’t even do amniocentesis until 18 weeks, Assuming a problem is found early, it could be another 4 weeks before doctors and parents can make an informed decision. 

Of course, the other issue is that once a national ban is placed, it’s very easy to start pushing back that arbitrary gestation limit and doing away with exceptions, specifically the health and safety of the mother. This is simply not a choice for politicians to be making, it is one that should be up to physicians, parents, and their god. Period.


----------



## GermanSuplex

Herdfan said:


> What pisses me off about this whole thing is that Lindsey Graham, and think of him what you wish because it could have been any Republican member, introduced a bill that would have capped abortions at 15 weeks.  Nationwide.  And all the left could focus on was the 15-week limit completely ignoring it would legalize it up to 15 weeks Nationwide.
> 
> This could have been the stepping stone to a compromise that could have ended at 20 or 24 weeks.  Something that 70-80% of the country would have been happy with.  But no, the left is too afraid of agreeing to ANY limits.  Who or what are they afraid of?  Are there that many rabid abortion supporters that want abortion up until her water breaks that they need to appease them?




If someone offers me lemonade before kicking me in the nuts, the lemonade is not what I'll remember.

I guess the flaw in your logic is that we should get to "negotiate" women's health.


----------



## Yoused

GermanSuplex said:


> I guess the flaw in your logic is that we should get to "negotiate" women's health.




No, the logical flaw is _*what the fuck business is it of yours??*?_


----------



## lizkat

Herdfan said:


> What pisses me off about this whole thing is that Lindsey Graham, and think of him what you wish because it could have been any Republican member, introduced a bill that would have capped abortions at 15 weeks.  Nationwide.  And all the left could focus on was the 15-week limit completely ignoring it would legalize it up to 15 weeks Nationwide.
> 
> This could have been the stepping stone to a compromise that could have ended at 20 or 24 weeks.  Something that 70-80% of the country would have been happy with.  But no, the left is too afraid of agreeing to ANY limits.  Who or what are they afraid of?  Are there that many rabid abortion supporters that want abortion up until her water breaks that they need to appease them?



The problem is that some Americans say that they regard all abortion as murder,  so insist there cannot be any exception, and that whatever suffering may ensue in denial of abortion services is part of God's plan or some such...  if they even get that far in thinking through the real world impact of a "no abortions whatsoever" law. 

Do these dolts in the GOP not understand how revolting it is for politicians to renounce legal abortion publicly and yet somehow become a pretzel when it's their girlfriend inconveniently gets knocked up or their wife turns up with an ectopic pregnancy?​​None of this is anyone's business except for concerns of a woman, a couple, their physician. And when the chips are down, that is how it plays out, too, regardless of the law...  If one has the money and contacts.​
So long as that "zero abortions" fantasy view persists to some extent, even in the face of all scientific reason --and lack of simple compassion-- there would remain a public litmus test for Republican candidates:  they'd have to provide at least lip service to a "pro-life" platform that would NOT line up with the 70-80% of Americans who might agree on some national measure with a viability limit.

Sure if there was a national law,  the Republican candidates would have the leeway they take now in trying to assess local views on abortion and avoid alienating any potential voters.  Some might not even mention abortion rights as an issue,  but some definitely would, and it would be about making it ever harder to terminate a pregnancy no matter the reason.   A 15-week national limit would be the equivalent of the rabbit in a greyhound race:_ Oh we're so close now, let's go for a national "no abortion if there's a heartbeat" law.    _


----------



## Herdfan

Yoused said:


> No, the logical flaw is _*what the fuck business is it of yours??*?_




Because past some limit of viability, you are killing a baby.  Are you really OK with that?


----------



## quagmire

Herdfan said:


> Because past some limit of viability, you are killing a baby.  Are you really OK with that?




If it leads to threatening the life of the mother or no realistic path for a safe birth, absolutely if that is a decision based on being informed by their doctors given the situation. 

You're arguing like what we are wanting is a situation where the couple just decides they don't want a kid anymore 3 weeks prior to due date and aborts it. No one here supports elective abortions past-viability.


----------



## lizkat

Herdfan said:


> Because past some limit of viability, you are killing a baby.  Are you really OK with that?




I'm ok with a woman or couple making a choice with the physician.  

The GOP still seems to fall back on accusations of "killing babies" when confronted with the impossible choices that restrictions on abortions can and do in reality place on a woman.

Too bad men are never faced intimately, physically with the choice that some of them will readily deny all women.  

There's no call for legislators to write hundred- or thousand-page documents trying to turn reasonable medical exceptions for either pre-viability or third-trimester terminations into murder. Leave the choice of pregnancy termination up to the doctor and woman or couple.  It is the most just way to deal with unforeseeable situations.

Yes there can be irresponsible actors.   That is true in all human situations.  Shall we go back to 2A discussions?


----------



## Roller

Herdfan said:


> Because past some limit of viability, you are killing a baby.  Are you really OK with that?



California permits abortion up to "viability," which is generally considered to be 24 weeks. Termination of pregnancy after that time is permitted if continuing the pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother.

A 15-week cut-off sounds attractive until you realize that gathering all the information for a woman (and her partner, if appropriate) to make a reasoned decision takes weeks, especially in cases where there is a problem with the fetus. Low and even middle income woman may not have ready access to ultrasound or other diagnostic tests. Unfortunately, many legislators, mostly Republicans, believe abortion shouldn't be legal at any point post conception, including prior to 24 weeks, and don't want to permit any exceptions. In states with abortion bans, doctors are withholding care to women because they're afraid of being sued or jailed. And that doesn't include the women who are putting their lives in jeopardy because they're being forced to have abortions in unsafe conditions, as it was before Roe.

The hypocrisy of legislators who pass abortion bans is that they only seem to care about life before birth for vulnerable populations. But expand Medicaid or provide food, healthcare, and other services to children and parents? Not so much.


----------



## Herdfan

quagmire said:


> If it leads to threatening the life of the mother or no realistic path for a safe birth, absolutely if that is a decision based on being informed by their doctors given the situation.
> 
> You're arguing like what we are wanting is a situation where the couple just decides they don't want a kid anymore 3 weeks prior to due date and aborts it. No one here supports elective abortions past-viability.




Health of the mother is a separate issue.  Do what ever is medically needed.

But there are some people who do want elective abortions past viability.  Maybe it is because they see a slippery slope of "if they can ban at 30 weeks, then they can ban at 15 weeks.  

I guess the best example is KJP refused to answer two different reporters questions on what is a good limit.


Roller said:


> California permits abortion up to "viability," which is generally considered to be 24 weeks. Termination of pregnancy after that time is permitted if continuing the pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother.




Ok, now do:

Alaska - No Limits
Colorado - No Limits
New Jersey - No Limits
New Mexico - No Limits
Oregon - No Limits
Vermont - No Limits
Washington DC - No Limits









						States with Gestational Limits for Abortion
					

The Kaiser Family Foundation website provides in-depth information on key health policy issues including Medicaid, Medicare, health reform, global health, HIV/AIDS, health insurance, the uninsured …




					www.kff.org
				






Roller said:


> A 15-week cut-off sounds attractive until you realize that gathering all the information for a woman (and her partner, if appropriate) to make a reasoned decision takes weeks, especially in cases where there is a problem with the fetus.




I agree:  15 weeks is too short a period.  But it is a starting point for negotiations.   Like the ways things used to happen.  But just like the 2A supporters, many abortion supporters want no limits because of the slippery slope argument.  I think 24 weeks or even end of Second Trimester would be an appropriate limit.  Again, health of the mother is fully excepted.


----------



## rdrr

Herdfan said:


> Because past some limit of viability, you are killing a baby.  Are you really OK with that?



What about the health/safety of the forced birth child once it is born?  Republican currently do not give one ounce of care to children now, I cannot imagine a world in which we have 100s of at risk children born because the mother was forced to.

Where is the free healthcare for mother and child?
Where is the child support from the absentee fathers?
Where is the education system that isn't run by rules of helicopter parents forcing their religious views on the rest of us.
Where is the safety from gun violence at schools because, you know...  2A rights!?


----------



## mollyc

Herdfan said:


> Health of the mother is a separate issue. Do what ever is medically needed.




The problem is that we have seen already in just a couple of months, that the mother's health is not considered with the new bans. The "life" of an unviable fetus is taking priority over an actual live woman. 

I'm conservative, but nobody but my doctor and I should have any say over what happens to my body. Do you want a doctor to legislate whether or not you should have prostate surgery? Or heart surgery? I won't limit your medical options and you should not limit mine.


----------



## Herdfan

mollyc said:


> The problem is that we have seen already in just a couple of months, that the mother's health is not considered with the new bans. The "life" of an unviable fetus is taking priority over an actual live woman.
> 
> I'm conservative, but nobody but my doctor and I should have any say over what happens to my body. Do you want a doctor to legislate whether or not you should have prostate surgery? Or heart surgery? I won't limit your medical options and you should not limit mine.




It definitely needs to be.

There are lots of things the government prevents Dr.'s from doing that could help patients.  Abortion is just one of them.


----------



## Yoused

Herdfan said:


> There are lots of things the government prevents Dr.'s from doing that could help patients.




Huh. Like what?

(I mean, things that are _literally illegal_, not things that are merely enjoined by medical ethics boards.)


----------



## Herdfan

Yoused said:


> Huh. Like what?
> 
> (I mean, things that are _literally illegal_, not things that are merely enjoined by medical ethics boards.)




LSD to treat PTSD for one.


----------



## mollyc

Herdfan said:


> LSD to treat PTSD for one.



I'm not sure it's fair to compare a drug regimen where there are other potential treatments to actual life-saving emergency treatments for half the population. Women are literally being denied medical care because they are pregnant. When just six months ago, those treatments were legal.


----------



## GermanSuplex

Herdfan said:


> Because past some limit of viability, you are killing a baby.  Are you really OK with that?




I guess where we are divided is that I don't believe its up to me to regardless of what I'm ok with or not.

People aren't putting Graham down because he's morally opposed to abortion, but because he wants to inflict his beliefs and standards onto others. But not just on a moral issue, but a health issue as well. And its always men legislating the hell out of these things. Why is unmarried, childless Lindsey Graham drafting legislation that affects women's health?


----------



## Huntn

Herdfan said:


> What pisses me off about this whole thing is that Lindsey Graham, and think of him what you wish because it could have been any Republican member, introduced a bill that would have capped abortions at 15 weeks.  Nationwide.  And all the left could focus on was the 15-week limit completely ignoring it would legalize it up to 15 weeks Nationwide.
> 
> This could have been the stepping stone to a compromise that could have ended at 20 or 24 weeks.  Something that 70-80% of the country would have been happy with.  But no, the left is too afraid of agreeing to ANY limits.  Who or what are they afraid of?  Are there that many rabid abortion supporters that want abortion up until her water breaks that they need to appease them?



That proposal was dead in the water with the GOP the day it was mentioned. Think of it as a a foole-ya gimmick, _oh gee I should vote for this Republican who wants to legalize abortion_.


----------



## Alli

Herdfan said:


> Because past some limit of viability, you are killing a baby.  Are you really OK with that?






Herdfan said:


> Health of the mother is a separate issue. Do what ever is medically needed.




These two statements are incompatible. I’ve already read about pregnant women being denied life-saving chemo treatments because the baby is more important. Health of the mother is not a separate issue. They are inextricably combined.


----------



## lizkat

Big mic drop here from MIchigan Dem Rep. Elissa Slotkin.  Video of her remarks included.  Watch it.









						Democratic Rep Blasts GOP Anti-Abortion Colleagues: 'Shame On You!'
					

The Democratic House member from Michigan accused Republicans of "a cold, heartless, violent approach to women’s health" in a debate over a veterans bill.




					www.huffpost.com
				






> Slotkin, who is seeking a third term against Republican challenger Tom Barrett in November, reacted viscerally to GOP pushback to the *Solid Start Act*, which would help veterans transition to civilian life.
> 
> Republicans objected to the requirement that the Department of Veterans Affairs provide female veterans with information “tailored to their specific health care” needs, which would adhere to a new VA policy providing abortion access for women vets who are victims of rape, incest or whose life is jeopardized.






> “If you can’t state it, then be clear you believe in no exceptions for women — a cold heartless, violent approach to women’s health,” said Slotkin, whose stepdaughter is a female Army officer. “You want to ban all abortions. That is your goal. Many of you have been open about that, and if you flip the House, we know that you will put forward a full ban on all abortion for all states.”






> Slotkin excoriated Republicans for holding up a bill that she said should have unmitigated bipartisan support.
> 
> “We are all, on this floor, elected officials and not medical professionals,” she said. “If it was your wife, your daughter who was suffering through a miscarriage, are you gonna tell her she can’t until her fever gets high enough and until she’s bleeding harder?”
> 
> “If that’s what you want for veterans, shame on you! Shame on you!” she added.


----------



## Roller

lizkat said:


> Big mic drop here from MIchigan Dem Rep. Elissa Slotkin.  Video of her remarks included.  Watch it.



_“We are all, on this floor, elected officials and not medical professionals,” she said. “If it was your wife, your daughter who was suffering through a miscarriage, are you gonna tell her she can’t until her fever gets high enough and until she’s bleeding harder?”_

I know what Rep. Slotkin means, but there are 13 representatives in the current congress who are physicians. Not that their medical degrees mean they're more thoughtful or competent at lawmaking than anyone else. I'm also sure Paul Gosar would point out that as a dentist, he's highly qualified to deal with such matters because, you know, he can read body language.


----------



## lizkat

Roller said:


> _“We are all, on this floor, elected officials and not medical professionals,” she said. “If it was your wife, your daughter who was suffering through a miscarriage, are you gonna tell her she can’t until her fever gets high enough and until she’s bleeding harder?”_
> 
> I know what Rep. Slotkin means, but there are 13 representatives in the current congress who are physicians. Not that their medical degrees mean they're more thoughtful or competent at lawmaking than anyone else. I'm also sure Paul Gosar would point out that as a dentist, he's highly qualified to deal with such matters because, you know, he can read body language.




There were some interesting replies to one Twitter user who had also posted that video.  One guy --who apparently had not read all that was in the Solid Start Act--  was complaining about why was it just women whose health care the VA was going to ramp up for returning vets.   Someone set him straight on that... 

"Because NO one tells a man what to do with his body in the way they feel they have the right to tell women. They’re BUSY tipping the scales against us and we are in a PANIC. Also, men typically aren’t at a risk of dying after raping a woman. Unless she’s a damn good shot."​
Reminded me of a woman I know who served in the Air Force and said the most important thing she learned in airframe mechanics 101 was how to throw a 2 pound wrench when needing to emphasize that "No means no."


----------



## lizkat

The Republican incumbent from Utah's 3rd Congressional district has weighed in on the fact that the high court has essentially now moved abortion law to legislative levels.  He also  says he realizes that legislatures are mostly men, and that

“I wish, as a man, I didn’t have to make this decision. I wish women could make this decision.”​​Hah, right.  Well anyway  lightning didn't strike him dead on the podium so maybe he wasn't lying.  Or maybe he was, and God figures if voters in Utah will like to help this guy out with his wishlist, more power to them.  Still... he's an R in Utah and a three term incumbent who was primaried each time out and has held his chair, so whatever else he is, he's apparently as persuasive as a snake oil salesman.  Maybe this time though his obvious underestimation of a woman's freedom to choose --at least in the voting booth-- will be his undoing.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1578226610880540673/


----------



## mollyc

what kind of a statment even is that?? even if he can't decide for himself as a man, can't he ask around his female family/friends/colleagues and vote the way *they* would vote if in his position? so stupid.


----------



## rdrr

He is partly right, as a man he shouldn't be making the decision for a woman's health, but in reality no one should be making another competent and adult individual medical decision for them.


----------



## fooferdoggie

We see the quality of the men reublicans put in charge of a womans body. Look at the football guy. at least three kids he never took care of or acknowledged. A abortion he paid for and wanted and lied about. it seems the less ideal of the man they claim republicans are the more they promote him as their ideal.


----------



## Yoused

lizkat said:


> “I wish, as a man, I didn’t have to make this decision. I wish women could make this decision.”​




Let me translate: "_I wish we men could trust women to make the decision we men think they should, but, sadly, we are tasked with being ever so much wiser than tie poor dears._"


----------



## lizkat

Yoused said:


> Let me translate: "_I wish we men could trust women to make the decision we men think they should, but, sadly, we are tasked with being ever so much wiser than tie poor dears._"



Yeah you might have that about right.  Look in the Wikipedia piece about him, in "Controversies" where it talks about how when he was a mayor,  he dealt with two complaints against the police chief of sexual harassment (first time he told the guy not to get himself in a position for someone to make such complaints, second time he made the guy take sexual harassment training over again) and then an allegation of rape before he finally asked for the guy's resignation.  Then he commented on it later thus:

"*One of the things I’m learning is what women expect is more than checking the boxes legally. They need a lot of emotional support and understanding. *And we don’t talk a lot about that portion of what do you do when these things happen. So, in a way, if you think about this, I’m seeing, like, '*OK, my primary responsibility is to get this into the right hands.' I read her comments about how what I did made her feel, and it was clear to me that she expected more from me than just getting it into the right hands. Lesson learned.*"​​Oy, I dunno.  At least he did finally ask for that police chief's resignation.  The Wiki piece noted that the DA handling the rape charge had declined to prosecute.  Rep. Curtis apparently figured after five women had made harassment complaints against that police chief and he'd had the guy up on the carpet in his office about it twice already, then when there was smoke yet again,  there was enough smoke to ask for a resignation,  even if the DA didn't think he could make a case.  

Still, the delays and level of condescension were stunning.  Not sure his regret that "women can't make the decision" on abortion runs all that deep in him really.   The poor dears....
​


----------



## Yoused

Jewish women cite faith in contesting Kentucky abortion ban
					

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — Kentucky's sweeping abortion ban was challenged Thursday by three Jewish women who brought a lawsuit arguing that it violates their religious rights under the state's constitution.




					apnews.com
				




On the other hand the law says that a man may not flog and cudgel his own wife under his own roof, which goes against the tenets of several christianoid and islamical denominations.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

How Sam Alito snuck medieval Christianity into the Dobbs opinion
					

Alito's opinion overturning Roe is literally built on fake history — and a sneak attack on the First Amendment




					www.salon.com


----------



## GermanSuplex

Given the abortion situation surrounding Herschel Walker, it defies logic this doesn't bother more people. I know we don't operate on logic, but still... republicans for years used abortion as a major campaign issue. So important was banning abortion that we had to elect conservatives into office and seat conservative judges. To some, its a strong religious belief, to others its just a moral issue without religion, to some its flat-out "baby murder"...

Ok, so if that's your belief, then why would you elect someone who has provided via payment abortions to others?

The rush to rally to Walker's defense only shines a light on the hypocrisy of republicans, or at the very least, the fact they are lying about their beliefs on abortion. You can't on one hand say its the serious issue you believe it to be, then treat someone like Walker as if his only sin was shoplifting as a teenager.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

GermanSuplex said:


> Given the abortion situation surrounding Herschel Walker, it defies logic this doesn't bother more people. I know we don't operate on logic, but still... republicans for years used abortion as a major campaign issue. So important was banning abortion that we had to elect conservatives into office and seat conservative judges. To some, its a strong religious belief, to others its just a moral issue without religion, to some its flat-out "baby murder"...
> 
> Ok, so if that's your belief, then why would you elect someone who has provided via payment abortions to others?
> 
> The rush to rally to Walker's defense only shines a light on the hypocrisy of republicans, or at the very least, the fact they are lying about their beliefs on abortion. You can't on one hand say its the serious issue you believe it to be, then treat someone like Walker as if his only sin was shoplifting as a teenager.





That's because it's mostly about controlling women, same reason a moderate level of domestic violence gets a pass.  She probably did something to deserve it.


----------



## Yoused

Kevin Stitt claims California wants to abort babies after they are born... - The Lost Ogle
					

He's latching on to warped, obviously untrue right-wing rhetoric and spinning it as a fact. Imagine that?!




					thelostogle.com
				




*[Stitt] has repeatedly said, and continues to say, he will sign any piece of “pro-life” legislation which crosses his desk. In arguing that position during our interview, he made the claim that “Colorado, California - they’re proposing abortions 28 days after birth. Okay? 28 days after birth is what California is talking about.”*​
The bullshit is flowing fast and thick

*Other opponents have been posting similar claims, including Jenna Ellis — a member of former President Donald Trump’s campaign legal team — who wrote on Facebook, “This is INSANELY evil. California Democrats are trying to legalize killing children up to the age of 28 days.”*​
and speading like a toxic fungus.


----------



## lizkat

GermanSuplex said:


> The rush to rally to Walker's defense only shines a light on the hypocrisy of republicans, or at the very least, the fact they are lying about their beliefs on abortion. You can't on one hand say its the serious issue you believe it to be, then treat someone like Walker as if his only sin was shoplifting as a teenager.




Hypocrisy is barely even a venial sin for any pro-Trump Republican now,  compared to mortal danger to the soul in even thinking about voting for a Democrat.

Meanwhile anything goes in the general election campaign.  Nothing can be too lurid or ludicrous.  Hypocrisy?  Fuhgeddaboudit.  It's worn like a badge of pride.

_Sure we say this about acting like that, and then maybe act like that but so what, we're Republicans!_


----------



## lizkat

How much more trauma and tragedy before these draconian states' laws on abortion get modified?









						Texas Woman Nearly Loses Her Life After Doctors Can't Legally Perform an Abortion
					

A Texas woman had a miscarriage but was forced to wait until her life was at risk before doctors could perform an abortion




					people.com
				




This couple had high hopes for long awaited successful fertility treatment,  and the woman was 18 weeks pregnant when she miscarried with no hope of fetus viability.   In Texas...   where despite availability of excellent medical care,  she was denied proper care until the fetus died and her life was threatened by sepsis.  All this because new laws would have made felons of the medical staff.  Now it's unclear if she will be able to carry another child at all.


----------



## fooferdoggie

lizkat said:


> How much more trauma and tragedy before these draconian states' laws on abortion get modified?



what its Texas they don't give a shit about the health of the woman. any change will look like weakness.


----------



## lizkat

fooferdoggie said:


> what its Texas they don't give a shit about the health of the woman. any change will look like weakness.




At the moment it would appear that you're right.  However the current state legislature of Texas which has passed their inexcusable life-hostile law has not yet undergone a rethink at the polls....

So.  The women of Texas who aren't dead yet and who are old enough to vote are enough to make change in Texas.  Maybe more women have to die before the rest of them all wake up?  There will come a time when that law gets modified and it won't be that long from now either.

The medical profession is not happy about the extent to which politicians have inserted themselves into medical decision-making.   Doubtless same on the part of insurers.  Lawsuits will abound,  and meanwhile prosecutors don't know what the hell to do because they are being asked to make decisions well outside their own expertise when it comes to knowing if a particular pregnancy termination is legal now or a flat felony.


----------



## ronntaylor

I wonder how many women have voted for these troglodytes in the past. Never thinking that the Antis would harm them in any way. If the recent anti-abortion/women laws aren't enough to wake them up, I don't know what will.


----------



## lizkat

ronntaylor said:


> I wonder how many women have voted for these troglodytes in the past. Never thinking that the Antis would harm them in any way. If the recent anti-abortion/women laws aren't enough to wake them up, I don't know what will.




Yah the woman in that People mag piece said she was furious when Roe w s overturned but never imagined that the new law would have an effect on her own situation.  She and her husband had been trying so long to have a child... so of course she didn't imagine having a personal need for termination of a pregnancy gone wrong...  and then to find that she literally had to get so sick that her life (and future fertility) was endangered before Texas doctors could do the right thing by her. 

So much for the GOP's "pro life" hypocrisy.  The woman nearly died AND she may not be able to ovulate or carry again by time they finish treating her for aftereffects of the sepsis and eventual emergency treatment.   Hope she and her friends retweet that People Mag story all over the state of Texas before election day.


----------



## shadow puppet

I think Jonathon Gaffney nailed.  I fervently hope women get out there and vote blue like their life depends on it.  Because it most certainly does.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1582333755569471488/


----------



## Yoused

*oh, come on …*

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1585066053230809090/


----------



## shadow puppet

Yoused said:


> *oh, come on …*



I hear ya.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1585246825602486273/


----------



## SuperMatt

JayMysteri0 said:


> Somebody thought this was momentous enough, that it had to get out early, and they are right.



Time to revisit the leak aspect of things. It turns out that there have been prior leaks, from conservative justices. But these leaks were not to the press, but to evangelical leaders, so they could prepare their messaging once the decision was officially announced. One of those who got a leak from Alito in the Hobby Lobby contraception case of 2014 disclosed it in June 2022 to Justice Roberts to help with the Dobbs leak investigation. Funny, Roberts hasn’t said a word about it!









						Former Anti-Abortion Leader Alleges Another Supreme Court Breach
					

Years before the leaked draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, a landmark contraception ruling was disclosed, according to a minister who led a secretive effort to influence justices.




					www.nytimes.com


----------



## Yoused

A woman in Alabama was arrested for using drugs while pregnant and held for three days before she was able to take a test to prove she was not pregnant. (Actually, they might have noticed that she was on her period, as they refused to give anything to deal with it.


----------



## lizkat

Well the Vatican finally had it with a priest who got way too involved on the secular side of things.  He has been a MAGA fan of Trump, an election denier and a zealously overenthusiastic anti-abortion activist in the USA. That last bit is my translation of the behavior of a cleric who put an aborted fetus on the altar in a church, made a video of it and posted it on social media to make a point, to which behavior his superiors apparently took exception.   The Church has defrocked him for all that and for failing to obey his former bishop in Texas.  There is no appeal.   He has moved to Colorado and has been mouthing off about the "cancel culture" of the Church.   And since he's no longer a priest, he is now apparently free to keep posting whatever he likes on Elon Musk's Twitter,  where some of his tweets had previously been deemed blasphemous.  









						Anti-abortion priest Pavone defrocked for blasphemous posts
					

VATICAN CITY (AP) — The Vatican has defrocked an anti-abortion U.S. priest, Frank Pavone, for what it said were “blasphemous communications on social media” as well as “persistent disobedience” of his bishop who repeatedly told him to stop his partisan activism for Donald Trump.




					apnews.com


----------



## fooferdoggie

You beat me to it.


----------



## lizkat

fooferdoggie said:


> You beat me to it.




Great minds think alike, eh?    That guy was way over the line for a priest,  even in the great state of anti-abortion Texas.


----------



## Clix Pix

Saw an article in yesterday's _Washington Post_ about this, and, yes, he sounds like a real whack job, someone who never should have been a priest in the first place.  Undoubtedly he should have been defrocked a long time ago.  Glad the Church took appropriate action!


----------



## Eric

Gavin Newsom FTW.


__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/MadeMeSmile/comments/zuyf9n


----------

