Roe vs. Wade overturned

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 


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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
Click to expand...

But don't tribes have the right to provide services to their tribe members but not offer it to people outside the tribe?
 
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.
Click to expand...

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."
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Scepticalscribe said:
Does the definition of who is a member of the tribe include the women of the/that tribe?
Click to expand...


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 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.
Click to expand...


More on objections to packing the supreme court



"Historically speaking when centrist governments have a lukewarm response to authoritarian movements the authoritarians take power."
 
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.
 
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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/
Click to expand...
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.
 
When you think it won't get worse
www.newsweek.com

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 www.newsweek.com
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
 
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.
Click to expand...
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 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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Back
Top