View Full Version : Roe vs. Wade.....
gimmethesimplelife
6-12-22, 11:54am
What a can of worms.....I bring up this topic not to discuss abortion or to.bring up controversy per se. My angle here is suppose R/W IS overturned - what will the potential fall out be? I personally believe there would be fall out, too.
Rob
catherine
6-12-22, 12:11pm
Rob, Jeppy started a thread on this in early May.
http://www.simplelivingforum.net/showthread.php?19842-Roe-v-Wade
As for as "what if it is overturned-what will the fall-out be" I think some of those issues are addressed in Jeppy's thread. I think the fall-out will be a deja-vu message that women's individual choice does not count. Even though individual choice is supremely important when it comes to owning guns and limiting taxes so that "what's mine is mine" is sacrosanct, women should have to give birth to no matter what the circumstances, or what the personal impact is on finances, career, family, and personal mental health.
Too often fathers forget "what's mine is mine" when it comes to unwanted live births
happystuff
6-12-22, 12:11pm
Unwind by Neal Shusterman.
This book made quite an impression on me as a potential result of banning abortion and the societal practices that came about as a result.
gimmethesimplelife
6-12-22, 12:27pm
Rob, Jeppy started a thread on this in early May.
http://www.simplelivingforum.net/showthread.php?19842-Roe-v-Wade
As for as "what if it is overturned-what will the fall-out be" I think some of those issues are addressed in Jeppy's thread. I think the fall-out will be a deja-vu message that women's individual choice does not count. Even though individual choice is supremely important when it comes to owning guns and limiting taxes so that "what's mine is mine" is sacrosanct, women should have to give birth to no matter what the circumstances, or what the personal impact is on finances, career, family, and personal mental health.
Too often fathers forget "what's mine is mine" when it comes to unwanted live birthsCatherine, Thank You. I've been so busy until very recently that it's been hard to keep up. I will check out Jeppy's thread.
Rob
iris lilies
6-12-22, 12:47pm
One thing I’m seeing from reading the trigger law for my state is that abortion is still allowed in my state, under this potential new law.
I am stating that very clearly, and without nuanced discussion, because I doubt that main stream media sources with their headline news will allow anyone to know that.
catherine
6-12-22, 12:56pm
One thing I’m seeing from reading the trigger law for my state is that abortion is still allowed in my state, under this potential new law.
I am stating that very clearly, and without nuanced discussion, because I doubt that main stream media sources with their headline news will allow anyone to know that.
Here is a very informative map answering Rob's question from a legal/political perspective.
https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/abortion-access-tool/US
I think that the fallout will be that states will have to begin nuanced discussions/debates about what point the new life created has a right to life. It will undoubtedly be controversial in each state as abortion on demand proponents refuse to acknowledge that life, and extreme pro life proponents argue that a fertilized egg equals a human being.
I wanted to share the reply I got from my senator, Sen. Susan Collins, when I wrote to her on this topic:
Thank you for contacting me to share your support for protecting a woman’s right to make important reproductive decisions. I appreciate your taking the time to do so.
I support codifying the abortion rights established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade and affirmed by Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA), however, goes far beyond what is necessary to do that, and the bill has now been rejected twice in the Senate on a bipartisan basis.
Contrary to claims from Senate Democratic leaders that their bill would not infringe upon the religious rights of individuals and religious institutions, the WHPA explicitly invalidates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in connection with abortion. Congress has never before adopted legislation that contains an exemption to this religious liberty law, which was authored by Majority Leader Schumer when he served in the House and passed by overwhelming, bipartisan margins in 1993. The bill also supersedes other longstanding, bipartisan conscience laws, including provisions in the Affordable Care Act, that protect health care providers who choose not to offer abortion services for moral or religious reasons.
Even though I voted against the WHPA, I am still committed to protecting abortion rights. That is why Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and I introduced legislation in February that would enshrine the important Roe and Casey protections into federal law without undercutting statutes that have been in place for decades and without eliminating basic conscience protections. Our bill, the Reproductive Choice Act, closely tracks the Supreme Court’s decisions in Roe and Casey and would provide reassurance to women that the reproductive rights they have relied upon for nearly 50 years will continue to be the law of the land. It does not include any of the extraneous and over-reaching provisions in the WHPA. You can view our bill by clicking here (https://outreach.senate.gov/iqextranet/iqClickTrk.aspx?&cid=quorum_collins-iq&crop=18192QQQ29907290QQQ15311064QQQ15687870&report_id=&redirect=https%3a%2f%2fwww.congress.gov%2fbill%2f1 17th-congress%2fsenate-bill%2f3713%3fq%3d%257B%2522search%2522%253A%255B% 2522%2522%255D%257D%26r%3d1%26s%3d4&redir_log=112999441034688).
I am committed to ensuring that women in this country have the right to make reproductive choices consistent with the Roe and Casey decisions, and I plan to continue working with my colleagues on legislation that would guarantee that right.
Again, thank you for contacting me.
Sincerely,https://ci4.googleusercontent.com/proxy/VgQ74dI17QoXFu2gQaBpv_ujG_ChzHhIzpgbbEdnQLkwrZB0lv apzMLg5OITQqwiTq625JyfeFalwLodspLas-914tsbg6iURDKX_hhLx9WXQmtHYHn5K5Z_KaktDAuRkJTetam0 uuS1cQ=s0-d-e1-ft#https://outreach.senate.gov/iqextranet/Customers/quorum_collins-iq/Collinssignature.JPG
Susan M. Collins
United States Senator
iris lilies
6-12-22, 1:26pm
Here is a very informative map answering Rob's question from a legal/political perspective.
https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/abortion-access-tool/US
at first glance of this map I thought it was a good resource. But as I look at it carefully, I see that it is an opinionated piece, not surprising from Planned Parenthood.
So drilling down into my own state I will tell you that I live 3 miles from the abortion facility on Lindell Ave. Abortion is absolutely allowed in my state. The draconian ( according to Planned Parenthood) restrictions that cause it to be colored red on the map have to do with Who pays for it, a 72 two hour waiting ( Which I don’t like but I think would not stop me from getting an abortion) and the provision for minors need parental permission.
I don’t take an opinion on the minor thing because it’s just so damn complicated. There’s such a difference between a 13-year-old and a 17-year-old.
But I will tell you that Planned Parenthood is flat out WRONG in promoting the idea that in the state of Missouri “abortion in this state is likely to be banned or eliminated entirely.”
Perhaps they need to actually READ the trigger law.
This is why I no longer give money to Planned Parenthood… Their information sources are not accurate. Years ago they used to call me and try to scaremonger me to raise funds by invoking the name of the devil George Bush. I became tired of that. Then during the Obama years it was… I can’t remember, Because who was the devil then?But somewhere in there I gave up.
I once valued to some extent Planned Parenthood’s education efforts, but no longer.
iris lilies
6-12-22, 1:36pm
Here is a very informative map answering Rob's question from a legal/political perspective.
https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/abortion-access-tool/US
to be clear, this map does not answer Rob‘s question. The map itself shows CURRENT abortion laws, with opinionated content to provide the color of the state.
There is text speculating what happens with each state if/when The Supremes overturn Roe v. wade. For my state that text is wrong. I have no reason to believe that it’s any more accurate for any other state.
As an aside I’m curious to know how Planned Parenthood distinguishes the two words “ banned” and “ eliminated “ both are used to describe a future Missouri.
I donÂ’t think you need to be pro-life to believe Roe was built on faulty legal logic. Ginsburg made no secret she felt that way. The SCOTUS isnÂ’t a legislative body, and I think the 1973 court did the country a disservice by jumping through hoops to create law.
Absent a constitutional right to abortion, each state can make their own law unhindered by federal interference as they do in any number of areas. The various state legislatures can vote on them and answer to their voters, which is as it should be.
As to “fallout”. I suppose some states will go with stricter laws, although I doubt many will outlaw it entirely. I don’t believe the hysterical predictions that overturning of Roe will usher in a new dystopian theocracy.
The Democrats will use this for fundraising, but I doubt it will have much political impact with the general public. A few fanatics will pester Justices in their homes or at their childrenÂ’s schools. Pundits will pontificate. Life will go on.
I donÂ’t think you need to be pro-life to believe Roe was built on faulty legal logic. Ginsburg made no secret she felt that way. The SCOTUS isnÂ’t a legislative body, and I think the 1973 court did the country a disservice by jumping through hoops to create law.
Absent a constitutional right to abortion, each state can make their own law unhindered by federal interference as they do in any number of areas. The various state legislatures can vote on them and answer to their voters, which is as it should be.
As to “fallout”. I suppose some states will go with stricter laws, although I doubt many will outlaw it entirely. I don’t believe the hysterical predictions that overturning of Roe will usher in a new dystopian theocracy.
The Democrats will use this for fundraising, but I doubt it will have much political impact with the general public. A few fanatics will pester Justices in their homes or at their childrenÂ’s schools. Pundits will pontificate. Life will go on.
You really have the nihilism dialed in. If only that were reality.
You really have the nihilism dialed in. If only that were reality.
I’m not a nihilist. I’m worse. I’m a federalist. I like it when the central government loses power not granted to it by the constitution. I dislike it when a president waves his scepter and extends an eviction moratorium even though he acknowledges at the time he probably lacks the legal power to do so.
If people were really worried about becoming Involuntary Handmaid’s Tale cosplayers instead of just for hamfisted rhetorical effect, they would welcome decisions that limited the federal government’s ability to impose its fiats on the country at large.
catherine
6-24-22, 10:43am
So it's officially done. Roe v Wade reversed.
My visceral response is sadness and a sense of injustice for the rights of the fully-realized, unambiguously-living (second-class) citizens.
So it's officially done. Roe v Wade reversed.
My visceral response is sadness and a sense of injustice for the rights of the fully-realized, unambiguously-living (second-class) citizens.
And sadness for LGBTQ people and anyone who uses abortion. Thomas made no bones about the fact that they are coming for us next. And since the radical activists on the supreme court are insistent on going back to the bad old days of the 1950's Brown v. Board of Ed will undoubtedly get cast aside too at some point.
ApatheticNoMore
6-24-22, 11:04am
If people were really worried about becoming Involuntary Handmaid’s Tale cosplayers instead of just for hamfisted rhetorical effect, they would welcome decisions that limited the federal government’s ability to impose its fiats on the country at large.
that's really incoherent. I mean yes states may have their own policies perhaps, but some people will be unfortunate enough to live in those states. Yes fine those states governments really suck. But all the people in them don't all somehow "deserve it".
early morning
6-24-22, 11:05am
What JP and Catherine said. Sad, and totally disgusted, and not surprised.
early morning
6-24-22, 11:11am
If people were really worried about becoming Involuntary Handmaid’s Tale cosplayers instead of just for hamfisted rhetorical effect, they would welcome decisions that limited the federal government’s ability to impose its fiats on the country at large
I'm sorry, that is EXACTLY what the SC has just accomplished - forced THEIR WILL on millions of women who have to live in the hell-holes now created by male dominated bigoted "states rights" governments. Because, after all, what the STATES say is so much more important than women's individual rights (which SHOULD be protected by our Constitution, but clearly are no longer). "Barefoot and pregnant" - misogynists everywhere are cheering loudly.
ApatheticNoMore
6-24-22, 11:14am
There are enough abortion pills one could get by mail order that I suspect it's probably less of an issue for someone really planning to go through with an abortion, and more an issue later on when abortion becomes necessary for the life of the mother etc., and no medical care is available.
Barefoot, pregnant, masked, forcibly tested, quarantined and vaxxed.
iris lilies
6-24-22, 11:38am
This doesn’t make me happy at all.* In an earlier post I was wrong about Missouri’s trigger law, It was (confusingly) talked about in recent weeks as allowing surgical abortion up to 8 weeks. I even waded through the law to read that.
But apparently (?) a later law takes precedence over that and end result: abortion at any time outlawed except for health of the mother.
Unfortunately I will have to now vote for Democratic statehouse pols in my state, assuming the issue comes up for a vote which it regularly will.
It is an excellent wedge issue and yeah, I am am going to vote for a relaxed abortion restriction.
I suppose this will immediately be one of those dumb constitutional amendment things that they put in front of the voters rather than doing their job and making a reasonable law.
edited to say: the .supreme Court’s decision is not what makes me unhappy, it is my state’s trigger law which went into effect this morning.
gimmethesimplelife
6-24-22, 12:10pm
I am off today and I slept in late waking about a half hour ago. SO woke me up with the news of the RW reversal. This potentially changes everything for us as gay men. How so, you ask?
A country that can overturn R/W can overturn same sex marriage without thinking twice. I have no trust nor faith in America that G and L marriage is on the chopping block not too far off. I may just end out in Mexico yet, courtesy of the US Supreme Court and how little human rights and human dignity mean in America.
As to American women - bring the marches on. I will proudly join you on this one as I understand this fallen domino makes me vulnerable.
At least a potential silver lining - perhaps this further proof of the truth of America will make it up the social class ladder? Younger people really need to be reevaluating the viability of this citizenship.
Rob
gimmethesimplelife
6-24-22, 12:12pm
And sadness for LGBTQ people and anyone who uses abortion. Thomas made no bones about the fact that they are coming for us next. And since the radical activists on the supreme court are insistent on going back to the bad old days of the 1950's Brown v. Board of Ed will undoubtedly get cast aside too at some point.JP1, what did Thomas say? I can Google this but I'm wondering what your take is, as a gay man, on whatever he said.
Rob
gimmethesimplelife
6-24-22, 12:19pm
JP1, what did Thomas say? I can Google this but I'm wondering what your take is, as a gay man, on whatever he said.
Rob
Came back to add that I did Google and as of yet, no other justices have signed on to Thomas's opinion. Yet. I have no faith whatsoever in the United States though and fully expect same sex marriage to be reversed. Can this be used to get into one of the better countries? I don't know if so, but maybe some few will be able to use this to reestablish in one of the better countries? One can hope.
Rob
Given the Republican party’s current targeting of LGBTQ folks with all the hate they can muster and the fact that more than one senator specifically brought up the grid wold (north ci trip) decision and Loving (interracial marriage) at the most recent Supreme Court confirmation hearing it won’t be surprising at all when those decisions get targeted by this activist court.
How does the final opinion compare to the leaked draft?
catherine
6-24-22, 12:39pm
Trying again:
https://www.axios.com/2022/06/24/clarence-thomas-same-sex-marriage-contraception#
The following is the body of the article:
In a concurring opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, Justice Clarence Thomas said that the Supreme Court should reconsider opinions protecting same-sex relationships, marriage equality and access to contraceptives.
Driving the news: Roe protected abortion rights in the U.S. under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and Justice Samuel Alito asserted that abortion is not included under that amendment. As a result, Thomas said that the court should reconsider other due process precedents such as Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell.
What they're saying: Thomas said that "any substantive due process decision is 'demonstrably erroneous,'" quoting a 2020 Supreme Court decision.
"[W]e have a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents," he added.
"After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated."
"[W]e would need to decide important antecedent questions, including whether the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects any rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution and, if so, how to identify those rights.
Don't forget: Thomas is the only justice who has called on the court to reconsider other precedents. It is unclear what immediate effect his concurring opinion will have.
gimmethesimplelife
6-24-22, 12:41pm
I have places in Mexico that will take me in - but what of those who don't have a place to run to? I've already shot off an email to Vienna and I'm sure I'm welcome there, too - but only for 90 days legally. In Mexico I have both much more time plus marriage to a Mexican national in my favor.
This? Overturning same sex marriage? This would get rid of me. I could.not accept this nor live with it. My basic dignity means much more to me than this strange, alien country (this last burrowed from Astrid and it very much fits).
Rob
I'm disgusted beyond words that we've come to this. Alito's reference to an 17th-century misogynist* in setting out his opinion is the perfect metaphor.
*https://crooksandliars.com/2022/05/alitos-leaked-draft-quotes-literal-witch
So now that the first domino has fallen, and given the current oppressive climate in this country, I have no doubt that LGBTQ, interracial marriage, and other privacy issues are at stake. Republicans--the party of personal freedom. Ha!
ApatheticNoMore
6-24-22, 12:56pm
Why are we making this about other issues? This isn't about men. Yea sure maybe eventually. But right now it's about women. Not everything is really about men.
gimmethesimplelife
6-24-22, 12:59pm
I'm disgusted beyond words that we've come to this. Alito's reference to an 17th-century misogynist* in setting out his opinion is the perfect metaphor.
*https://crooksandliars.com/2022/05/alitos-leaked-draft-quotes-literal-witch
So now that the first domino has fallen, and given the current oppressive climate in this country, I have no doubt that LGBTQ, interracial marriage, and other privacy issues are at stake. Republicans--the party of personal freedom. Ha!Perhaps not all hope is lost. Maybe our brighter young people will flee to better countries, taking their skills and energy with them to a better deal/country. America has certainly earned such. And maybe more older folks will retirement visa their way out - this nation no longer seems viable for a good number of it's people.
Perhaps things have gone beyond fighting for change - maybe it's now about fleeing. Life is short, the clock is ticking, don't we ALL deserve better than what America has become/is becoming?
Rob
Thomas's concurring opinion encourages the court to make it about any right that is judicial, not by statute.
gimmethesimplelife
6-24-22, 1:01pm
Why are we making this about other issues? This isn't about men. Yea sure maybe eventually. But right now it's about women. Not everything is really about men.You are right. At the moment this is about women. Granted.
My take? Things will not just remain about women only for long. Well, I always do love to protest and now that I have time.....Rob
Thomas's concurring opinion encourages the court to make it about any right that is judicial, not by statute.
I hope that’s true.
Perhaps not all hope is lost. Maybe our brighter young people will flee to better countries, taking their skills and energy with them to a better deal/country. America has certainly earned such. And maybe more older folks will retirement visa their way out - this nation no longer seems viable for a good number of it's people. b
My daughter is finishing up her Ph.D. this month at Cambridge. She will almost certainly not be returning to the USA. I may go join her at some point once my elderly parents pass away. I've already "packed my two bags" in the sense that I have housing and assets secured over there.
gimmethesimplelife
6-24-22, 1:49pm
My daughter is finishing up her Ph.D. this month at Cambridge. She will almost certainly not be returning to the USA. I may go join her at some point once my elderly parents pass away. I've already "packed my two bags" in the sense that I have housing and assets secured over there.YES! YES! YES! Sanity! Bring it on and congrats to your daughter.
Rob
iris lilies
6-24-22, 2:27pm
I am not clear how any law passed in Congress to stop abortion restrictions would work.
The Woman’s Health Protection act failed to get Senate votes to pass it last month, and it restricted what the states coukd say about abortion.
But does it matter it failed? How does a Federal law on rights trump a state law? Wouldn’t this federal law have been declared unconstitutional?
I am genuinely curious.
Brett Kavanaugh, under oath "Roe is an important precedent. Roe and Casey have been reaffirmed many times. Casey is precedent on precedent.
Neil Gorsuch, under oath. "Roe v. Wade...is a precedent of SCOTUS. It has been reaffirmed... A good judge will consider it as precedent."
John Roberts, under oath, "Roe is settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis. It is settled."
Apparently being honest is not a trait we should expect of supreme court justices anymore.
How does a Federal law on rights trump a state law? Wouldn’t this federal law have been declared unconstitutional?
I am genuinely curious.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." ~ 10th Amendment to the US Constitution
I interpret this to mean that since the Constitution says absolutely nothing about abortion, Congress would have to approach the subject from another angle, in much the same way if they don't care for how a state prosecutes a murder charge, they'll sometimes prosecute themselves using the charge of denying the victim's civil rights to life or liberty. Of course in this case I guess they'd first have to legislate a lack of civil right to life or liberty to the unborn. That might prove tricky.
frugal-one
6-24-22, 2:55pm
And sadness for LGBTQ people and anyone who uses abortion. Thomas made no bones about the fact that they are coming for us next. And since the radical activists on the supreme court are insistent on going back to the bad old days of the 1950's Brown v. Board of Ed will undoubtedly get cast aside too at some point.
“It’s a sad day for the court and for the country,” Biden said at the White House. He urged voters to make it a defining issue in the November elections, declaring, “This decision must not be the final word.”
GD trump packed the supreme court.. now the will of the majority of the people is not being honored.
frugal-one
6-24-22, 2:56pm
My daughter is finishing up her Ph.D. this month at Cambridge. She will almost certainly not be returning to the USA. I may go join her at some point once my elderly parents pass away. I've already "packed my two bags" in the sense that I have housing and assets secured over there.
I'm jealous.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." ~ 10th Amendment to the US Constitution
I interpret this to mean that since the Constitution says absolutely nothing about abortion, Congress would have to approach the subject from another angle, in much the same way if they don't care for how a state prosecutes a murder charge, they'll sometimes prosecute themselves using the charge of denying the victim's civil rights to life or liberty. Of course in this case I guess they'd first have to legislate a lack of civil right to life or liberty to the unborn. That might prove tricky.
The "unborn," having not been born, is not a person.
frugal-one
6-24-22, 2:59pm
I’m not a nihilist. I’m worse. I’m a federalist. I like it when the central government loses power not granted to it by the constitution. I dislike it when a president waves his scepter and extends an eviction moratorium even though he acknowledges at the time he probably lacks the legal power to do so.
If people were really worried about becoming Involuntary Handmaid’s Tale cosplayers instead of just for hamfisted rhetorical effect, they would welcome decisions that limited the federal government’s ability to impose its fiats on the country at large.
Bullshit! The majority of people in this country wanted to keep Roe vs Wade. trump packed the supreme court with religious zealots that are now upending this country.
ApatheticNoMore
6-24-22, 3:00pm
“It’s a sad day for the court and for the country,” Biden said at the White House. He urged voters to make it a defining issue in the November elections, declaring, “This decision must not be the final word.”
what will they do in return if voters made it the defining issue of the November election? Codify it in to law? Pity they can't do that now. Add seats to the Supreme Court?
GD trump packed the supreme court.. now the will of the majority of the people is not being honored.I wouldn't consider filling existing vacancies to be 'packing'. To me, court packing would be along the lines of Democrats fairly recent plan to increase the number of justices in order to get their preferred ideologues on board.
Plus, the will of the people will be honored through the democratic process in their respective states. That's how it should work.
frugal-one
6-24-22, 3:02pm
that's really incoherent. I mean yes states may have their own policies perhaps, but some people will be unfortunate enough to live in those states. Yes fine those states governments really suck. But all the people in them don't all somehow "deserve it".
Wisconsin is one of those sucky states that has already stopped abortions. We have a democratic governor but, like Biden, is blocked at every turn trying to do the will of the people. Gerrymandering republicans etc....
The "unborn," having not been born, is not a person.
After several years of listening to others being chided by the 'party of science', I'd suggest we follow the science on this one.
frugal-one
6-24-22, 3:05pm
I wouldn't consider filling existing vacancies to be 'packing'. To me, court packing would be along the lines of Democrats fairly recent plan to increase the number of justices in order to get their preferred ideologues on board.
trump stopped Garland from being put in position WHICH HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN. I hope the number of supreme court justices ARE increased to bring back a balance.
iris lilies
6-24-22, 3:06pm
“It’s a sad day for the court and for the country,” Biden said at the White House. He urged voters to make it a defining issue in the November elections, declaring, “This decision must not be the final word.”
GD trump packed the supreme court.. now the will of the majority of the people is not being honored.
In this case Trump WAS a conservative in that his court appointees seem to be bothered by making decisions not supported by the constitution. I did not often accuse DJ Trump of political conservatism, but here he was that.
Yes, I am surprised that these precedent court decisions were overturned because it doesn't happen real often.
The will of the people can fix this at a national level, you know. The constitution lays out a process for that.
iris lilies
6-24-22, 3:09pm
After several years of listening to others being chided by the 'party of science', I'd suggest we follow the science on this one.
I thought the Supreme Court said today that they were not weighing in on whether or not the unborn is a person worthy of constitutional rights, a person in the legal sense.
Embryos are composed of human tissue; that's as far as science seems to go. You can't claim your fetus as a dependent, or list it in the census, for example.
ETA: and don't try to pull off that "but officer, it's a person!" ploy next time you're driving alone in the car pool lane. That's been tried.
I thought the Supreme Court said today that they were not weighing in on whether or not the unborn is a person worthy of constitutional rights, a person in the legal sense.
And I think rightly so, that should be done in Congress.
frugal-one
6-24-22, 3:14pm
Brett Kavanaugh, under oath "Roe is an important precedent. Roe and Casey have been reaffirmed many times. Casey is precedent on precedent.
Neil Gorsuch, under oath. "Roe v. Wade...is a precedent of SCOTUS. It has been reaffirmed... A good judge will consider it as precedent."
John Roberts, under oath, "Roe is settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis. It is settled."
Apparently being honest is not a trait we should expect of supreme court justices anymore.
conservative republicans at work
frugal-one
6-24-22, 3:16pm
I wouldn't consider filling existing vacancies to be 'packing'. To me, court packing would be along the lines of Democrats fairly recent plan to increase the number of justices in order to get their preferred ideologues on board.
Plus, the will of the people will be honored through the democratic process in their respective states. That's how it should work.
No longer with all the gerrymandering and voter suppression by the republicans. WI is a prime example.
iris lilies
6-24-22, 3:21pm
And I think rightly so, that should be done in Congress.
Ok, but This circles back to my question a screen or two ago – what can Congress do about this, what legal right does it have to make laws about abortion?
Ok, but This circles back to my question a screen or two ago – what can Congress do about this, what legal right does it have to make laws about abortion?
Since abortion is obviously a states rights issue based upon any reading of the 10th Amendment, I'd guess they would have to use something like my civil rights example to sneak up on it or do the right thing and go through the constitutional amendment process and hope to get enough support from the states to ratify.
After several years of listening to others being chided by the 'party of science', I'd suggest we follow the science on this one.
I honestly don't have a strong opinion on abortion, but would like to defend the integrity of science.
"New abortion laws say it's clear when life starts. Biology can't agree.
New research didn't bring an irrefutable answer to when the start of life is. Instead, the question got more complicated."
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/national/new-abortion-laws-say-its-clear-when-life-starts-biology-cant-agree
ApatheticNoMore
6-24-22, 3:46pm
And it wasn't even a question on the definition of life, but of a person. I don't know how one expects science to answer that, as if it was an actual testable question like: does the vaccine prevent various outcomes of covid? Something like that is what is what we are comparing it to?
iris lilies
6-24-22, 3:59pm
Since abortion is obviously a states rights issue based upon any reading of the 10th Amendment, I'd guess they would have to use something like my civil rights example to sneak up on it or do the right thing and go through the constitutional amendment process and hope to get enough support from the states to ratify.
Congress doesn’t have much legal right, then.
Ok, but This circles back to my question a screen or two ago – what can Congress do about this, what legal right does it have to make laws about abortion?
Congress can't do anything about it as long as there's a filibuster and intransigent Republican senators. There are hundreds of House-passed bills that Mitch McConnell hasn't even allowed to come to a vote. This government is positively dysfunctional, and I lay that at the feet of Republicans who refuse to do their jobs.
gimmethesimplelife
6-24-22, 4:15pm
I've committed to a march tonight here in Phoenix. It will be interesting as I have not had time for such since fleeing hospitality - now that my hours are cut back and now that the United States has continued to prove it's not long term viable citizenship, I have to protest. If I didn't, knowing what I do about this country, I'd be indirectly responsible for the R/W overturn myself. Nope. I will not live with being indirectly responsible. America is not worth this.
Rob
iris lilies
6-24-22, 4:16pm
Congress can't do anything about it as long as there's a filibuster and intransigent Republican senators. There are hundreds of House-passed bills that Mitch McConnell hasn't even allowed to come to a vote. This government is positively dysfunctional, and I lay that at the feet of Republicans who refuse to do their jobs.
No, I don’t mean do they have the votes to pass any such legislation, I mean do they have a legal right to do it and would any such legislation pass court examination? That’s what I’m asking.
gimmethesimplelife
6-24-22, 4:19pm
Something POSITIVE, though. I personally believe the R/W overturn is planting the seeds to split up this country - and in my lifetime. I don't see now how this country can continue the BS charade of being unified for any real length of time. Here's to no qualified Immunity, socialized medicine, and basic human rights in the split off we run to should I still be in the US.
Rob
No, I don’t mean do they have the votes to pass any such legislation, I mean do they have a legal right to do it and would any such legislation court examination. That’s what I’m asking.
That's a moot point, if we can't pass a bill.
Per Rep. Madeleine Dean of Pennsylvania, there's a bill going nowhere in the Senate that addresses just this issue*.
*https://www.npr.org/2021/09/24/1038931908/house-democrats-abortion-rights-bill
iris lilies
6-24-22, 6:01pm
That's a moot point, if we can't pass a bill.
Per Rep. Madeleine Dean of Pennsylvania, there's a bill going nowhere in the Senate that addresses just this issue*.
*https://www.npr.org/2021/09/24/1038931908/house-democrats-abortion-rights-bill
yes, I have already seen that article. I disagree it is a moot point unless you mean right this moment in time with this make up of Congress, then, sure.
Thinking A little bit further down the road than today, the question is valid. .
what will they do in return if voters made it the defining issue of the November election? Codify it in to law? Pity they can't do that now. Add seats to the Supreme Court?
Apparently what they are doing now is singing God Bless America on the steps of the House of Representatives. So effective…🤮
Adding Justices to the Supreme Court has been done before. I propose any interviewees must show proof of religious non-affiliation. I think that's only fair.
Adding Justices to the Supreme Court has been done before. I propose any interviewees must show proof of religious non-affiliation. I think that's only fair.
"no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." ~ Article VI, US Constitution
Adding Justices to the Supreme Court has been done before. I propose any interviewees must show proof of religious non-affiliation. I think that's only fair.
You'd have to change the Constitution for that.
Article VI
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
"no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." ~ Article VI, US Constitution
Hahaha! How is that working out for us?
gimmethesimplelife
6-24-22, 7:30pm
I'll let youall know how the protest goes. Taking some Monsters and some salad in a cooler bag. Been awhile since I've protested. I've missed it. I really have.
Cross your fingers for juicy lawsuits against the Phoenix PD when they break the law repeatedly tonight.
Rob
I'll let youall know how the protest goes. Taking some Monsters and some salad in a cooler bag. Been awhile since I've protested. I've missed it. I really have.
Cross your fingers for juicy lawsuits against the Phoenix PD when they break the law repeatedly tonight.
Rob
:D Have a productive march!
frugal-one
6-24-22, 8:33pm
Adding Justices to the Supreme Court has been done before. I propose any interviewees must show proof of religious non-affiliation. I think that's only fair.
Should be division of church and state.
frugal-one
6-24-22, 8:35pm
I'll let youall know how the protest goes. Taking some Monsters and some salad in a cooler bag. Been awhile since I've protested. I've missed it. I really have.
Cross your fingers for juicy lawsuits against the Phoenix PD when they break the law repeatedly tonight.
Rob
Not a good reason to go there or even talk such nonsense.
No longer with all the gerrymandering and voter suppression by the republicans. WI is a prime example.
OK, that’s pretty damn funny. You think Republicans are the only ones who gerrymander? You should pay attention to the corrupt Dems in IL. In Chicago, they even gerrymander among ethnic groups.
Wisconsin is one of those sucky states that has already stopped abortions. We have a democratic governor but, like Biden, is blocked at every turn trying to do the will of the people. Gerrymandering republicans etc....
Lori Lightfoot, aka Groot, and Jelly Bean Prickster, the gov, are hell bent on promoting abortion tourism with IL as the hotspot for abortion in the Midwest. “Hey, we welcome you with open arms to come and kill your babies.”
frugal-one
6-24-22, 8:45pm
Lori Lightfoot, aka Groot, and Jelly Bean Prickster, the gov, are hell bent on promoting abortion tourism with IL as the hotspot for abortion in the Midwest. “Hey, we welcome you with open arms to come and kill your babies.”
Moot point now. Hopefully, not for long!
frugal-one
6-24-22, 8:47pm
OK, that’s pretty damn funny. You think Republicans are the only ones who gerrymander? You should pay attention to the corrupt Dems in IL. In Chicago, they even gerrymander among ethnic groups.
Answered this previously.... look back.
gimmethesimplelife
6-24-22, 9:47pm
Not a good reason to go there or even talk such nonsense.Nonsense? I beg to differ. The Phoenix PD has a long history of assaulting and harassing and illegally arresting peaceful protestors, one of the main reasons they are being investigated by the DOJ. Don't believe me - Google is your friend here.
And should the Phoenix PD break the law once again or many times again tonight, is it not our duty to cash in on the sociopathic law breaking for top dollar? To not do so would be Unpatriotic to an extreme in today's United States.
Btw......... I really respect you for being willing to protest this latest rights strip by the United States.
Rob
gimmethesimplelife
6-24-22, 9:52pm
:D Have a productive march!Thank You. En route now. Thankfully it's cooled down a tad.
Rob
frugal-one
6-25-22, 5:34am
Nonsense? I beg to differ. The Phoenix PD has a long history of assaulting and harassing and illegally arresting peaceful protestors, one of the main reasons they are being investigated by the DOJ. Don't believe me - Google is your friend here.
And should the Phoenix PD break the law once again or many times again tonight, is it not our duty to cash in on the sociopathic law breaking for top dollar? To not do so would be Unpatriotic to an extreme in today's United States.
Btw......... I really respect you for being willing to protest this latest rights strip by the United States.
Rob
Your response… keep fingers crossed for juicy lawsuits… comes across as looking for trouble which I find reprehensible. You are projecting violence, in effect, looking for it IMO.
I'll let youall know how the protest goes. Taking some Monsters and some salad in a cooler bag. Been awhile since I've protested. I've missed it. I really have.
Cross your fingers for juicy lawsuits against the Phoenix PD when they break the law repeatedly tonight.
Rob
I saw a video this morning of the Phoenix police illegally using teargas to disperse a mostly peaceful crowd trying to break down the doors of the Senate office building last night while staffers and Senators huddled in fear inside. Was that you?
gimmethesimplelife
6-25-22, 10:00am
I saw a video this morning of the Phoenix police illegally using teargas to disperse a mostly peaceful crowd trying to break down the doors of the Senate office building last night while staffers and Senators huddled in fear inside. Was that you?Tear gas was used but SO and I and a few neighbors were not in the vicinity. Thankfully. We are about peaceful protest - not harassing staffers/employees at the Stare Capitol Building.
Something else I can say - the energy was different at this protest ' there was viciousness in the air but that I don't blame the protestors for - I of course appropriately blame the United States for that. What I will blame the protestors for is the lack of community at the protest.
At any rate, things did get ugly but we left before that unfolded and we had no interaction with the Phoenix PD Thank God. Such was not of our seeking - and my statement regarding litigation only covered peaceful protestors as myself and those with me. At least we went, though. and I don't have to feel guilty for non-participation. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
6-25-22, 10:08am
Your response… keep fingers crossed for juicy lawsuits… comes across as looking for trouble which I find reprehensible. You are projecting violence, in effect, looking for it IMO.I wasn't looking for trouble. The Phienix PD - on video even - once again, has a long history of illegal acts upon peaceful protestors. Under these conditions, if you don't cash in against these sociopaths, you really are just as guilty as they are and I refuse to live with this - I'd have to sue so that I could retain my dignity and self respect against the evil Phoenix PD.
That all said, the protest became less than peaceful and my words above no longer apply unless obvious excessive force is used. Some will debate the teargas but as soon as things started getting ugly, those protesting within the confines of the law left or at least backed way away from what was unfolding.
My family is proud of me for going and that makes my day after I read the email from Vienna. Not that their opinion.matters here - but it's still nice anyway.
Rob
happystuff
6-25-22, 10:27am
Rob - thanks for going and simply being present - it was more than I did, so kudos to you both. Glad you and SO remained safe.
iris lilies
6-25-22, 10:37am
Rob hasn't commented on the Supreme Court’s ruling about Miranda rights and how the new ruling reduces or removes ability to go after cops for failing to properly Mirandaize an interaction. I would expect his head to blow off about this one.
I watched video clips of the Phoenix protesters who were banging on windows of the state capital, but they did seem to disperse when police in riot gear showed up. That is a good thing. Peaceful protesting—yes!
gimmethesimplelife
6-25-22, 10:43am
Rob hasn't commented on the Supreme Court’s ruling about Miranda rights and how the new ruling reduces or removes ability to go after cops for failing to properly Mirandaize an interaction. I would expect his head to blow off about this one.
I watched video clips of the Phoenix protesters who were banging on windows of the state capital, but they did seem to disperse when police in riot gear showed up. That is a good thing. Peaceful protesting—yes!I'm aware of the Miranda Rights ruling, IL. The only nice thing I can say? Yet more pressure upon the US to split up - at this point I believe splitting is the only real hope for this country, though knowing this country and it's majority ways if thinking as I do - I believe such will be violent. Bags packed and a plan out - especially as yet more rights are brutally stripped from us.
Rob
gimmethesimplelife
6-25-22, 10:44am
Rob - thanks for going and simply being present - it was more than I did, so kudos to you both. Glad you and SO remained safe.Thank You. Happy stuff. Rob
ApatheticNoMore
6-25-22, 12:11pm
Rob - thanks for going and simply being present - it was more than I did, so kudos to you both. Glad you and SO remained safe.
yea. Though my bf reminded me noone cares what some protestors in California think anyway. Maybe true. It's hard to be politically disenfranchised all the time and never have any influence on anything. But yea we're not really in aggregate at least (not enough Republicans to win elections) the Republicans party's potential constituents. It is this and much worse to come.
yea. Though my bf reminded me noone cares what some protestors in California think anyway. Maybe true. It's hard to be politically disenfranchised all the time and never have any influence on anything. But yea we're not really in aggregate at least (not enough Republicans to win elections) the Republicans party's potential constituents. It is this and much worse to come.
It may well be true that protestors don't sway the minds of any the people who support whatever is being protested. In fact it's probably likely. But just as funerals are for the living maybe protests are for the protestors. If a protest helps people not give up in despair that our country is being destroyed by radical extremists and instead helps motivate them to volunteer for political campaigns, do phone banking and text banking, go door to door talking to voters, etc, then the protest was worth it.
Successful protests in American history:
https://www.ucf.edu/news/7-influential-protests-in-american-history/
Boston Tea Party, 1773
Women's Suffrage Parade, 1913
March on Washington, 1963
Stonewall Riots, 1969
Occupation of Alcatraz, 1971
The March for Our Lives, 2018
Protests, Puerto Rico, 2019
ETA, my favorite environmental protest was by Julia Butterfly Hill who sat for over 2 years in Luna, a redwood tree, to protest logging in that area of old-growth forest. Pacific Lumber Co finally agreed to protect Luna as well as all trees in a 200 ft buffer zone. It doesn't seem like a lot, considering spending 2 years of a person's life to get that small victory, but she brought awareness to the importance of old-growth forest on the ecosystem. I love watching the videos of her experience and she is truly inspiring.
iris lilies
6-25-22, 1:16pm
It may well be true that protestors don't sway the minds of any the people who support whatever is being protested. In fact it's probably likely. But just as funerals are for the living maybe protests are for the protestors. If a protest helps people not give up in despair that our country is being destroyed by radical extremists and instead helps motivate them to volunteer for political campaigns, do phone banking and text banking, go door to door talking to voters, etc, then the protest was worth it.
I think that’s what was meant in a couple of these posts about how protesting strengthens resolve of participants to continue the work, and it also is a teambuilding effort to facilitate strategizing and creating effective grassroots efforts.
gimmethesimplelife
6-25-22, 4:39pm
I think that’s what was meant in a couple of these posts about how protesting strengthens resolve of participants to continue the work, and it also is a teambuilding effort to facilitate strategizing and creating effective grassroots efforts.Exactly. This is why I was upset by and commented upon the lack of community at this protest. Rob
There are some things about legal precedence that I don't understand. When the highest court in the land interprets the constitution in a certain way, and then years later the same court with the most revered legal experts in the same court says, no that's wrong. And then supposedly another few years could roll along and the next court, could say that's wrong, the first one was right, with no change in the wording of the law. What is the value of legal precedence, and is anything not specified in the constitution sacred based on precedence.
With such a divided nation I could see some migration into or away from liberal or conservative states. It's becoming a snowball of issues between abortion, gun laws, legalization of recreational drugs, environmental issues, and maybe taxation to support social issues and infrastructure improvements. Consensus was that a lot of young people moved to Colorado when it was one of the first to legalize marijuana, but there seems to be a lot more on the table recently.
Yet more pressure upon the US to split up - at this point I believe splitting is the only real hope for this country, though knowing this country and it's majority ways if thinking as I do - I believe such will be violent.
What does "splitting" look like in your vision? How would that even happen?
I live in perhaps the most liberal county, in one of the most liberal states in the USA. In the 2020 elections, Trump still got 23% of the vote. We don't live in "red" states and "blue" states, we all live side-by-side, in slightly different proportions from state-to-state. We live in "purple" states, of various shades.
https://i.imgur.com/YRxO59J.png
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2016/countymappurple512.png
http://www.kellscraft.com/GulliversTravels/Gulliver023.jpg
frugal-one
6-25-22, 8:05pm
Rogar:
The Supreme Court is now a political instrument to get the republican agenda passed. If you have an opportunity watch the Rachel Maddow show from yesterday. There were many insightful observations and historical references that pertain to today.
Rogar:
The Supreme Court is now a political instrument to get the republican agenda passed. If you have an opportunity watch the Rachel Maddow show from yesterday. There were many insightful observations and historical references that pertain to today.
I understand the politics, which seems obvious. It just seems like it's not working like it was intended. And what value is the precedence of the highest court in the nation on other matters. Was the supreme court a political instrument to get the democratic agenda of Roe v. Wade passed. I assume it goes both ways.
To me this seems like a significant shift in the interpretation of the law beyond the commonly discussed issues of the day.
In some ways and certain instances I can see the value of giving the states the power to decide, especially when the politics of the Supreme Court differ from those of my state.
And what value is the precedence of the highest court in the nation on other matters. Was the supreme court a political instrument to get the democratic agenda of Roe v. Wade passed. I assume it goes both ways.
It does happen both ways and almost always corrects earlier decisions that were flawed in one form or another. Everyone here complaining about legal precedence had no problem when the Obergefell decision overruled a previous 40 year old ruling, or when Brown vs Board of Education overruled the 50 something year old Plessy vs Ferguson ruling. It's happened hundreds of times, enough to ensure that while precedence should be a consideration, it doesn't make any ruling sacrosanct.
It does happen both ways and almost always corrects earlier decisions that were flawed in one form or another. Everyone here complaining about legal precedence had no problem when the Obergefell decision overruled a previous 40 year old ruling, or when Brown vs Board of Education overruled the 50 something year old Plessy vs Ferguson ruling. It's happened hundreds of times, enough to ensure that while precedence should be a consideration, it doesn't make any ruling sacrosanct.
Indeed so.
https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overruled/
I guess the thing that concerns me, and someone more knowledgeable can correct me if I’m wrong, is that this is the first decision I am aware of that actually rolls back previously existing rights. Brown and pleassy and obergefell all expanded rights from the previous decisions they overturned. Are there cases that have done the opposite that I’m not aware of?
It does happen both ways and almost always corrects earlier decisions that were flawed in one form or another. Everyone here complaining about legal precedence had no problem when the Obergefell decision overruled a previous 40 year old ruling, or when Brown vs Board of Education overruled the 50 something year old Plessy vs Ferguson ruling. It's happened hundreds of times, enough to ensure that while precedence should be a consideration, it doesn't make any ruling sacrosanct.
I've up dated my concept of legal precedence, although it looks like there could now be a new era of precedence. However, it appears that decisions are not only overturned to correct previous flaws, but to accommodate the political leanings of the composition of the court of the day rather than some version of blind justice.
iris lilies
6-26-22, 12:06pm
I guess the thing that concerns me, and someone more knowledgeable can correct me if I’m wrong, is that this is the first decision I am aware of that actually rolls back previously existing rights. Brown and pleassy and obergefell all expanded rights from the previous decisions they overturned. Are there cases that have done the opposite that I’m not aware of?
Coming from your point of view, which is, I believe, “rights of an individual“ perhaps you are right, and I don’t know that because I haven’t looked at all of these reversed court cases.
Coming from the point of view of “the constitutional right of states to govern themselves” you are wrong.
The constitution allows for additional “rights “to be enumerated in the constitution. There’s a process for that. The Supreme Court wouldn’t have anything to do with that.
And if a very basic "right" such as bodily autonomy can be taken away by the supreme court that means that all of the "inalienable rights" that we all thought we had are all just a bunch of fake, feel good BS. Every right under the sun is at risk now. This decision will be remembered by history as the first step in a dark dark era for this country.
I just wonder if they will stop before they rescind the Loving decision. It would certainly be amusing to see Justice Uncle Thomas's marriage put at risk of being made illegal by the radical movement he so proudly associates with.
When you forced people to get an emergency use vaccine or lose their jobs or be kicked out of school, when you forced healthy people to test and quarantine, when you forced people to wear masks when data comparisons of different states and countries showed it made no difference, when you made it a crime to meet with family members outside your household or walk by yourself in the woods miles from others without a mask on you already gutted bodily autonomy. When you sow the wind you reap the whirlwind.
iris lilies
6-26-22, 12:28pm
And if a very basic "right" such as bodily autonomy can be taken away by the supreme court that means that all of the "inalienable rights" that we all thought we had are all just a bunch of fake, feel good BS. Every right under the sun is at risk now. This decision will be remembered by history as the first step in a dark dark era for this country.
I just wonder if they will stop before they rescind the Loving decision. It would certainly be amusing to see Justice Uncle Thomas's marriage put at risk of being made illegal by the radical movement he so proudly associates with.
Oh, I thought you were actually going to consider an answer to your question. I guess not.
As your comment about the Loving decision, why do you think Justice Thomas is not aware of this? Point to a source on the Internet please.
Here’s an example of similar: I am not disturbed about the Supreme Court handing state decisions back to the state. I am VERY disturbed about my state’s overly restrictive abortion law. See, we can have two thoughts in our heads about the same topic at the same time.
ApatheticNoMore
6-26-22, 1:13pm
I don't think I come at it from an abstract individual rights perspective. I think it's impossible to ask women to live without having an option of terminating an unwanted pregnancy (option, obviously not something everyone is going to need or want). That it puts women into impossible situations. And sometimes such termination is just good medical care because it's needed for health of the mother of course, but regardless. So comparison to very dissimilar things doesn't convince me of anything.
I don't argue legal basis because I'm not a lawyer. 50 years of settled law should have been something though. But the honest truth is I think the law can be twisted into anything anyone wants it to be (not is always twisted or anything like that, but can be). I think this twisting is negative for fully born women in the here and now.
So no settled law or stare decisis--got it.
Since we're going all-out federalist, why not just do away with the Supreme Court and throw decisions to state courts? Just a thought.
So no settled law or stare decisis--got it.
Since we're going all-out federalist, why not just do away with the Supreme Court and throw decisions to state courts? Just a thought.
Probably because the Supreme Court decides the constitutionality of other courts decisions and state courts have no standing in that arena.
Probably because the Supreme Court decides the constitutionality of other courts decisions and state courts have no standing in that arena.
If it were dissolved, state courts could make their own decisions. Maybe we could institute a federal three judge panel for emergencies.
If it were dissolved, state courts could make their own decisions. Maybe we could institute a federal three judge panel for emergencies.
I just realized that if it's that easy to turn you into a states rights person, your suggestion may have some merit. We'd just have to figure out how your three judge panel would be different than our existing Supreme Court.
I just realized that if it's that easy to turn you into a states rights person, your suggestion may have some merit. We'd just have to figure out how your three judge panel would be different than our existing Supreme Court.
We'd have a much tougher vetting process-maybe with lie detectors and a dunk tank. :D
flowerseverywhere
6-26-22, 6:21pm
I am not surprised at all. Our 15 week abortion ban goes into place July 1. Last year there were 80,000 abortions here in Florida. There are 19,000 kids already in foster care and not enough homes so some are in orphanage like care.
16% of adults here have no health insurance as we have no expanded Medicare for the working poor. So more women with no insurance will get no prenatal care and end up birthing unwanted and unloved babies. Who cares if they have no access to medical care.
so people who are overjoyed should seriously consider what we are going to do with these kids.
I am not necessarily pro abortion however people are going to have sex as we were designed to do during our reproductive years. Anyone who preaches abstinence should talk to Sarah Palin. It sure worked for her family.
I asked a very religious acquaintance of mine and she told me nobody wants black babies but the white ones have lots of people who would adopt.
I think we are in quite a pickle here with so many children poor, homeless, hungry, abused and neglected already. But no worries. They are praying and thinking about them. Thoughts and prayers ought to do it.
As your comment about the Loving decision, why do you think Justice Thomas is not aware of this? Point to a source on the Internet please.
He ‘helpfully’ provided a laundry list of the ‘rights’ he thinks should be done away with but failed to include the loving decision in that list.
Anyone who isn’t a white cis het male, like all the founders were, is at risk of finding themselves being stripped of rights by these extremists on the court who have no respect for precedent.
I wonder how many of these "pro-lifers" (sic) who are characterizing pregnant women as "murderers" and "baby killers" for making a very personal decision to manage their own lives have done anything to prevent war. Do they wring their hands and clutch their pearls over the deaths of thousands of very real young men and women with fully-functioning brains? Very few seem to. But boy howdy are they ready to interfere with and condemn often desperate women who choose to have their embryos/fetuses (which in no sane definition are "babies") removed. Pro life my ass.
I wonder how many of these "pro-lifers" (sic) who are characterizing pregnant women as "murderers" and "baby killers" for making a very personal decision to manage their own lives have done anything to prevent war. Do they wring their hands and clutch their pearls over the deaths of thousands of very real young men and women with fully-functioning brains? Very few seem to. But boy howdy are they ready to interfere with and condemn often desperate women who choose to have their embryos/fetuses (which in no sane definition are "babies") removed. Pro life my ass.
There are many contradictions in the "sanctity of life" argument. War, the death penalty, the cruel exploitation of laborers, animals and natural resources. If they put everyone in jail who dishonored life, freedom would exist for very, very few.
flowerseverywhere
6-27-22, 10:33am
The Pope put out a statement basically saying you can’t be pro life if you allow the death penalty and guns everywhere
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/vatican-pro-lifers-must-fight-for-gun-control_n_62b7bbf1e4b0cf43c865b117/amp
There are many contradictions in the "sanctity of life" argument. War, the death penalty, the cruel exploitation of laborers, animals and natural resources. If they put everyone in jail who dishonored life, freedom would exist for very, very few.
Not to mention today's right wing is united in its refusal to support a whole range of issues--child care, immigration, affordable health care, regulation of assault-type weapons, environmental regulations, etc. that could have a profoundly positive effect on people's lives.
iris lilies
6-27-22, 11:14am
I wonder how many of these "pro-lifers" (sic) who are characterizing pregnant women as "murderers" and "baby killers" for making a very personal decision to manage their own lives have done anything to prevent war. Do they wring their hands and clutch their pearls over the deaths of thousands of very real young men and women with fully-functioning brains? Very few seem to. But boy howdy are they ready to interfere with and condemn often desperate women who choose to have their embryos/fetuses (which in no sane definition are "babies") removed. Pro life my ass.
I think it is “ sane” to consider the life of the “embryos/fetus” in the abortion equation and it seems not-sane to me to do otherwise.
I’ve been skimming Jewish writers who are writing about the Roe v. Wade overturn in the context of Jewish theology. Not surprisingly, the liberal side says Jewish theology considers human life to start at the first breath out of the womb. Not so liberal Jewish thinkers say otherwise.
Maybe now we can get a male birth control pill. Paying for an abortion was an easy way out vs paying 18 years of child support, more if the kid goes to college.
Of course anyone considering abortion realizes a potential human life is involved; what isn't sane, IMO, is declaring an embryo is equivalent to an infant. Or interfering in what is clearly a private, personal decision.
Apparently, white supremacists are over the moon about this, as 60% of abortions are performed on white women. Next up, an assault on contraceptives.
Apparently, white supremacists are over the moon about this, as 60% of abortions are performed on white women. Next up, an assault on contraceptives.
But, but....
Isn't the "white" population of the USA ~61.6%?
Of course anyone considering abortion realizes a potential human life is involved; what isn't sane, IMO, is declaring an embryo is equivalent to an infant. Or interfering in what is clearly a private, personal decision.
49 of 50 Democratic Senators recently voted to override all state abortion laws and allow abortion for any reason up to the day of actual birth, even though that's only supported by approximately 10% of their base, showing that even the majority of those in favor of abortion realize the Senate wanted to allow killing babies. Abortion is always going to be a hot topic as long as they continue this foolishness, we're much better off leaving it to the states.
Apparently, white supremacists are over the moon about this, as 60% of abortions are performed on white women.
I'm guessing that speculation is mis-stated as it doesn't make the point you're attempting. It would be more accurate to say that the original push to legalize abortion was a concerted effort to eliminate anyone deemed 'deficient' either by race or disability, and one of the ongoing pro-abortion arguments continues to be that it isn't fair to force (allow) minorities to give birth or children with potential disabilities to be born at all.
...and one of the ongoing pro-abortion arguments continues to be that it isn't fair to force (allow) minorities to give birth or children with potential disabilities to be born at all.
Quite a change from the days when black women were bred like cattle in this country.
I report; you decide. I think Amy Coney Barrett has made similar statements. Personally, I'd leave my offspring on a mountaintop rather than consign them to the nouveau Nazis in this country.
"At a Saturday rally held by Donald Trump—i.e., a guy who kicked off his first bid for the White House by calling Mexicans rapists and criminals and whose entire brand is racism—Rep. Mary Miller said into the microphone: “President Trump, on behalf of all the MAGA patriots in America, I want to thank you for the historic victory for white life in the Supreme Court yesterday.” Then she clapped her hands as the audience cheered." If it was a Freudian slip, it was certainly in character, as Miller has praised Hitler in the past.
...
I'm guessing that speculation is mis-stated as it doesn't make the point you're attempting. It would be more accurate to say that the original push to legalize abortion was a concerted effort to eliminate anyone deemed 'deficient' either by race or disability, and one of the ongoing pro-abortion arguments continues to be that it isn't fair to force (allow) minorities to give birth or children with potential disabilities to be born at all.
The decision to terminate should be the sole purview of the woman involved; it's not "fair" to force anyone to carry a pregnancy to term.
I report; you decide. I think Amy Coney Barrett has made similar statements. Personally, I'd leave my offspring on a mountaintop rather than consign them to the nouveau Nazis in this country.
"At a Saturday rally held by Donald Trump—i.e., a guy who kicked off his first bid for the White House by calling Mexicans rapists and criminals and whose entire brand is racism—Rep. Mary Miller said into the microphone: “President Trump, on behalf of all the MAGA patriots in America, I want to thank you for the historic victory for white life in the Supreme Court yesterday.” Then she clapped her hands as the audience cheered." If it was a Freudian slip, it was certainly in character, as Miller has praised Hitler in the past.
Yes, that was all over the news yesterday, presented pretty much the same as you have here. Though when I watched the video it seemed pretty apparent she stumbled a bit as she read her prepared remarks, resulting in what may have been the word 'white'. The POC in the crowd behind her seemed to realize that as they clapped and waved her campaign signs so I'll give that one the benefit of doubt.
Yes, that was all over the news yesterday, presented pretty much the same as you have here. Though when I watched the video it seemed pretty apparent she stumbled a bit as she read her prepared remarks, resulting in what may have been the word 'white'. The POC in the crowd behind her seemed to realize that as they clapped and waved her campaign signs so I'll give that one the benefit of doubt.
People seem primed to jump immediately to "outrage", "do not pass go" these days...
I suppose this is why we can't have nice things. Here in my local community, most anyone sane has been driven out by the attentions of the performative outrage dance troupes on "both" sides. I think governance has suffered grievously here as a result.
I hope outrage can be sustained long enough to get voters to the polls and spur activism on reproductive and other issues.
ETA: If women, particularly, aren't outraged, I don't honestly hold out any hope. We're heading down a dark, dark path. I guess cis white men can just bask in their privilege.
ApatheticNoMore
6-27-22, 8:10pm
Right people should be outraged. And no not about nitpicking MTG speeches, who cares, this is mistaking the forest for an acorn. But it's what almost noone is actually outraged about either. So it's 99.99999% fictional. People are outraged about Supreme Court rulings. The biggest reason we can't have nice things right now is the Supreme Court (there are others).
frugal-one
6-27-22, 8:39pm
49 of 50 Democratic Senators recently voted to override all state abortion laws and allow abortion for any reason up to the day of actual birth, even though that's only supported by approximately 10% of their base, showing that even the majority of those in favor of abortion realize the Senate wanted to allow killing babies. Abortion is always going to be a hot topic as long as they continue this foolishness, we're much better off leaving it to the states.
I'm guessing that speculation is mis-stated as it doesn't make the point you're attempting. It would be more accurate to say that the original push to legalize abortion was a concerted effort to eliminate anyone deemed 'deficient' either by race or disability, and one of the ongoing pro-abortion arguments continues to be that it isn't fair to force (allow) minorities to give birth or children with potential disabilities to be born at all.
Thought republicans such as yourself wanted NO government intervention or interference??? Or is this only for gun laws?
I don't understand why anyone should be forced to bring a defective child into the world for that matter. IMO it is the responsibility of the parent to determine if the being can be a functioning or beneficial member of society. To chain an individual or individuals to a lifetime of care seems barbaric IMO. I don't know if I am explaining this coherently but feel no one should have the right to make this determination except for those directly affected by the outcome.
Thought republicans such as yourself wanted NO government intervention or interference??? Or is this only for gun laws?
I guess you don't understand Republicans such as myself then. I think the primary objective of our federal government is to protect us from those who may wish us harm. Any government that wants to allow, if not encourage, a child to be killed the day before its natural birth is not only not doing its job, it's diametrically opposed to it's primary function.
It seems obvious to me that lots of people don't understand the role of government, it's not to grant you any right you may desire, it's to protect others from the harm you wish to inflict upon them.
I guess you don't understand Republicans such as myself then. I think the primary objective of our federal government is to protect us from those who may wish us harm. Any government that wants to allow, if not encourage, a child to be killed the day before its natural birth is not only not doing its job, it's diametrically opposed to it's primary function.
It seems obvious to me that lots of people don't understand the role of government, it's not to grant you any right you may desire, it's to protect others from the harm you wish to inflict upon them.
I can't imagine a scenario where a child is aborted "the day before its natural birth." Can you cite an instance? The vast majority of terminations are done in the first trimester. That sounds like an urban legend to me.
I can't imagine a scenario where a child is aborted "the day before its natural birth." Can you cite an instance? The vast majority of terminations are done in the first trimester. That sounds like an urban legend to me.
That would be the result if the abortion on demand pipedream is ever realized. It was nearly memorialized in the recent Women's Health Protection Act which 49 of 50 Democratic Senators voted to authorize under the guise of 'women's health', which would include something like post-partum depression.
That would be the result if the abortion on demand pipedream is ever realized. It was nearly memorialized in the recent Women's Health Protection Act which 49 of 50 Democratic Senators voted to authorize under the guise of 'women's health', which would include something like post-partum depression.
I thought then, and I think now, that you are stretching quite a bit with that interpretation of the text.
I thought then, and I think now, that you are stretching quite a bit with that interpretation of the text.
If it ever passes, I guess we'll find out.
frugal-one
6-27-22, 9:54pm
I guess you don't understand Republicans such as myself then. I think the primary objective of our federal government is to protect us from those who may wish us harm. Any government that wants to allow, if not encourage, a child to be killed the day before its natural birth is not only not doing its job, it's diametrically opposed to it's primary function.
It seems obvious to me that lots of people don't understand the role of government, it's not to grant you any right you may desire, it's to protect others from the harm you wish to inflict upon them.
That is YOUR definition of government. Show me where it says it is to protect others....
Chicken lady
6-27-22, 9:57pm
I think I understand Alan’s interpretation of the text - it is what could, legally, be allowed. The worst case scenario if you had a woman and a doctor both willing to take advantage of the most extreme version of the law.
it is the same type of worst case thinking that caused me to stand outside a fence and yell at a house while holding a misdirected package for twenty minutes. The fence has “no trespassing” signs, the yard has trump flags and POW and Vietnam vets and I know that the vet inside it is armed (always) and taking psychoactive medication (usually) My state has stand your ground laws. And when I finally got to hand the guy his package, he said “why didn’t you just come around the back? You can see the shop lights.” And he seemed genuinely shocked when I replied “I didn’t want you to shoot me.”
I do not feel like my government protects me.
ApatheticNoMore
6-27-22, 9:58pm
If I believed the governments job was to protect others, it would support the rights of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gasses and other pollutants. But the Supreme Court is probably going to gut that. So I can not for one second take them seriously as protecting us in that case.
flowerseverywhere
6-27-22, 9:58pm
I guess you don't understand Republicans such as myself then. I think the primary objective of our federal government is to protect us from those who may wish us harm. Any government that wants to allow, if not encourage, a child to be killed the day before its natural birth is not only not doing its job, it's diametrically opposed to it's primary function.
It seems obvious to me that lots of people don't understand the role of government, it's not to grant you any right you may desire, it's to protect others from the harm you wish to inflict upon them.
I almost fell on the floor laughing.
Guns don't kill anyone in this country thank goodness or Republicans would be all over gun control and banning. To protect others from inflicting harm on you.
And that abortion the day before birth? Its called a c section and delivers a live baby. Do you think they are suffocated or stabbed to death in the delivery room?
The logic makes no sense to me.
[/B]
That is YOUR definition of government. Show me where it says it is to protect others....
14th AmendmentSection 1All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Chicken lady
6-27-22, 10:16pm
Hmm, I see some issues here. A fetus has not been “born or naturalized” and we are making laws depriving women (whom I presume to be “person”s) of the privilege of health care.
I guess you don't understand Republicans such as myself then. I think the primary objective of our federal government is to protect us from those who may wish us harm.
What if it’s the government that wishes harm? Pro-fetus/anti-women’s bodily autonomy laws that don’t even have a carveback for the health of the mother will absolutely harm some people.
Hmm, I see some issues here. A fetus has not been “born or naturalized” and we are making laws depriving women (whom I presume to be “person”s) of the privilege of health care.
Apparently, a lot of men don't consider women "persons" worthy of equal treatment under the law.
ApatheticNoMore
6-27-22, 10:51pm
Any harms a living person may fear, just doesn't matter as much as "harms" to unborn persons.
Any harms a living person may fear, just doesn't matter as much as "harms" to unborn persons.
And then--as George Carlin pointed out--as soon as they're born, they're on their own.
And then--as George Carlin pointed out--as soon as they're born, they're on their own.
And that’s the crux of it. A popular Republican talking point for the pro-fetus perspective is that abortions of fetuses that have likely birth defects are wrong. But those same republicans are adamantly against the government providing any support to those kids and their parents once they are no longer in the womb. And then those same republicans wonder why people point out that there is nothing even vaguely ‘pro life’ about them despite the obvious fact that being ‘pro birth’ and ‘pro life’ are two completely different things.
From Justice Breyer, the Dobbs dissent:
" Today, the Court discards that balance. It says that from the very moment of fertilization, a woman has no rights to speak of. A State can force her to bring a pregnancy to term, even at the steepest personal and familial costs. An abor- tion restriction, the majority holds, is permissible whenever rational, the lowest level of scrutiny known to the law. And because, as the Court has often stated, protecting fetal life is rational, States will feel free to enact all manner of re- strictions. The Mississippi law at issue here bars abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy. Under the majority’s rul- ing, though, another State’s law could do so after ten weeks, or five or three or one—or, again, from the moment of ferti- lization. States have already passed such laws, in anticipa- tion of today’s ruling. More will follow. Some States have enacted laws extending to all forms of abortion procedure, including taking medication in one’s own home. They have passed laws without any exceptions for when the woman is the victim of rape or incest. Under those laws, a woman will have to bear her rapist’s child or a young girl her fa- ther’s—no matter if doing so will destroy her life. So too, after today’s ruling, some States may compel women to carry to term a fetus with severe physical anomalies—for example, one afflicted with Tay-Sachs disease, sure to diep. 33 Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., dissenting within a few years of birth. States may even argue that a prohibition on abortion need make no provision for protect- ing a woman from risk of death or physical harm. Across a vast array of circumstances, a State will be able to impose its moral choice on a woman and coerce her to give birth to a child."
frugal-one
6-28-22, 9:11am
14th AmendmentSection 1All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Find it interesting that you, as a republican, continually lament about government intervention. Obviously, this is only the case when it is not in your interest or belief.
BTW your interpretation is not the same as what this amendment says… many above listed a variety of reasons. IMO all you need to do is look at the first 3 words for the abortion issue.
Also don’t believe your interpretation of this amendment to be accurate.
BTW your interpretation is not the same as what this amendment says… many above listed a variety of reasons. IMO all you need to do is look at the first 3 words for the abortion issue.
Next thing we know, you'll be telling him that the 2nd amendment has 13 words at the beginning that he has never heard.
Next thing we know, you'll be telling him that the 2nd amendment has 13 words at the beginning that he has never heard.
I notice the Supreme Court decision didn't mention how "a well-regulated militia" fits into New York's new wild wild west firearm situation.
ApatheticNoMore
6-28-22, 12:24pm
I notice the Supreme Court decision didn't mention how "a well-regulated militia" fits into New York's new wild wild west firearm situation.
all I know is it is somehow the fault of Democrat mayors.
I notice the Supreme Court decision didn't mention how "a well-regulated militia" fits into New York's new wild wild west firearm situation.
It didn't need to, that's been covered many times. They only had to determine whether the NY policy of 'May Issue' fit Constitutional standards or if 'Shall Issue' was the more appropriate policy.
Michael Steele said the quiet part out loud. When republicans say that abortion rights is a state's rights issue they are lying through their teeth. If they take over both houses of congress and the presidency they will move to make sure that even women in blue states don't have bodily autonomy anymore.
Michael Steele said the quiet part out loud. When republicans say that abortion rights is a state's rights issue they are lying through their teeth. If they take over both houses of congress and the presidency they will move to make sure that even women in blue states don't have bodily autonomy anymore.
While I have seem some of the GOP elected officials talking about introducing such bills, I'm not sure how that would work. Especially in the context of this new ruling that says it should be decided by the states.
I'm also curious how that would be implemented. Say, for example, they passed a federal ban on abortions. The state of WA has strong protections for abortion, and our attorney general and governor have expressed their support of our protections. How would the federal government enforce the ban here?
Someone pointed out that the trouble with state laws is that administrations change and if, say, Republicans take over, they can change laws. Maybe we need to write body autonomy into the state constitution.
Also, Dahlia Lithwick, in discussing the history of abortion rights, observed that women have long been viewed by politicians as "just very large children." That rang true to me.
Someone pointed out that the trouble with state laws is that administrations change and if, say, Republicans take over, they can change laws. Maybe we need to write body autonomy into the state constitution.
Even state constitutions can be changed. There ultimately is no protection from the tyranny of the majority (or super-empowered majority) over time. At least, no protection that relies upon laws and process.
While I have seem some of the GOP elected officials talking about introducing such bills, I'm not sure how that would work. Especially in the context of this new ruling that says it should be decided by the states.
I'm also curious how that would be implemented. Say, for example, they passed a federal ban on abortions. The state of WA has strong protections for abortion, and our attorney general and governor have expressed their support of our protections. How would the federal government enforce the ban here?
People are crossing state lines for abortions. They will claim that the commerce clause gives them the power to regulate abortion nationwide.
People are crossing state lines for abortions. They will claim that the commerce clause gives them the power to regulate abortion nationwide.
Shades of the Fugitive Slave Act...
Anyways, say Washington decides to blow off any Federal law forbidding abortion, and has no local laws against it, and doesn't cooperate with Federal law enforcement officials in arresting women and doctors here. How will the Federal government manage to enforce their restrictions? Send troops from Texas to try to occupy us?
And, where I live, it's quicker to get to Canada many days than the US mainland. Will the Feds instruct the Coast Guard and other agencies to patrol the waters looking for women who are past their period who are crossing the border?
Cascadia. It's time.
gimmethesimplelife
6-28-22, 6:13pm
I read online that Kamala Harris is now saying that the White House will help poor women with traveling costs to flee to a blue state for an abortion. That ramps up the Culture War, no? Honestly the only hopeful future I can see for the US is splitting up. The polarization is too extreme and unbridgable - there really is no long term hope in the Union holding together. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
6-28-22, 6:15pm
Shades of the Fugitive Slave Act...
Anyways, say Washington decides to blow off any Federal law forbidding abortion, and has no local laws against it, and doesn't cooperate with Federal law enforcement officials in arresting women and doctors here. How will the Federal government manage to enforce their restrictions? Send troops from Texas to try to occupy us?
And, where I live, it's quicker to get to Canada many days than the US mainland. Will the Feds instruct the Coast Guard and other agencies to patrol the waters looking for women who are past their period who are crossing the border?
Cascadia. It's time.Cascadia.....I remember hearing of this during my time in Portland. It's an idea whose time has come for sure!!! Rob
gimmethesimplelife
6-28-22, 6:20pm
People are crossing state lines for abortions. They will claim that the commerce clause gives them the power to regulate abortion nationwide.A tad melodramatic, true - but I have read online that militias will not be stopped from staffing the Louisiana state line and detaining women "suspected of murder" via fleeing to another state by car for an abortion. What has America come to, and much more importantly, will these women be able to use this for successful political asylum claims in one of the many better countries? I can see things easily reaching this point. And realistically, has America earned the brains and energy of our young people?
Rob
I read online that Kamala Harris is now saying that the White House will help poor women with traveling costs to flee to a blue state for an abortion.
How? The White House has no spending authority other than what Congress gives it. I remember this from Schoolhouse Rock.
And the GAO looks unkindly upon misuse of funds.
A tad melodramatic, true - but I have read online that militias will not be stopped from staffing the Louisiana state line and detaining women "suspected of murder" via fleeing to another state by car for an abortion.
I'm quite curious why that sort of stop-and-detention isn't a felony, of the sort allowing use of lethal force in response? It is in most states...
gimmethesimplelife
6-28-22, 6:24pm
How? The White House has no spending authority other than what Congress gives it. I remember this from Schoolhouse Rock.
And the GAO looks unkindly upon misuse of funds.Bae, for once I have no idea. I'm just passing along Kamala Harris's words. It's a good idea though and if implemented (sp?) may help this country split apart faster. One can hope.
Rob
gimmethesimplelife
6-28-22, 6:26pm
I'm quite curious why that sort of stop-and-detention isn't a felony, of the sort allowing use of lethal force in response? It is in most states...I don't know specifically. I can however say that Louisiana is a scary, backwards place, worse even than Texas beyond the Austin Metro Area. I'm not at all surprised by such words coming out of Louisiana. Rob
Bae, for once I have no idea. I'm just passing along Kamala Harris's words. It's a good idea though and if implemented (sp?) may help this country split apart faster. One can hope.
Rob
I asked you a bit ago what that "split" looks like in your mind? I live in perhaps the most liberal county in a very liberal state, and even here about 25% of the voters went for Trump in the last presidential election. Are you imagining we deport the 25%, or simply kill them in the middle of the night a la Serbia or Rwanda?
We all live side-by-side in most of America, there's not the division of red/blue that naive or disingenuous graphics would have you believe. On just my road, we have the head of our local Democratic party, the head of the local GOP, and me, a ringleader of our Extremist Middle. No more than a 5 minute walk from each other. Luckily I have the high ground.
gimmethesimplelife
6-28-22, 6:31pm
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jun/27/kamala-harris-says-administration-plans-help-women/
gimmethesimplelife
6-28-22, 6:32pm
Above is an article with Kamala Harris mentioning Federal assistance for low income women to travel for abortions. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
6-28-22, 6:34pm
I asked you a bit ago what that "split" looks like in your mind? I live in perhaps the most liberal county in a very liberal state, and even here about 25% of the voters went for Trump in the last presidential election. Are you imagining we deport the 25%, or simply kill them in the middle of the night a la Serbia or Rwanda?
We all live side-by-side in most of America, there's not the division of red/blue that naive or disingenuous graphics would have you believe. On just my road, we have the head of our local Democratic party, the head of the local GOP, and me, a ringleader of our Extremist Middle. No more than a 5 minute walk from each other. Luckily I have the high ground.Bae, I don't know - do you honestly believe either side in the last Civil War knew how the end was going to look? Much wiser to focus on this possibility of a split and how can one best prepare for it. Instead of how it looks I'd rather focus on surviving it. Blame it on the Austrian in me. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
6-28-22, 6:40pm
How? The White House has no spending authority other than what Congress gives it. I remember this from Schoolhouse Rock.
And the GAO looks unkindly upon misuse of funds.Apparently K Harris is proposing the use of some kind of federally paid travel voucher for low income women. Ay carumba things are going to get yet uglier in the United States - our young really need to be reevaluating this country snd if it's in their best interests to remain here. Rob
I'm quite curious why that sort of stop-and-detention isn't a felony, of the sort allowing use of lethal force in response? It is in most states...
For the same reason that surrounding and trying to stop a presidential candidate’s bus in the middle of a freeway for purposes of instilling fear of violence is now considered an acceptable thing to do among a majority of republicans. At least it is if it’s republicans doing the intimidation.
For the same reason that surrounding and trying to stop a presidential candidate’s bus in the middle of a freeway for purposes of instilling fear of violence is now considered an acceptable thing to do among a majority of republicans. At least it is if it’s republicans doing the intimidation.
I believe I related my experience last year or so, when our local BLM protestors surrounded my vehicle, aggressively approached it, and would not let me proceed. They were doing this to pretty much every vehicle trying to progress through the main intersection in our village. In their discussions afterwards, they freely admitted that they wanted us "to feel the same kind of fear that others do"... They are lucky that ended well for them.
I don't care what political persuasion someone is, once they start engaging in terrorism, unlawful detainment, kidnapping, and what-have-you, well....play stupid games, you may win stupid prizes.
I agree. Wrong is wrong regardless of who is involved.
gimmethesimplelife
6-28-22, 9:20pm
For the same reason that surrounding and trying to stop a presidential candidate’s bus in the middle of a freeway for purposes of instilling fear of violence is now considered an acceptable thing to do among a majority of republicans. At least it is if it’s republicans doing the intimidation.Good point! Rob
ToomuchStuff
6-29-22, 12:16am
Much wiser to focus on this possibility of a split and how can one best prepare for it. Instead of how it looks I'd rather focus on surviving it. Blame it on the Austrian in me. Rob
They had some idea of how it was going to look as they set up a government, leader, etc.
Much wiser to think about it, then like another friend of mine who has no filter, and spews thoughts opposite of your views.....
The bolded, is where both of you would be coming from. He mentioned those he talks to, are extremely liberal and most are unarmed and think that others shouldn't have guns. Well, Austria, Germany etc. did the disarming and I don't think it would go well here.
Let alone a bunch of unarmed people trying to march and take peoples property to make it their state (this is what he was talking about while quoting Missouri's Castle law and how it won't end well for those trying to deprive him of life, his liberty and property).
Chicken lady
6-30-22, 6:00am
I had dinner with my heartdaughter last night. She and her wife are working on back up paperwork in case the Supreme Court invalidates their marriage.
rosarugosa
6-30-22, 6:27am
I had dinner with my heartdaughter last night. She and her wife are working on back up paperwork in case the Supreme Court invalidates their marriage.
I cannot imagine how terrible that must feel, to know that your marriage can just be made null and void. I hope their backup plans turn out to be unnecessary.
I can imagine, honestly, as I have been imagining my 5 and 7 year old granddaughters being forced to carry babies against their will. We have returned to some very dark times for women, so I imagine that gay folks may be their next targets. Unfortunately, I can imagine what pain may be in store for my friends.
I keep hearing "Papa Don't Preach" on the radio now - "I'm keeping my baby".
gimmethesimplelife
6-30-22, 10:38am
I can imagine, honestly, as I have been imagining my 5 and 7 year old granddaughters being forced to carry babies against their will. We have returned to some very dark times for women, so I imagine that gay folks may be their next targets. Unfortunately, I can imagine what pain may be in store for my friends.I will have to flee if my marriage is null and void. That is too deep of an insult in a country in which human life is not worth socialized medicine. America would not be worthy of my presence as a human being in that case. BUT perhaps there's some good here - maybe some lucky folks can get out of the US permanently if their marriages are nulled and voided - what would be the point in staying in the US then anyway? I would not be surprised if some better countries gave refuge to these folks that America would brutally outcast without a second thought. I recommend Uruguay.
Exciting times in a strange, ironic sense - some will permanently get out and acquire better citizenship. I try to remember that as I go about my day and maintain PC at work.
Rob
gimmethesimplelife
6-30-22, 10:39am
And another upside - more people are learning the truth of the United States on a daily basis now. It's about time - but better late than never. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
6-30-22, 10:47am
And I wanted to close with something positive. SO and I have talked at length about this and the consensus is that we don't care so much where we live provided that our marriage is legally recognized. We recognize we may very well be fleeing not too far off and are starting to sell things on.Mercari - getting rid of stuff we don't absolutely need. Perhaps if and when things ramp up we can do some kind of.vlog online regarding our fleeing being brutally marginalized while having done zilch wrong? Maybe akin to a parting gift for this country? Rob
ApatheticNoMore
6-30-22, 11:49am
And another upside - more people are learning the truth of the United States on a daily basis now. It's about time - but better late than never.
there is no "the truth" that is learned, there is an ever shifting truth, which is getting worse under a far-right wide reaching supreme court. There has never been some idealized truth, you could say people learn a truth from Hiroshima. But there have also been better Supreme courts, even if it's been decades.
Now 10 year old rape victims in Ohio can't get abortions there. Yay freedumb! I guess the hacks on the supreme court think the founders were as cruel as they are and intended this.
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2022/07/01/ohio-girl-10-among-patients-going-indiana-abortion/7788415001/
Send this story to your senators and congressman, jp1. I was up all night writing them last week. Suggest all of you do the same.
Now 10 year old rape victims in Ohio can't get abortions there. Yay freedumb! I guess the hacks on the supreme court think the founders were as cruel as they are and intended this.
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2022/07/01/ohio-girl-10-among-patients-going-indiana-abortion/7788415001/
Your link is coming up to an unsafe site.
I think in the days not long before the Founding Fathers a pregnant 10 year old would have been accused of consorting with the devil and hung as a witch.
Your link is coming up to an unsafe site.
I think in the days not long before the Founding Fathers a pregnant 10 year old would have been accused of consorting with the devil and hung as a witch.
Yes--with Alito emulating a 17th century jurist who hated women and had two of them executed as witches, and other justices looking with nostalgia on "the good old days" before women, blacks, gay people, non-property owners, and others had the same rights as "good old boys," we have much to look forward to.
Apparently the republicans today are little better than the witch hunters in the days of the founders. Because they realize that pretty much all rational people would think that forcing a raped ten year old to give birth is a monstrously ugly thing at least one Republican has chosen, today at a public hearing in congress, to simply say that a raped ten year old getting an abortion isn’t an abortion. Yet another Republican attempt to make the English language meaningless. George Orwell would be proud.
SWALWELL: Do you think a 10-year-old should choose to carry a baby?
FOSTER: I believe it would probably impact her, her life, and so therefore it would fall under any exception and would not be an abortion.
SWALWELL: Wait. It would not be an abortion if a 10-year-old, with her parents, made the decision not to have a baby that was a result of a rape?
FOSTER: If a 10-year-old became pregnant as a result of rape, and it was threatening her life, then that's not an abortion. So it would not fall under any abortion restriction in our nation.
SWALWELL, to next witness: Miss Warbelow, are you familiar with disinformation?
Congressman Swallwell was being too kind to this lying bitch. Ohio’s law makes no exceptions for anything. That’s why the kid had to leave the state to get an abortion.
rosarugosa
7-15-22, 7:16am
JP: Well that was certainly an interesting rationalization. I can't remind myself often enough that there is no reasoning with irrational people.
I wanted to discuss something I've been pondering recently about the Roe overturn. There has been a bit of talk about what action the restrictive or banning states would take against women who travel out of state for abortions. It seems to me that's a bit of over-reach that I haven't seen before, unless it's just selective memory on my part. For example, for many years gambling was only legal in certain places like Nevada, but I never heard talk about other states taking punitive action against those who travelled to these legal gambling areas to gamble. Likewise with legal prostitution in Nevada, and cannabis which is legal in some states but not in others. Fireworks are illegal in my state and there is enforcement to keep residents from bringing them in from out of state, but nobody seems to care if I go to NH to buy fireworks as long as I use them in NH.
So this over-reach concerning abortion really does have a horrible controlling, misogynistic feeling about it.
So this over-reach concerning abortion really does have a horrible controlling, misogynistic feeling about it.
Ding! Ding! Ding! You win a prize for figuring out the real point of the anti-abortionists. The fact that so many on the right were questioning whether this female’s story was even real, as they so often do when women talk about what has happened to them, is further proof that this is just about controlling women. In their perfect world women would take the cue and sit down and shut up.
And when they use ‘states rights’ and abortion in the same sentence they are lying. They will use every tool at their disposal to criminalize abortion everywhere for everyone if given the chance.
iris lilies
7-15-22, 8:21am
https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/can-states-punish-women-for-traveling-out-of-state-to-get-an-abortion/
This is a decent summary of the issue that says this will be hashed out in laws and courts with most constitutional principles working against any ban against women traveling for an abortion. There have been attempts by states to limit travel for underage women though prior to June 2022.
Justice Kavanaugh said in the Dobbs ruling he doesn't see constitutional support for states banning travel for abortion.
As for interesting rationalization, I asked the ProLifer in my household if culling implanted fertilized eggs, a common practice in vitro fertilization, was ok. He said that is a “ medical procedure” not an abortion.
Ok buddy, whatever you say. But under Missouri law now, it is an abortion.
So this over-reach concerning abortion really does have a horrible controlling, misogynistic feeling about it.
Misogyny permeates this whole issue. We were discussing the Roe V Wade overturn with a neighbor--I guy I do like. Very personable, nice guy. Well, his "reasoning" for the overturn was something like this:
Before abortion was legal, women were ashamed if they got knocked up. Now there is no shame anymore. Anything goes. So laws against abortion is a good way to keep women in check, i.e., keep her legs together. Make sure the consequences of sex will bring a healthy dose of shame.
I was dumbfounded. I'm paraphrasing but that's what he was saying. I don't think he's alone.
iris lilies
7-15-22, 9:38am
Misogyny permeates this whole issue. We were discussing the Roe V Wade overturn with a neighbor--I guy I do like. Very personable, nice guy. Well, his "reasoning" for the overturn was something like this:
Before abortion was legal, women were ashamed if they got knocked up. Now there is no shame anymore. Anything goes. So laws against abortion is a good way to keep women in check, i.e., keep her legs together. Make sure the consequences of sex will bring a healthy dose of shame.
I was dumbfounded. I'm paraphrasing but that's what he was saying. I don't think he's alone.
oy. Oy vey.
This is why I try not to have neighbors.
iris lilies
7-15-22, 9:55am
This is why I try not to have neighbors.
There was a “woman’s rights” protest march at the courthouse in Hermann. I was happy to see it highlighted in our little weekly paper and I would have joined up had I known about it in advance. Hermann votes around 75% Republican in Presidential elections, so it is nice to see this sort of thing (common in St. Louis, of course) in Hermann.
I hope this is an indication that our state legislators’ feet will be held to fire to create more reasonable abortion restrictions, since restrictions are going to be the name of the game in this state.
catherine
7-15-22, 10:00am
This is why I try not to have neighbors.
I actually like these neighbors because they have something in common with me/DH: He (obviously) is a Conservative Republican and his wife is a Liberal Democrat. In fact, she's a retired science professor at an Ivy League university. He says that she gets mad at him because he doesn't hate Trump. I don't think he's actually a Trump-er, but he is old school, obviously. I think his views are probably pretty commonly held--it's just that most people don't articulate them--especially in front of women.
gimmethesimplelife
7-15-22, 10:23am
Misogyny permeates this whole issue. We were discussing the Roe V Wade overturn with a neighbor--I guy I do like. Very personable, nice guy. Well, his "reasoning" for the overturn was something like this:
Before abortion was legal, women were ashamed if they got knocked up. Now there is no shame anymore. Anything goes. So laws against abortion is a good way to keep women in check, i.e., keep her legs together. Make sure the consequences of sex will bring a healthy dose of shame.
I was dumbfounded. I'm paraphrasing but that's what he was saying. I don't think he's alone.Some of the guys I know in the Men's Rights Movement think like this. I do not agree with this, not one bit. Though it's true I believe that men overall get a raw deal these days, I have no wish for women to return to a time in which they had no rights nor agency. This neighbor here seems to be all about that.
All I can say is that not all men are like that. Rob
This morning while watering the garden, I started thinking about how women across the nation ought to try celibacy for a while as an experiment.
gimmethesimplelife
7-15-22, 10:39am
This morning while watering the garden, I started thinking about how women across the nation ought to try celibacy for a while as an experiment.I myself as a gay man have been watching all of this stunned but not surprised. Methinks the sexual revolution of the 60's is over and that casual heterosexual sex may become gone with the wind - it was declining even before the Overturn. I see a very dark path for America's future - beyond economics/how Darwinian the United States is. The entire social structure is at risk - how interesting that the GOP is to blame for this when accusing gays and lesbians of destroying the social fabric. Rob
iris lilies
7-15-22, 11:03am
I myself as a gay man have been watching allot this stunned but not surprised. Methinks the sexual revolution of the 60's is over and that casual heterosexual sex may become gone with the wind - it was declining even before the Overturn. I see a very dark path for America's future - beyond economics/how Darwinian the United States is. The entire social structure is at risk - how interesting that the GOP is to blame for this when accusing gays and lesbians for destroying the social fabric. Rob
Well Rob, I try to apply “the reasonable person’s standard” to sex, birth control, and abortion and am willing to compromise my stand for one that might be more acceptable to many people. I have not seen legislation here in my state by dominant republicans OR legislation by US Congress, now controlled by Democrats, that is a compromise. Both bodies are expressing only extreme positions.
And by “compromise” I pretty much mean abortion restrictions do not take place until 12 -16 weeks. There are MANY other compromises, of course, that can be discussed but pregnancy length is the one the average Joe relates to.
I have not seen on this board personal opinions given on where the compromises should be, in my state for instance. It’s all “those dastardly Republicans are bad. “ So from that I have to conclude that everyone is OK with no restrictions on abortion whatsoever. Even though the general populace doesn’t have that opinion.
But mainly I see a fair amount of whining and complaining about “the sexual revolution” being over, and to that I say that EGADS, grow the fk up.
The types of birth control, and even aborton methods are SO numerous and effective today when compared to when I was 25 years old in a legalized abortion pre-Dobbs period that it seems young women today , despite this huge set back of Dobbs, do not get it.
When I was 25 years old I would have LOVED to have a available to me:
1) instant pregnancy tests from the pharmacy, no prescription required
2) effective, long term birth control like that hormonal thing they put in your arm, good for 6 months (and no periods. Heaven!)
3) over the counter “morning after” pills that stop ovulation…no prescription required!
4) non-surgical abortions with the abortion pills (certainly in danger now, but unclear what/how it will be regulated in a post Dobbs environment)
So on the issue of “shame” I have to say that yeah, it seems irresponsible to me to carry a pregnancy forward of a healthy fetus, barring mother’s health problems, beyond 12 weeks and then aborting that fetus. Certainly there are mitigating factors that come into play and all of us can name some factors. This does not mean however that I think the “shame” needs to be codified in legislation, not at all.
rosarugosa
7-15-22, 11:29am
Misogyny permeates this whole issue. We were discussing the Roe V Wade overturn with a neighbor--I guy I do like. Very personable, nice guy. Well, his "reasoning" for the overturn was something like this:
Before abortion was legal, women were ashamed if they got knocked up. Now there is no shame anymore. Anything goes. So laws against abortion is a good way to keep women in check, i.e., keep her legs together. Make sure the consequences of sex will bring a healthy dose of shame.
I was dumbfounded. I'm paraphrasing but that's what he was saying. I don't think he's alone.
Did you fall over? I guess something must be done to control these slutty women, who apparently get knocked up with no part played by the male of the species.
iris lilies
7-15-22, 11:33am
Did you fall over? I guess something must be done to control these slutty women, who apparently get knocked up with no part played by the male of the species.
And I would point out, just as a point of discussion, that when women play the “my body my choice only me just me only I get to decide about a pregnancy” As is the dominant social rhetoric, that is the environment they set up for themselves that keeps men out of it.
I really don’t think it’s that black and white, but I do think this view plays into to this whole complex area of human relations.
Misogyny permeates this whole issue. We were discussing the Roe V Wade overturn with a neighbor--I guy I do like. Very personable, nice guy. Well, his "reasoning" for the overturn was something like this:
Before abortion was legal, women were ashamed if they got knocked up. Now there is no shame anymore. Anything goes. So laws against abortion is a good way to keep women in check, i.e., keep her legs together. Make sure the consequences of sex will bring a healthy dose of shame.
I was dumbfounded. I'm paraphrasing but that's what he was saying. I don't think he's alone.
Of course he's not alone. My assessment of his--IMO--hateful spew is that he's a closet misogynist at best. This is the kind of stuff I'd expect from the worst kind of Internet troll. Ugh.
Of course he's not alone. My assessment of his--IMO--hateful spew is that he's a closet misogynist at best. This is the kind of stuff I'd expect from the worst kind of Internet troll. Ugh.
I agree. I would not consider him a personable, nice guy anymore.
"I have not seen on this board personal opinions given on where the compromises should be, in my state for instance. It’s all “those dastardly Republicans are bad. “ So from that I have to conclude that everyone is OK with no restrictions on abortion whatsoever. Even though the general populace doesn’t have that opinion."
Where is it that there are no restrictions? Oregon, maybe? Roe v Wade--RIP--specified pre-viability, and the vast majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester. That old rightie talking point "abortion on demand" calls up visions of strident feminists banging on clinic doors,--purposely, to cast women in the worst possible light. Truly. misogyny is behind all this.
Honestly, I think that there should be more strident feminists banging on clinic doors--it is our willingness to silence ourselves so as to not bring on the wrath of people like Catherine's neighbors that has brought us to this point. Why do we participate in our own destruction, to avoid male recrimination. I think women fear men, for good reason.
Honestly, I think that there should be more strident feminists banging on clinic doors--it is our willingness to silence ourselves so as to not bring on the wrath of people like Catherine's neighbors that has brought us to this point. Why do we participate in our own destruction, to avoid male recrimination. I think women fear men, for good reason.
What is that FLDS admonition? "Keep sweet?" >:( I agree that women no longer have the luxury of demurring to men when it comes to our health and well-being. It's clear that not enough of them have our backs.
ApatheticNoMore
7-15-22, 12:47pm
Misogyny permeates this whole issue. We were discussing the Roe V Wade overturn with a neighbor--I guy I do like. Very personable, nice guy. Well, his "reasoning" for the overturn was something like this:
Before abortion was legal, women were ashamed if they got knocked up. Now there is no shame anymore. Anything goes. So laws against abortion is a good way to keep women in check, i.e., keep her legs together. Make sure the consequences of sex will bring a healthy dose of shame.
I was dumbfounded. I'm paraphrasing but that's what he was saying. I don't think he's alone.
no that's probably a lot of what is behind it. Mind you when these guys were young they would probably sleep with any woman who would have them. They, not women, were the ones super amped up on testosterone with sex as the main focus of their existence. But they project that on to women of course. Like the dog they always kick or something.
I can see theoretically restricting how late in pregnancy a woman can get an abortion (theoretically, I don't think there is any practical way to do that as you run into not being able to get an abortion for health of the mother reasons). But I absolutely refuse to base that on stages of a fetus development without considering have women been given an adequate chance to know they are pregnant and consider what they want to do about it. That's the priority.
171 women got abortions after 21 weeks of gestation in Oregon in 2017. I'm not sure that fact tells us anything meaningful.
Did you fall over? I guess something must be done to control these slutty women, who apparently get knocked up with no part played by the male of the species.
I nearly fell over, but I simply pointed out that women are the only ones who get shamed, and in the old days, sent away to convents or aunts for 9 months, while all men got was bragging rights.
gimmethesimplelife
7-15-22, 2:41pm
Did you fall over? I guess something must be done to control these slutty women, who apparently get knocked up with no part played by the male of the species.You are absolutely right. It takes two to tango - something some men including the above referenced neighbor don't seem to understand. Rob
You are absolutely right. It takes two to tango - something some men including the above referenced neighbor don't seem to understand. Rob
In the case of rape, well, it doesn't "take two to tango".
gimmethesimplelife
7-15-22, 2:49pm
Well Rob, I try to apply “the reasonable person’s standard” to sex, birth control, and abortion and am willing to compromise my stand for one that might be more acceptable to many people. I have not seen legislation here in my state by dominant republicans OR legislation by US Congress, now controlled by Democrats, that is a compromise. Both bodies are expressing only extreme positions.
And by “compromise” I pretty much mean abortion restrictions do not take place until 12 -16 weeks. There are MANY other compromises, of course, that can be discussed but pregnancy length is the one the average Joe relates to.
I have not seen on this board personal opinions given on where the compromises should be, in my state for instance. It’s all “those dastardly Republicans are bad. “ So from that I have to conclude that everyone is OK with no restrictions on abortion whatsoever. Even though the general populace doesn’t have that opinion.
But mainly I see a fair amount of whining and complaining about “the sexual revolution” being over, and to that I say that EGADS, grow the fk up.
The types of birth control, and even aborton methods are SO numerous and effective today when compared to when I was 25 years old in a legalized abortion pre-Dobbs period that it seems young women today , despite this huge set back of Dobbs, do not get it.
When I was 25 years old I would have LOVED to have a available to me:
1) instant pregnancy tests from the pharmacy, no prescription required
2) effective, long term birth control like that hormonal thing they put in your arm, good for 6 months (and no periods. Heaven!)
3) over the counter “morning after” pills that stop ovulation…no prescription required!
4) non-surgical abortions with the abortion pills (certainly in danger now, but unclear what/how it will be regulated in a post Dobbs environment)
So on the issue of “shame” I have to say that yeah, it seems irresponsible to me to carry a pregnancy forward of a healthy fetus, barring mother’s health problems, beyond 12 weeks and then aborting that fetus. Certainly there are mitigating factors that come into play and all of us can name some factors. This does not mean however that I think the “shame” needs to be codified in legislation, not at all.Catherine, did I offend? If so I am sorry - I'm totally on women's side on this one. And what I meant by social structure falling apart - I see a future with even less two parent families or even many male/female relationships in general. Granted I am not really part of this structure - but I do have an interest in stability and in what's best for children.....especially boys, who are more vulnerable to the Criminal Justice system if they don't get a foundation growing up - they are much more vulnerable to arrest and life destruction than girls are - statistics will bear me out on this one. I'm starting to believe we'd be best off having fewer than replacement births, though I get that there are consequences for this. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
7-15-22, 2:50pm
In the case of rape, well, it doesn't "take two to tango".Exception granted. I made the mistake of assuming non-forced relations. Rob
Women have been shamed around sex forever--shamed as "frigid," "sluts,"--pregnant too often, too publicly, or "barren," for giving birth out of wedlock, for having an abortion, for keeping her baby, or giving it up. I once had a co-worker mansplain to me that a "nymphomaniac" was a woman who wanted sex more than twice a week. I hope I'll be forgiven for having laughed in his face.
I once explained to a man who was twitting me about possible former lovers that I wasn't going to apologize for having a normal, healthy attitude toward sex, and he probably should be thankful for that. At any rate, women should stop allowing themselves to be shamed and intimidated by men (and women, for that matter) and own their choices--as men routinely do.
ApatheticNoMore
7-15-22, 3:16pm
At any rate, women should stop allowing themselves to be shamed and intimidated by men (and women, for that matter) and own their choices--as men routinely do.
I honestly think this involves avoiding vast quantities of the men out there. And I'm all for it.
iris lilies
7-15-22, 3:23pm
I am trying to pin down 1) candidate’ positions on abortion and 2) current information on abortion restrictions state by state.
For the first, I just went to this site that was said to be tracking Republicans positions on abortion. On the front page it tells me Josh Hawley is a senator from the state of Virginia. In actual fact, Josh Hawkey is my United States senator, in Missouri. So I’m thinking I’m not going to be looking at this site for accurate information.
https://americanbridgepac.org/watch-josh-hawley-pointedly-declines-to-support-trump-campaign/
For the second, I went to Guttmacher Institute to see what it has to say about my state, for instance. It is nonsensical, what it lists for Missouri. It just doesn’t make sense to me.
Strike out on both, back to Painstakingly researching each candidate from his/her website. Will be searching further for a one site that lists all abortion restrictions. I thought the Planned Parenthood site did it, so I’ll check that out again.
edited later to add: Confusingly, there are two Guttmacher Institute websites and I don’t know which one I ran across first, but it was not very good.
This one is concise and current, and I like the way the information is presented:
https://states.guttmacher.org/policies/missouri/abortion-policies
rosarugosa
7-15-22, 3:45pm
IL: I see your point about the "my body, my choice" issue. Unfortunately, fetuses are not carried in shopping bags, so there isn't really an option for a woman to say, "I don't want it, but here, you can have it," at least not yet.
Isn't it interesting the way society has always more or less given guys a free pass as far as sex goes, kind of an attitude that they just cannot be expected to maintain control over their raging testosterone. Meanwhile, women have always been appointed the gatekeepers, and were subject to shame and scorn in addition to the possible unwanted pregnancy if they didn't do an adequate job guarding the gate. I realize that biology pretty much dictates that woman is the more likely gatekeeper, but that doesn't mean society is any less wrong for shaming women and not men, or for making it so easy for men to shirk their responsibility for unplanned pregnancies. It's pretty depressing that we haven't advanced further in this whole realm, and at this point, we actually seem to be moving backwards.
Did Josh Hawley replace Claire McKaskill? OMG!
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/07/15/texas-hospitals-abortion-laws/
Intended consequences?
I remember engaging in a spirited argument with a couple of female co-workers about how men should take responsibility for birth control, and I disagreed vehemently. If I'm the one the ultimate consequence will fall on, it is indeed "my body, my choice."
iris lilies
7-15-22, 4:08pm
Honestly, I think that there should be more strident feminists banging on clinic doors--it is our willingness to silence ourselves so as to not bring on the wrath of people like Catherine's neighbors that has brought us to this point. Why do we participate in our own destruction, to avoid male recrimination. I think women fear men, for good reason.
I don’t see why we have to assign the burden to strident feminists and why would they be banging on clinic doors? It is up to reasonable responsible conservative and moderate women to say “cut the shit out. Cut it out. And here is why you will cut it out – because I will not vote for you. I’m having to cross party lines and vote for the idiots.”
I’ll see why we have to assign the burden to strident feminists and why would they be banging on clinic doors? It is up to reasonable responsible conservative women to say cut the shit out. Cut it out. In here is why you will cut it out – because I will not vote for you. I’m have to having to cross the party line and vote for the idiots.
My "strident feminist" characterization was supposed to be a stereotype--probably ill-considered. But we need activists now more than ever.
All the pregnancy preventatives mentioned by IL are solely on the woman to follow through on - birth control shots, pills, IUDs. Odd to me that there aren't such things for the men in the picture other than condoms and vasectomies both which of course limit their freedoms.
iris lilies
7-15-22, 4:48pm
I wanted to share the reply I got from my senator, Sen. Susan Collins, when I wrote to her on this topic:
Thank you for contacting me to share your support for protecting a woman’s right to make important reproductive decisions. I appreciate your taking the time to do so.
I support codifying the abortion rights established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade and affirmed by Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA), however, goes far beyond what is necessary to do that, and the bill has now been rejected twice in the Senate on a bipartisan basis.
Contrary to claims from Senate Democratic leaders that their bill would not infringe upon the religious rights of individuals and religious institutions, the WHPA explicitly invalidates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in connection with abortion. Congress has never before adopted legislation that contains an exemption to this religious liberty law, which was authored by Majority Leader Schumer when he served in the House and passed by overwhelming, bipartisan margins in 1993. The bill also supersedes other longstanding, bipartisan conscience laws, including provisions in the Affordable Care Act, that protect health care providers who choose not to offer abortion services for moral or religious reasons.
Even though I voted against the WHPA, I am still committed to protecting abortion rights. That is why Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and I introduced legislation in February that would enshrine the important Roe and Casey protections into federal law without undercutting statutes that have been in place for decades and without eliminating basic conscience protections. Our bill, the Reproductive Choice Act, closely tracks the Supreme Court’s decisions in Roe and Casey and would provide reassurance to women that the reproductive rights they have relied upon for nearly 50 years will continue to be the law of the land. It does not include any of the extraneous and over-reaching provisions in the WHPA. You can view our bill by clicking here (https://outreach.senate.gov/iqextranet/iqClickTrk.aspx?&cid=quorum_collins-iq&crop=18192QQQ29907290QQQ15311064QQQ15687870&report_id=&redirect=https%3a%2f%2fwww.congress.gov%2fbill%2f1 17th-congress%2fsenate-bill%2f3713%3fq%3d%257B%2522search%2522%253A%255B% 2522%2522%255D%257D%26r%3d1%26s%3d4&redir_log=112999441034688).
I am committed to ensuring that women in this country have the right to make reproductive choices consistent with the Roe and Casey decisions, and I plan to continue working with my colleagues on legislation that would guarantee that right.
Again, thank you for contacting me.
Sincerely,https://ci4.googleusercontent.com/proxy/VgQ74dI17QoXFu2gQaBpv_ujG_ChzHhIzpgbbEdnQLkwrZB0lv apzMLg5OITQqwiTq625JyfeFalwLodspLas-914tsbg6iURDKX_hhLx9WXQmtHYHn5K5Z_KaktDAuRkJTetam0 uuS1cQ=s0-d-e1-ft#https://outreach.senate.gov/iqextranet/Customers/quorum_collins-iq/Collinssignature.JPG
Susan M. Collins
United States Senator
Circling back to this, I did notice that Susan Collins voted against the proposed women’s health protection act, and I’m glad to know her reasons about that Nay vote. I will have to think about this.
ApatheticNoMore
7-15-22, 5:41pm
All the pregnancy preventatives mentioned by IL are solely on the woman to follow through on - birth control shots, pills, IUDs. Odd to me that there aren't such things for the men in the picture other than condoms and vasectomies both which of course limit their freedoms.
Men couldn't be relied upon to take birth control. Even wearing a condom is too much for most.
I also received answers from President Biden and Angus King. If anyone is interested, I will post them.
iris lilies
7-15-22, 7:29pm
I also received answers from President Biden and Angus King. If anyone is interested, I will post them.
Oh I don’t know, I’m not especially interested. But I was interested in Susan Collins’ response because she’s indicated she liked Roe vs Wade yet she voted against the women’s health initiative which seemed to me on my reading to be very very similar.
Understood; if anyone wants to know what they said, please let me know and I will post.
iris lilies
7-15-22, 9:38pm
Did Josh Hawley replace Claire McKaskill? OMG!
Claire Bear has been gone for a while now. She only got into the Senate because she ran against an idiot who showed his ass during the election. But that said, I didn’t really mind her.
iris lilies
7-15-22, 9:44pm
"I have not seen on this board personal opinions given on where the compromises should be, in my state for instance. It’s all “those dastardly Republicans are bad. “ So from that I have to conclude that everyone is OK with no restrictions on abortion whatsoever. Even though the general populace doesn’t have that opinion."
Where is it that there are no restrictions? Oregon, maybe? Roe v Wade--RIP--specified pre-viability, and the vast majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester. That old rightie talking point "abortion on demand" calls up visions of strident feminists banging on clinic doors,--purposely, to cast women in the worst possible light. Truly. misogyny is behind all this.
There are no gestational restrictions in Colorado and New Mexico. The Guttmacher map is… Misleading in that regard. Hmmm, I guess not purposefully.
I knew Colorado allowed late term abortions because I watched a documentary about it.
Men couldn't be relied upon to take birth control. Even wearing a condom is too much for most.
Then there's this fun trend...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-consensual_condom_removal
Claire Bear has been gone for a while now. She only got into the Senate because she ran against an idiot who showed his ass during the election. But that said, I didn’t really mind her.
I like her; she seems to have an abundance of common sense.
gimmethesimplelife
7-15-22, 11:50pm
I also received answers from President Biden and Angus King. If anyone is interested, I will post them.Pease do. Rob
Here you go, Rob:
first, Angus King:
Thank you for getting in touch with me about the Supreme Court’s decision in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case, which definitively overturns Roe v. Wade and nearly half a century of precedent allowing women to make fundamental decisions about their own health. The right to a safe, legal abortion has been reaffirmed by the Court time and time again—but its new majority has decided to overwrite longstanding precedent and impose their own personal and religious views on women across the country. Well before this decision was handed down, the recent and ongoing legislative actions by states such as Alabama, Georgia, Missouri, Louisiana, and Texas to restrict access to abortion services, led me to believe that federal legislation is needed to protect women’s reproductive rights. To that end, I have—for many years—co-sponsored the Women’s Health Protection Act.
This ruling is deeply disturbing but, unfortunately, it is not a surprise. Beyond being telegraphed in the leaked opinion earlier this year, this decision firmly aligns with the clear and decades-long campaign to fill our nation’s courts with ideologically driven judges who would end abortion access. This goal was made explicit by former President Trump, who said he would only nominate justices who would “automatically” overturn Roe.
States have traditionally held the authority to make policies that regulate some elements of abortion services within their jurisdictions; however, as many of these state laws conflict with constitutional protections and federal law, I feel the federal government has a responsibility to determine and clarify policy. The decision in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health case eliminates a longstanding, fundamental right supported by a vast majority of Americans and people in Maine in one fell swoop. In the coming weeks and months, millions of women, with the support of medical professionals, will lose of the right to make vital, lifesaving healthcare decisions. I am deeply worried that this decision will invite challenges to other longstanding legal precedents, including marriage rights for same-sex and interracial couples. In short, as the Supreme Court has overturned nearly five decades of precedent, I believe that Congress must act to protect the rights of half of our citizens.
I have met with those who passionately object to abortion on religious grounds and hold these beliefs in good faith, but I don’t believe that we should pass laws applicable to all, based upon the religious beliefs of one portion of the population, no matter how strongly held those beliefs may be. We are a diverse country of many faiths, including those who do not subscribe to any faith, and one of the core values of our history is that religion is private and the law should neither prohibit nor promote it. In fact, it was government imposition of particular religious beliefs that brought many of the earliest settlers—such as the pilgrims and the Huguenots—to our shores. To me, there should be clear lines between government action and private rights (of believers and non-believers alike) and one of those lines is the door to your doctor’s office.
The impacts of the Dobbs ruling will reverberate in communities throughout America—but fortunately, thanks to protections in our state constitution and the leadership of Governor Mills, Maine women will not be denied their basic right to healthcare and making decisions about their own bodies. However, this does not change the fact that many other Americans will effectively be criminalized by virtue of their state of residence. This decision will make healthcare services more difficult to access for millions, and the lives of low-income Americans—who cannot afford to travel to a state where abortion is legal—will be unnecessarily put at risk. This decision and the laws that are being passed in many states will not ban abortion—which has existed since time immemorial. Sadly, the practical effect will be only to ban safe abortions.
As you may be aware, on May 11, I voted for S. 4132, the latest version of the Women’s Health Protection Act. Contrary to what some people have alleged, the bill would not be a radical change. In fact, it would primarily maintain the status quo of the last 49 years of healthcare policy. I closely examined this legislation for its ability to preserve American women’s right to access critical, lifesaving care with the support of trained medical professionals. The bill would not undermine existing protections for healthcare providers who decline to perform abortions based on their personal beliefs; it would simply ensure that women remain able to make decisions about their own bodies. Without these protections, healthcare services would become more difficult to access for millions in our nation, and the very lives of low-income Americans, who cannot afford to travel to a state where abortion is legal, would be put at risk. Unfortunately, the Senate failed to pass the Women’s Health Protection Act, and with the Dobbs decision, I am even more deeply frustrated that this commonsense bill did not advance.
As long as I’m in the Senate, I will continue to do everything I can to restore, protect, and advance the rights of women across our country. We cannot, and will not, return to a world that prevents women from making their own decisions about their own bodies.
Thank you, again, for your message.
Best Regards,
https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/Kki-3qTNJz7ZeLWb5ty_J9WnIw4HBkHqQTxjJtN5E16KhHo5L09tS3 q73uXfmMef2e3KuBftpqgdCo9v8de9P5aYrXtIGogVi6MQsFX_ prl_5ieusFhqERWVbrXijCKoJSiTD7Yb=s0-d-e1-ft#https://outreach.senate.gov/iqextranet/Customers/quorum_king-iq/KingSiginformal.png
ANGUS S. KING, JR.
United States Senator
next, the President:
Thank you for writing to me. In overturning Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court has taken away a constitutional right from the American people to make the most intimate decisions about their health care and families without government interference. Now, fundamental rights to privacy, autonomy, freedom, and equality have been denied to millions of women across the country, with grave implications for their health, lives, and well-being.
What we’re witnessing is a giant step backward in much of our country, but let me be clear: Access to reproductive care is health care. Vice President Harris and I will fight for the freedom of all people to build their own future and determine their own destiny.
That’s why I signed an Executive Order that safeguards access to reproductive health care services such as medication abortion and contraception and ensures emergency medical care. It also protects the privacy of patients and their access to accurate information and promotes the safety and security of everyone who seeks and provides health care services. Finally, this Executive Order makes sure that the entire Federal Government is coordinated in our efforts to protect reproductive rights and access to health care across America.
The Supreme Court and its allies are committed to moving America backward with fewer rights, less autonomy, and politicians invading the most personal of decisions. This decision affects everyone, and the American people must continue to demand that Congress enshrine the protections of Roe v. Wade into federal law. I believe Congress should do so with a simple majority vote, but if Congress lacks the votes to do that now, you need to make your voices heard. Our daughters and granddaughters deserve the same rights as their mothers and grandmothers.
This fight is not over. To find out more about your right to access reproductive health care, visit ReproductiveRights.gov (https://iqconnect.iqfed.com/iqextranet/iqClickTrk.aspx?&cid=46PREPROD&crop=17152QQQ19298359QQQ19117765QQQ9861817&report_id=&redirect=https%3a%2f%2fwww.reproductiverights.gov% 2f&redir_log=367261189722251).
Sincerely,https://ci5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/vEP253sUvkJZmjJLq9LXjuNUGfAQ5iU9F8NRv3_9hRuU2xfI-jXmVCRgC32cGodZJ0oq1Jbxo-xjrCVbn2zFgFt07k1AD0ZWIU0AC-WvI6anYttnabiVKP3noc98Ig=s0-d-e1-ft#https://iqconnect.iqfed.com/iqextranet/Customers/46PREPROD/JRBsig-250px.png
Thanks. I was honored that they answered.
iris lilies
7-16-22, 4:24pm
Rob, would you comment since you asked for this information on conflicts between Tybee’s senators on the Women’s Health Protection Act? One supported it, one did not.
gimmethesimplelife
7-17-22, 12:15am
Rob, would you comment since you asked for this information on conflicts between Tybee’s senators on the Women’s Health Protection Act? One supported it, one did not.
I will in the morning, lL. My brain is fried, long past couple of days but I close tomorrow without coming in early AM. I'll be I better shape then. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
7-17-22, 12:16am
Thanks, Tybee.Yes, Thank You! Rob
Well, I was at the check-out counter of a Burlington family-owned sports store last night and the clerk asked me I wanted to contribute to the cause that was described on a card taped to the counter. It was about reproductive rights, so I gave them $5. I thought that was pretty bold, being a business and taking a political stance so overtly. But it is a progressive college town, so there probably won't be too many customers who get turned off by that. Still, it cements my loyalty.
iris lilies
7-17-22, 10:29am
Well, I was at the check-out counter of a Burlington family-owned sports store last night and the clerk asked me I wanted to contribute to the cause that was described on a card taped to the counter. It was about reproductive rights, so I gave them $5. I thought that was pretty bold, being a business and taking a political stance so overtly. But it is a progressive college town, so there probably won't be too many customers who get turned off by that. Still, it cements my loyalty.
yes, hardly a risk in Burlington, Vermont.
The women’s rights March in Hermann was far more bold. But of course you’re right that a business risks losing money although in Burlington, they are going to get customers with cemented loyalty.
I still remember the year the owner of one of our neighborhood restaurants commented to me in an apologetic way that she had angels on the Christmas tree in her restaurant. For god sake, no apology needed. That was like 15-20 years ago even Before the Wokeness plague took over. They were well known in our community for being strong family people and supporters of their local Catholic church. Decades later the dad of the family came out as gay. So there we have it, the all American family!
And what was ironic was that same year I visited our City Hall for a piece of business and found all kinds of religious symbols decorating holiday City Hall. No one apologized for that! Sometimes I really wonder where the heads of my city fathers are.
I have no objection to angels on a Christmas tree, but I'm appalled at a vision of the majority of the Supreme Court genuflecting as they file in to arbitrate the rules of American society.
gimmethesimplelife
7-17-22, 10:46am
I very much like and agree with the Biden response. In fact I agree with both sane voices here. Reading these letters it is possible to believe there is some hope for America. And then look at the Overturn and the chance of DJT once again running.....and the fact that even after January 6th he WOULD GET VOTES.
I believe Biden is right. These upcoming election cycles will be about abortion (and inflation)..it will be interesting to see some kind of demographic breakdown of who votes abortion vs inflation. Rob
I believe Biden is right. These upcoming election cycles will be about abortion (and inflation)..it will be interesting to see some kind of demographic breakdown of who votes abortion vs inflation. Rob
I heard a poll yesterday that said 5% of overall voters listed abortion as the most important issue and 37% listed the economy. Unsurprisingly, party affiliation makes a big difference. If Democrats want abortion to be the central issue, they have their work cut out for them. Here in swingy Wisconsin, we are currently suffering through the political ads in preparation for the August primaries. Some focusing on abortion, somewhat more on inflation, but most just the traditional character assassination.
iris lilies
7-17-22, 11:51am
I heard a poll yesterday that said 5% of overall voters listed abortion as the most important issue and 37% listed the economy. Unsurprisingly, party affiliation makes a big difference. If Democrats want abortion to be the central issue, they have their work cut out for them. Here in swingy Wisconsin, we are currently suffering through the political ads in preparation for the August primaries. Some focusing on abortion, somewhat more on inflation, but most just the traditional character assassination.
well, abortion has shot to the top of my own voting values, but I’m not claiming to be part of the majority. I also do not know yet in my own decision-making matrix where abortion falls as far as federal offices go.
It is A#1 for my state offices however since I now live in a very abortion-restricted state and my state legislators have all the power to change that, and our state Attorney General has all the power to prosecute in that arena.
It will be interesting to see if abortion gets the younger voters (the voters who actually are most likely to be affected by this) to show up and vote in a midterm. It wouldn't take much of a bump in turnout of them voting to derail the republican dreams of having enough power to finish to turn this country into a religious hell-hole.
iris lilies
7-17-22, 12:34pm
This morning I finally had time to Google – research a question I’ve been asking all along and it is this: does Congress have constitutional authority to make national abortion laws, and in doing so they would of course conflict with abortion laws in many states.
I’m asking from the point of view of constitutionality. I’m not asking from the viewpoint of do they have the votes in Congress to go either way and what is Senator Manchan doing and etc. That is irrelevant to my question.
According to the respected resources listed below and many others, there’s not clear-cut authority for Congress to legislate abortion either way, in fact, any legislation that stands would likely have to attack it not head on, but from what I consider to be sideways.
To summarize for those who operate at Rob’s level of understanding of this issue, Congress may not make law that either restricts abortion based on fetal gestational life or allows abortion on same conditions. It doesn’t matter who is in Congress, Republicans or Democrats because they cannot make law that stands.
https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/3552965-no-constitutional-authority-for-a-national-abortion-law/ (https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/3552965-no-constitutional-authority-for-a-national-abortion-law/)
https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/how-the-supreme-court-could-approach-federal-laws-upholding-or-banning-abortion
The Washington Post has several articles that discussed the constitutionality of this potential law, keep in mind it would be a law that either restricts abortion nationwide or legalizes anything goes nationwide. But Washington Post articles are requiring payment to see.
iris lilies
7-17-22, 12:40pm
I very much like and agree with the Biden response. In fact I agree with both sane voices here. Reading these letters it is possible to believe there is some hope for America. And then look at the Overturn and the chance of DJT once again running.....and the fact that even after January 6th he WOULD GET VOTES.
I believe Biden is right. These upcoming election cycles will be about abortion (and inflation)..it will be interesting to see some kind of demographic breakdown of who votes abortion vs inflation. Rob
ah, your usual insightful commentary.
I was really trying to tease out some discussion of Susan Collins’ words versus those of Biden et al. But not getting anywhere on that front. Got it Rob, America bad. Message received. Yawn.
Clearly President Joe Biden in our White House thinks Congress has clear constitutional authority to make law. That is his opinion and only his opinion. I am thinking that should president Biden and his Democratic cohorts in Congress get their way, any law they pass like the woman’s health protection act would have to be visited by the Supreme Court for its constitutionality. I’m guessing that it would not pass muster by this court.
I was interested, very interested, in the reason why Susan Collins made her own version of the woman’s health protection act because she thinks congressman King’s version violates religious freedoms. I may delve into that later when I have more time.
Another thing I thought about recently is that our city prosecutor would love it if our aldermen set up St. Louis as an Abortion Sanctuary city. She would not prosecute anyone violating Missouri’s strict abortion law. But then of course, she doesn’t prosecute anyone anyway.
frugal-one
7-17-22, 1:54pm
I heard a poll yesterday that said 5% of overall voters listed abortion as the most important issue and 37% listed the economy. Unsurprisingly, party affiliation makes a big difference. If Democrats want abortion to be the central issue, they have their work cut out for them. Here in swingy Wisconsin, we are currently suffering through the political ads in preparation for the August primaries. Some focusing on abortion, somewhat more on inflation, but most just the traditional character assassination.
And the lying ads by Ron Johnson. It is sickening.
ETA... Recently watched a segment saying political ads can say what they want, even if outright lies. I don't understand how that is legit?
And the lying ads by Ron Johnson. It is sickening.
ETA... Recently watched a segment saying political ads can say what they want, even if outright lies. I don't understand how that is legit?
Johnson has no serious opposition in the primary, and there are eight democrats vying to run against him in the general election. Alex Lasry seems to have the most money and support in that field right now. He’s sort of the Wisconsin version of Beto O’Rourke. The Lieutenant Governor is also running, but his pockets aren’t nearly as deep.
Johnson wouldn’t be my first choice, but if tha alternative is a specimen like Lasry I will probably vote for him.
I’ve often wondered if you could sue for libel or slander, given some of the smears and innuendo both sides indulge in. I guess political candidates are public figures by definition.
gimmethesimplelife
7-17-22, 2:41pm
ah, your usual insightful commentary.
I was really trying to tease out some discussion of Susan Collins’ words versus those of Biden et al. But not getting anywhere on that front. Got it Rob, America bad. Message received. Yawn.
Clearly President Joe Biden in our White House thinks Congress has clear constitutional authority to make law. That is his opinion and only his opinion. I am thinking that should president Biden and his Democratic cohorts in Congress get their way, any law they pass like the woman’s health protection act would have to be visited by the Supreme Court for its constitutionality. I’m guessing that it would not pass muster by this court.
I was interested, very interested, in the reason why Susan Collins made her own version of the woman’s health protection act because she thinks congressman King’s version violates religious freedoms. I may delve into that later when I have more time.
Another thing I thought about recently is that our city prosecutor would love it if our aldermen set up St. Louis as an Abortion Sanctuary city. She would not prosecute anyone violating Missouri’s strict abortion law. But then of course, she doesn’t prosecute anyone anyway.IL, as always, my commentary is going to be slanted towards a survival basis - and a practical application of issues at the street level - meaning from people who this country has not been especially kind to/good for/appropriate for. Given this reality, of course my takes are not going to be long drawn out editorials - but rather commentary of how issues impact my world and those in it. Rob
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.