AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I hope everyone in America remembers this in the primaries to come this year. Everyone needs to get motivated to defend their rights or they can be taken away. This shouldn't even be just a warning to Americans, but to ANYONE, anywhere in the world that elections have consequences. There is one coming up and this is the time to get motivated now before they do more damage.
Well, we knew it was coming with a conservative Supreme Court. Still absolutely fucked, though. Sucks for people living in red states :<
Nah, they are the ones who wanted it.
Go shove a rusty spoon up your ass you complete utterfuckingGOOSE
I would like to point out, for anyone else who wants to ride on this wagon: Red states are full of vulnerable people who are not, in fact, the brain washed spawns of John Birch, and instead are people who now have to live under state regimes that are actively, fully, hostile to their safety, wellbeing and even identity.
When you say shit like what Badger said, no matter how smug and righteous you feel you are about republican voters, remember that there are people who live in these states who aren’t republican voters, and that behavior like this makes you an asshole.
You aren’t cute, you aren’t funny, you aren’t being decent human being in that moment. You’re writing off hundreds if not thousands of victims of GOP oppression to make yourself feel better in the moment. So don’t be that asshole.
This has been a PSA from Innocent Human Beings Live in Red States Too, What is Wrong with You.
I hope everyone in America remembers this in the primaries to come this year. Everyone needs to get motivated to defend their rights or they can be taken away. This shouldn't even be just a warning to Americans, but to ANYONE, anywhere in the world that elections have consequences. There is one coming up and this is the time to get motivated now before they do more damage.
I'm not going to say that primaries and elections aren't important things to keep track of, but it's also imperative that this isn't the only place you focus your efforts.
I hope everyone in America remembers this in the primaries to come this year. Everyone needs to get motivated to defend their rights or they can be taken away. This shouldn't even be just a warning to Americans, but to ANYONE, anywhere in the world that elections have consequences. There is one coming up and this is the time to get motivated now before they do more damage.
I'm not going to say that primaries and elections aren't important things to keep track of, but it's also imperative that this isn't the only place you focus your efforts.
I am fully expecting Red States to start beefing up laws about where pregnant women can travel and such next as well, possibly even the more widespread adoption of the ridiculous Texas laws surrounding the bounties and so forth. It's going to be very messy and the only way to stop it is to protect things from the top down. I mean, I know what else should be done but how long until they start making a lot of things like helping women to travel and such outright illegal as well?
Yeah, pretty much the move going forward for the left:
-Show the fuck up to all elections, regardless of how sexy or unsexy you find those races and vote against the republicans. This sometimes means making use of game theory, holding your nose and picking a shitty democrat. I mean, we know the GOP will not only do fuck all to protect women's rights, they'll move to roll all of them back.
-Protest and organize obviously. One thing I'll suggest, is that the left really should try the idea of identifying all the rightwing influencers, their pet judges, their donors and their pet politicians. Then when those fuckers show up at a business expecting to be served by people they are actively fucking over. To instead find themselves in a spot where they are told to go fuck themselves, they'll get their services from society, when they stop being fucking destructive parasites. Let them make threats about how they'll move to some rural backwater, most won't do it and the few that do, we'll quickly get to learn how shitty their base actually is. Let me tell you, you'll see plenty of rural folk that will salivate at getting money from big business in their community, but those same people don't want a fucking thing to change in their community either. They want the money only, they don't want influx of outsiders that new business generally bring in. Most business that would relocate from urban areas to escape such a boycott are going to want people other than the locals because in just about all cases, the local population likely won't have numbers. Then there is also the issue where a number will require skills that most of, if not all the population lacks and if someone has the skills they are either already commuting to another job or they are retired.
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
I'm safe in another country on the other side of the planet.
I have been fortunate enough to have been granted citizenship here.
I'm hiding in my bathroom, crying my heart out, sobbing ugly ugly tears because I'm so angry and scared And I can't think of anything else to do right in this moment.
All the things that I was repeatedly told by others that I was exaggerating or imagining over the last decade are actually for real happening and I'm so fucking angry that I was right. That we were all right.
Protest and organize obviously. One thing I'll suggest, is that the left really should try the idea of identifying all the rightwing influencers, their pet judges, their donors and their pet politicians. Then when those fuckers show up at a business expecting to be served by people they are actively fucking over. To instead find themselves in a spot where they are told to go fuck themselves, they'll get their services from society, when they stop being fucking destructive parasites. Let them make threats about how they'll move to some rural backwater, most won't do it and the few that do, we'll quickly get to learn how shitty their base actually is. Let me tell you, you'll see plenty of rural folk that will salivate at getting money from big business in their community, but those same people don't want a fucking thing to change in their community either. They want the money only, they don't want influx of outsiders that new business generally bring in. Most business that would relocate from urban areas to escape such a boycott are going to want people other than the locals because in just about all cases, the local population likely won't have numbers. Then there is also the issue where a number will require skills that most of, if not all the population lacks and if someone has the skills they are either already commuting to another job or they are retired.
One thing I thought about when I suggested something like this earlier is that this stuff rarely happens, and when it does, it's spontaneous.
I thought about why that could be, in a world where the most informed and sane of us have actual jobs and power, and I realized the reason: we don't trust each other.
This sort of stuff requires you to put your jobs on the line and actually work together. That's a lot more complicated than a protest where your attendance is pretty much the most valuable thing you can contribute, and even then that gets messed up with bad actors like in Minneapolis.
Can you trust someone just because they are mad at the leaked ruling? Can you trust them to do anything more than stand next to you?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It's possible to believe that abortion should always be an available choice, while also thinking that it's often (or even usually) the wrong choice. That's a fully legitimate and morally consistent position.
And?
Is this the explanation for Roe not being codified in legislation sometime in the past 50 years? That they were fine with it being decided by the courts, but because it was against their personal morality they didn't want to publicly vote to actually enshrine the right in law?
Thanks for the reminder that someone can have a morally consistent position that also sucks complete ass, I guess. This doesn't absolve a single one of them from the consequences of their inaction.
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
We live in bleak times.
3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
NNID: Hakkekage
+36
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
There are many infuriating parts about the Alito draft. I will highlight two.
1. The basis for overturning Roe is that the right to an abortion is not “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” What this means is that there is not a deep and intrinsic political, legal, and social tradition of protecting such a right in America, therefore, the right does not exist. Obviously, this is a hidebound principle that erases any rights gained in the 20th century and beyond. It is literally a principle of “when white landowning men were in charge of everything, history and the constitution ceased”
2. The proper avenue for abortion protection to find its way into the law of the land is by the popular will, expressed through voting for representatives of each state’s legislature. This is beyond disingenuous. This man wrote Abbott v. Perez. Voting rights, too, have been curtailed to a privilege and distorted. When a Justice says this, it is because they know what they’ve done to prevent the political branches from undoing what it has done by law.
3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
NNID: Hakkekage
+23
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
Triple posting but whatever. I will add onto point 2. There is a case called city of boerne that essentially held that Congress cannot make law binding the states to protect rights that the Supreme Court has not itself found in the constitution under section 5 of the 14th amendment. There is another case called Gonzales v. Raich and, maybe you’ve heard of it, NLRB v. Sebelius, that put bumpers on the reach of the Commerce Clause to support intrastate regulation that, basically, the majority of SCOTUS doesn’t like while permitting regulations that it does.
So, having snipped off the balls of the political branches and cut out the tongues of voters, Alito knows full well there is no political or popular avenue to returning to a country where Roe or something like it is the law of the land.
3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
NNID: Hakkekage
+5
Options
KadokenGiving Ends to my Friends and it Feels StupendousRegistered Userregular
Yeah, pretty much the move going forward for the left:
-Show the fuck up to all elections, regardless of how sexy or unsexy you find those races and vote against the republicans. This sometimes means making use of game theory, holding your nose and picking a shitty democrat. I mean, we know the GOP will not only do fuck all to protect women's rights, they'll move to roll all of them back.
-Protest and organize obviously. One thing I'll suggest, is that the left really should try the idea of identifying all the rightwing influencers, their pet judges, their donors and their pet politicians. Then when those fuckers show up at a business expecting to be served by people they are actively fucking over. To instead find themselves in a spot where they are told to go fuck themselves, they'll get their services from society, when they stop being fucking destructive parasites. Let them make threats about how they'll move to some rural backwater, most won't do it and the few that do, we'll quickly get to learn how shitty their base actually is. Let me tell you, you'll see plenty of rural folk that will salivate at getting money from big business in their community, but those same people don't want a fucking thing to change in their community either. They want the money only, they don't want influx of outsiders that new business generally bring in. Most business that would relocate from urban areas to escape such a boycott are going to want people other than the locals because in just about all cases, the local population likely won't have numbers. Then there is also the issue where a number will require skills that most of, if not all the population lacks and if someone has the skills they are either already commuting to another job or they are retired.
-The people you want us to vote for had 50 years to codify roe v wade into law. They are a party of political ataraxia at best and corporate stooges at worst. The debate goes on because they care about decorum while the other side does not and they agree with the other side on most things economic. They are the new Whigs. Either follow the 19th century Republicans of the post-Whig fall and offer a new emancipation or fall. I do not vote for ataraxia nor corporate stooges.
-Sure, but also the police will protect those figures and not the people who would ambush them making this dangerous. Not that it's bad to do but it's asking a lot for people to potentially upturn their lives for it.
Kadoken on
+3
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
Yeah, pretty much the move going forward for the left:
-Show the fuck up to all elections, regardless of how sexy or unsexy you find those races and vote against the republicans. This sometimes means making use of game theory, holding your nose and picking a shitty democrat. I mean, we know the GOP will not only do fuck all to protect women's rights, they'll move to roll all of them back.
-Protest and organize obviously. One thing I'll suggest, is that the left really should try the idea of identifying all the rightwing influencers, their pet judges, their donors and their pet politicians. Then when those fuckers show up at a business expecting to be served by people they are actively fucking over. To instead find themselves in a spot where they are told to go fuck themselves, they'll get their services from society, when they stop being fucking destructive parasites. Let them make threats about how they'll move to some rural backwater, most won't do it and the few that do, we'll quickly get to learn how shitty their base actually is. Let me tell you, you'll see plenty of rural folk that will salivate at getting money from big business in their community, but those same people don't want a fucking thing to change in their community either. They want the money only, they don't want influx of outsiders that new business generally bring in. Most business that would relocate from urban areas to escape such a boycott are going to want people other than the locals because in just about all cases, the local population likely won't have numbers. Then there is also the issue where a number will require skills that most of, if not all the population lacks and if someone has the skills they are either already commuting to another job or they are retired.
-The people you want us to vote for had 50 years to codify roe v wade into law. They are a party of political ataraxia at best and corporate stooges at worst. The debate goes on because they care about decorum while the other side does not and they agree with the other side on most things economic. They are the new Whigs. Either follow the 19th century Republicans of the post-Whig fall and offer a new emancipation or fall. I do not vote for ataraxia nor corporate stooges.
-Sure, but also the police will protect those figures and not the people who would ambush them making this dangerous. Not that it's bad to do but it's asking a lot for people to potentially upturn their lives for it.
Betrays a serious ignorance of the last 50 years and the evolution of the parties and, crucially, the court.
Reminder that in some states the primary rules vary. See here. I'm in Ohio, so I can pick whichever primary ballot I like without a fuss, which changes my registration in ways that really only mildly affect what sort of junk mail I can expect. I does mean I can do things like, say, vote for the most moderate Rs in the primary and then vote against them in the general.
I do love how the republicans have undertaken a multi decade campaign to overturn abortion rights and the answer everyone’s coming to is, “make sure their power is as secure as possible “
Oh did I say love I meant to say thoroughly loath wild auto correct there
Yeah, pretty much the move going forward for the left:
-Show the fuck up to all elections, regardless of how sexy or unsexy you find those races and vote against the republicans. This sometimes means making use of game theory, holding your nose and picking a shitty democrat. I mean, we know the GOP will not only do fuck all to protect women's rights, they'll move to roll all of them back.
-Protest and organize obviously. One thing I'll suggest, is that the left really should try the idea of identifying all the rightwing influencers, their pet judges, their donors and their pet politicians. Then when those fuckers show up at a business expecting to be served by people they are actively fucking over. To instead find themselves in a spot where they are told to go fuck themselves, they'll get their services from society, when they stop being fucking destructive parasites. Let them make threats about how they'll move to some rural backwater, most won't do it and the few that do, we'll quickly get to learn how shitty their base actually is. Let me tell you, you'll see plenty of rural folk that will salivate at getting money from big business in their community, but those same people don't want a fucking thing to change in their community either. They want the money only, they don't want influx of outsiders that new business generally bring in. Most business that would relocate from urban areas to escape such a boycott are going to want people other than the locals because in just about all cases, the local population likely won't have numbers. Then there is also the issue where a number will require skills that most of, if not all the population lacks and if someone has the skills they are either already commuting to another job or they are retired.
-The people you want us to vote for had 50 years to codify roe v wade into law. They are a party of political ataraxia at best and corporate stooges at worst. The debate goes on because they care about decorum while the other side does not and they agree with the other side on most things economic. They are the new Whigs. Either follow the 19th century Republicans of the post-Whig fall and offer a new emancipation or fall. I do not vote for ataraxia nor corporate stooges.
-Sure, but also the police will protect those figures and not the people who would ambush them making this dangerous. Not that it's bad to do but it's asking a lot for people to potentially upturn their lives for it.
I'm sorry, but the "they had 50 years to codify Roe into law" argument is some disingenuous gooseshit that ignores how American politics works, as well as how the religious right has evolved. It's worth remembering that when Roe passed, it was not a particularly controversial decision - you had the Southern Baptists supporting the decision. At that time, the religious right was still openly trying to defend racism under color of religion - that would be their fight well into the 80s. For a good portion of those "50 years" (about 15 or so), abortion was seen as a settled issue, only relevant to a fringe group of activists. The bans weren't repealed because we historically as a nation don't tend to outright repeal laws that are ruled unconstitutional, in large part because historically stare decisis has been a major barrier to revocation of a decision (and its worth noting that the trampling of it by the Roberts Court is one thing that has been a huge breaking of our legal and political norms.)
So, what happened?
Well, what happened is that after the religious right got legally smacked down over trying to justify racism with a veneer of religion in the 80s, they needed to find a new rallying cry, and they found two in particular - homophobia and opposition to abortion. The latter was attractive in particular to them for two reasons:
*First, from a recruiting perspective, going anti-choice allowed them to bring in that fringe I mentioned earlier, in particular conservative Catholics (that is, the Opus Dei set) whom had historically been at odds with the heavily Southern Protestant religious right movement. It also brought in a and enabled number of rather scary fanatics and outright domestic terrorists as well.
* Second, the religious right realized that a large part of their failure with regards to their mission of defending racism was that there was a growing feeling culturally that they were on the wrong side of the argument morally. The anti-choice position was attractive because they could portray themselves as having the moral high ground via "think of the children", something they would heavily exploit.
This realignment took time as well, so the anti-choice movement as an actor with actual political clout didn't really manifest until the 90s. And it's worth noting that the political realignment that we're still dealing with the ramifications of today was still occurring in that decade, so the pro-choice and anti-choice blocs in Congress weren't yet aligned like they are now. This, along with the belief in the matter being "settled", would preclude attempts for direct legal codification. Casey was a sign of the political shift thanks to the work of the Federalist Society, but wasn't really recognized as such. It wasn't until the ascent of Gingrich and the "modern" GOP coalition that anti-choice activism had actual political clout.
So in short, trying to argue that the Democrats "had 50 years to codify Roe" is an argument that shows a deep unawareness of how all this has worked.
Reminder that in some states the primary rules vary. See here. I'm in Ohio, so I can pick whichever primary ballot I like without a fuss, which changes my registration in ways that really only mildly affect what sort of junk mail I can expect. I does mean I can do things like, say, vote for the most moderate Rs in the primary and then vote against them in the general.
Yeah when I went to vote this morning they asked me if I was a Democrat or Republican. I told them neither and they said I had to choose one and can only vote in that party. I waffled and ended up going Democrat. I fucking KNEW it would register me as that party so I didn't want to start seeing dumb ass mailers and get phone calls about their con party.
Reminder that in some states the primary rules vary. See here. I'm in Ohio, so I can pick whichever primary ballot I like without a fuss, which changes my registration in ways that really only mildly affect what sort of junk mail I can expect. I does mean I can do things like, say, vote for the most moderate Rs in the primary and then vote against them in the general.
Yeah when I went to vote this morning they asked me if I was a Democrat or Republican. I told them neither and they said I had to choose one and can only vote in that party. I waffled and ended up going Democrat. I fucking KNEW it would register me as that party so I didn't want to start seeing dumb ass mailers and get phone calls about their con party.
I'm on both mailing lists already from picking whichever felt like I'd be making the most impact in a given election, so I don't worry too much but I will admit to feeling embarrassed sometimes... DeWine and LaRose aren't awesome and certainly didn't make the redistricting any better, but having them on in November is a far better thing than Blystone and Adams would be, not to mention the horrific US Senate primary... the county R at least endorsed Nolan over the guys trying to out Trump one another. Things would probably be less polarized if people could vote in all party primaries but since parties are more a bug than a feature of our government as designed...
I feel like when terrorists were bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors who provided abortions might have been a time to make some drastic steps toward enshrining abortion as a right.
Reminder that in some states the primary rules vary. See here. I'm in Ohio, so I can pick whichever primary ballot I like without a fuss, which changes my registration in ways that really only mildly affect what sort of junk mail I can expect. I does mean I can do things like, say, vote for the most moderate Rs in the primary and then vote against them in the general.
Yeah when I went to vote this morning they asked me if I was a Democrat or Republican. I told them neither and they said I had to choose one and can only vote in that party. I waffled and ended up going Democrat. I fucking KNEW it would register me as that party so I didn't want to start seeing dumb ass mailers and get phone calls about their con party.
I'm on both mailing lists already from picking whichever felt like I'd be making the most impact in a given election, so I don't worry too much but I will admit to feeling embarrassed sometimes... DeWine and LaRose aren't awesome and certainly didn't make the redistricting any better, but having them on in November is a far better thing than Blystone and Adams would be, not to mention the horrific US Senate primary... the county R at least endorsed Nolan over the guys trying to out Trump one another. Things would probably be less polarized if people could vote in all party primaries but since parties are more a bug than a feature of our government as designed...
I cannot believe there are several Republicans running right now that their only platform is "Pro-Trump".
Yeah, pretty much the move going forward for the left:
-Show the fuck up to all elections, regardless of how sexy or unsexy you find those races and vote against the republicans. This sometimes means making use of game theory, holding your nose and picking a shitty democrat. I mean, we know the GOP will not only do fuck all to protect women's rights, they'll move to roll all of them back.
-Protest and organize obviously. One thing I'll suggest, is that the left really should try the idea of identifying all the rightwing influencers, their pet judges, their donors and their pet politicians. Then when those fuckers show up at a business expecting to be served by people they are actively fucking over. To instead find themselves in a spot where they are told to go fuck themselves, they'll get their services from society, when they stop being fucking destructive parasites. Let them make threats about how they'll move to some rural backwater, most won't do it and the few that do, we'll quickly get to learn how shitty their base actually is. Let me tell you, you'll see plenty of rural folk that will salivate at getting money from big business in their community, but those same people don't want a fucking thing to change in their community either. They want the money only, they don't want influx of outsiders that new business generally bring in. Most business that would relocate from urban areas to escape such a boycott are going to want people other than the locals because in just about all cases, the local population likely won't have numbers. Then there is also the issue where a number will require skills that most of, if not all the population lacks and if someone has the skills they are either already commuting to another job or they are retired.
-The people you want us to vote for had 50 years to codify roe v wade into law. They are a party of political ataraxia at best and corporate stooges at worst. The debate goes on because they care about decorum while the other side does not and they agree with the other side on most things economic. They are the new Whigs. Either follow the 19th century Republicans of the post-Whig fall and offer a new emancipation or fall. I do not vote for ataraxia nor corporate stooges.
-Sure, but also the police will protect those figures and not the people who would ambush them making this dangerous. Not that it's bad to do but it's asking a lot for people to potentially upturn their lives for it.
I'm sorry, but the "they had 50 years to codify Roe into law" argument is some disingenuous gooseshit that ignores how American politics works, as well as how the religious right has evolved. It's worth remembering that when Roe passed, it was not a particularly controversial decision - you had the Southern Baptists supporting the decision. At that time, the religious right was still openly trying to defend racism under color of religion - that would be their fight well into the 80s. For a good portion of those "50 years" (about 15 or so), abortion was seen as a settled issue, only relevant to a fringe group of activists. The bans weren't repealed because we historically as a nation don't tend to outright repeal laws that are ruled unconstitutional, in large part because historically stare decisis has been a major barrier to revocation of a decision (and its worth noting that the trampling of it by the Roberts Court is one thing that has been a huge breaking of our legal and political norms.)
So, what happened?
Well, what happened is that after the religious right got legally smacked down over trying to justify racism with a veneer of religion in the 80s, they needed to find a new rallying cry, and they found two in particular - homophobia and opposition to abortion. The latter was attractive in particular to them for two reasons:
*First, from a recruiting perspective, going anti-choice allowed them to bring in that fringe I mentioned earlier, in particular conservative Catholics (that is, the Opus Dei set) whom had historically been at odds with the heavily Southern Protestant religious right movement. It also brought in a and enabled number of rather scary fanatics and outright domestic terrorists as well.
* Second, the religious right realized that a large part of their failure with regards to their mission of defending racism was that there was a growing feeling culturally that they were on the wrong side of the argument morally. The anti-choice position was attractive because they could portray themselves as having the moral high ground via "think of the children", something they would heavily exploit.
This realignment took time as well, so the anti-choice movement as an actor with actual political clout didn't really manifest until the 90s. And it's worth noting that the political realignment that we're still dealing with the ramifications of today was still occurring in that decade, so the pro-choice and anti-choice blocs in Congress weren't yet aligned like they are now. This, along with the belief in the matter being "settled", would preclude attempts for direct legal codification. Casey was a sign of the political shift thanks to the work of the Federalist Society, but wasn't really recognized as such. It wasn't until the ascent of Gingrich and the "modern" GOP coalition that anti-choice activism had actual political clout.
So in short, trying to argue that the Democrats "had 50 years to codify Roe" is an argument that shows a deep unawareness of how all this has worked.
If you want to change that to "they had 50 years to codify Roe, but only 30 of those years were when the threat to it was loud and firm enough for them to be undeniably cognizant of" I suppose that's acceptable.
For at least as long as I have been eligible to vote, the Democrats have campaigned and fund-raised on protecting reproductive rights.
Y'all do realize the precedent SCOTUS is about to use to overturn RvW would also overturn any law or bill short of a Pro-Choice Constitutional Amendment, right?
And even then I wouldn't put it past those chucklefucks on the bench to find some way to dismiss the Equal Rights Amendment if it had passed.
I do agree that a law should have been passed a long time ago enshrining the right to provide and obtain abortions though. I just think people are overstating the difference it would make today.
Y'all do realize the precedent SCOTUS is about to use to overturn RvW would also overturn any law or bill short of a Pro-Choice Constitutional Amendment, right?
And even then I wouldn't put it past those chucklefucks on the bench to find some way to dismiss the Equal Rights Amendment if it had passed.
I do agree that a law should have been passed a long time ago enshrining the right to provide and obtain abortions though. I just think people are overstating the difference it would make today.
It's not like the Conservative justices give a shit about separation of powers (see - VRA). They view themselves as a higher level legislature and will happily rewrite law as they see fit. Although if I understand City of Boerne v. Flores (which I probably don't) they might not even need to bend the rules to do that.
That said obviously Dems should have tried to pass this shit earlier. Although I wonder if it could have gotten through the fucking senate back then either.
+9
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Y'all do realize the precedent SCOTUS is about to use to overturn RvW would also overturn any law or bill short of a Pro-Choice Constitutional Amendment, right?
And even then I wouldn't put it past those chucklefucks on the bench to find some way to dismiss the Equal Rights Amendment if it had passed.
I do agree that a law should have been passed a long time ago enshrining the right to provide and obtain abortions though. I just think people are overstating the difference it would make today.
Y'all do realize the precedent SCOTUS is about to use to overturn RvW would also overturn any law or bill short of a Pro-Choice Constitutional Amendment, right?
And even then I wouldn't put it past those chucklefucks on the bench to find some way to dismiss the Equal Rights Amendment if it had passed.
I do agree that a law should have been passed a long time ago enshrining the right to provide and obtain abortions though. I just think people are overstating the difference it would make today.
It's not like the Conservative justices give a shit about separation of powers (see - VRA). They view themselves as a higher level legislature and will happily rewrite law as they see fit. Although if I understand City of Boerne v. Flores (which I probably don't) they might not even need to bend the rules to do that.
That said obviously Dems should have tried to pass this shit earlier. Although I wonder if it could have gotten through the fucking senate back then either.
Ok, this is the Abortion thread so it's on topic even with the overlap between the half dozen topical threads.
A law (not Amendment) enshrining a right to provide / obtain an abortion probably could have passed up through the end of Carter's term. Once Reagan was in office he would have vetoed it and you wouldn't have enough votes to override a veto...and after that you only had the brief filibuster-proof trifecta in 2008 but certainly not enough strong pro-choice votes to get it through.
During the 70's the aforementioned Equal Rights Amendment would have made such a law appear redundant and pointless to pass since the ERA seemed destined to pass right up until it didn't. And once it was clear the ERA was stalled the window was basically already closed on Abortion Rights bills.
Edit - not passing an Abortion Rights Bill when it could pass was a mistake in hindsight, but understandable with what was known at the time.
zagdrob on
+1
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
Y'all do realize the precedent SCOTUS is about to use to overturn RvW would also overturn any law or bill short of a Pro-Choice Constitutional Amendment, right?
And even then I wouldn't put it past those chucklefucks on the bench to find some way to dismiss the Equal Rights Amendment if it had passed.
I do agree that a law should have been passed a long time ago enshrining the right to provide and obtain abortions though. I just think people are overstating the difference it would make today.
The legal question of whether the Court can constitutionally review the passage of a constitutional amendment and strike it down as unconstitutional is still an open question that this particular Court has fortunately or not not had the opportunity to pass upon
Y'all do realize the precedent SCOTUS is about to use to overturn RvW would also overturn any law or bill short of a Pro-Choice Constitutional Amendment, right?
And even then I wouldn't put it past those chucklefucks on the bench to find some way to dismiss the Equal Rights Amendment if it had passed.
I do agree that a law should have been passed a long time ago enshrining the right to provide and obtain abortions though. I just think people are overstating the difference it would make today.
The legal question of whether the Court can constitutionally review the passage of a constitutional amendment and strike it down as unconstitutional is still an open question that this particular Court has fortunately or not not had the opportunity to pass upon
We're already seeing it happen, though, with how the Court is using the Free Exercise Clause to render the Establishment Clause unconstitutional.
Y'all do realize the precedent SCOTUS is about to use to overturn RvW would also overturn any law or bill short of a Pro-Choice Constitutional Amendment, right?
And even then I wouldn't put it past those chucklefucks on the bench to find some way to dismiss the Equal Rights Amendment if it had passed.
I do agree that a law should have been passed a long time ago enshrining the right to provide and obtain abortions though. I just think people are overstating the difference it would make today.
The legal question of whether the Court can constitutionally review the passage of a constitutional amendment and strike it down as unconstitutional is still an open question that this particular Court has fortunately or not not had the opportunity to pass upon
Gee thanks I really needed a new existential terror to gnaw at the back of my sanity.
I guess at the point they decide to review and overturn the 13th or 19th or something it's kind of moot they bothered to go through the process and give themselves the right to do it...but still our Constitution is so dumb and broken in so many ways. The secret I guess is that it's all always just been Calvinball.
+2
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Y'all do realize the precedent SCOTUS is about to use to overturn RvW would also overturn any law or bill short of a Pro-Choice Constitutional Amendment, right?
And even then I wouldn't put it past those chucklefucks on the bench to find some way to dismiss the Equal Rights Amendment if it had passed.
I do agree that a law should have been passed a long time ago enshrining the right to provide and obtain abortions though. I just think people are overstating the difference it would make today.
The legal question of whether the Court can constitutionally review the passage of a constitutional amendment and strike it down as unconstitutional is still an open question that this particular Court has fortunately or not not had the opportunity to pass upon
Their VRA ruling basically required them to ignore the plain text of section two of the 15th amendment in favor of something something equal protection for the states something something that they just made up. Don't really need to declare something unconstitutional if you can just decide to ignore it.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
+6
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
Well I just found out Tennessee already has a trigger law in place for 30 days out to put a ban in place.
Well I just found out Tennessee already has a trigger law in place for 30 days out to put a ban in place.
Shit.
Yeah multiple states do.
Yeah last report was either 11 or 13 on CNN (I closed the tab) but TN was one of the "full on ban with almost no exceptions and the threat of criminal prosecution"
I wonder if the actual play here will be to not strike Roe, but to instead say, "It applies, but now only up to 6 weeks of fetal age"
This effectively outlaws abortion in marriage or relationships, and makes having regular sex punishable by government mandated pregnancy. Men who don't understand how periods and pregnancy work, and don't care that much about the issue won't care, and Men who oppose abortion for everyone except their 'precious daughters who of course would never have sex but if they did shouldn't be punished for a nights silliness and will tell their daddy immediately' will think they will be unaffected.
Leak that you'll ban it, then change the text and just change it in such a way that it is an effective ban, and most of your vaguely interested people will go back to sleep. Heck, a 6 week ban is probably more effective at punishing women than a total ban. Since if women know there is a total ban, many women will make plans for what to do if they need to go for an out of state procedure, whereas if you throw a few unexpected forms and waiting periods onto a 6 week ban (one week consulation period, there's actually only two clinics in the state, you need your fathers permission) then women can easily be punished far more comprehensively.
Posts
I would like to point out, for anyone else who wants to ride on this wagon: Red states are full of vulnerable people who are not, in fact, the brain washed spawns of John Birch, and instead are people who now have to live under state regimes that are actively, fully, hostile to their safety, wellbeing and even identity.
When you say shit like what Badger said, no matter how smug and righteous you feel you are about republican voters, remember that there are people who live in these states who aren’t republican voters, and that behavior like this makes you an asshole.
You aren’t cute, you aren’t funny, you aren’t being decent human being in that moment. You’re writing off hundreds if not thousands of victims of GOP oppression to make yourself feel better in the moment. So don’t be that asshole.
This has been a PSA from Innocent Human Beings Live in Red States Too, What is Wrong with You.
I'm not going to say that primaries and elections aren't important things to keep track of, but it's also imperative that this isn't the only place you focus your efforts.
Put it on the interns taking the phone calls too - make it personal. They are failing if they don’t pressure the reps they work with.
I would but mine is *checks notes* convicted of a crime and awaiting sentencing.
As a note, the representatives passed abortion protections in September, so also yell at your Senators about that specific bill.
Thank you, and I should have specified Senators as well.
Here’s the legislation for reference: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3755/text
I am fully expecting Red States to start beefing up laws about where pregnant women can travel and such next as well, possibly even the more widespread adoption of the ridiculous Texas laws surrounding the bounties and so forth. It's going to be very messy and the only way to stop it is to protect things from the top down. I mean, I know what else should be done but how long until they start making a lot of things like helping women to travel and such outright illegal as well?
-Show the fuck up to all elections, regardless of how sexy or unsexy you find those races and vote against the republicans. This sometimes means making use of game theory, holding your nose and picking a shitty democrat. I mean, we know the GOP will not only do fuck all to protect women's rights, they'll move to roll all of them back.
-Protest and organize obviously. One thing I'll suggest, is that the left really should try the idea of identifying all the rightwing influencers, their pet judges, their donors and their pet politicians. Then when those fuckers show up at a business expecting to be served by people they are actively fucking over. To instead find themselves in a spot where they are told to go fuck themselves, they'll get their services from society, when they stop being fucking destructive parasites. Let them make threats about how they'll move to some rural backwater, most won't do it and the few that do, we'll quickly get to learn how shitty their base actually is. Let me tell you, you'll see plenty of rural folk that will salivate at getting money from big business in their community, but those same people don't want a fucking thing to change in their community either. They want the money only, they don't want influx of outsiders that new business generally bring in. Most business that would relocate from urban areas to escape such a boycott are going to want people other than the locals because in just about all cases, the local population likely won't have numbers. Then there is also the issue where a number will require skills that most of, if not all the population lacks and if someone has the skills they are either already commuting to another job or they are retired.
I have been fortunate enough to have been granted citizenship here.
I'm hiding in my bathroom, crying my heart out, sobbing ugly ugly tears because I'm so angry and scared And I can't think of anything else to do right in this moment.
All the things that I was repeatedly told by others that I was exaggerating or imagining over the last decade are actually for real happening and I'm so fucking angry that I was right. That we were all right.
God fucking dammit
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
One thing I thought about when I suggested something like this earlier is that this stuff rarely happens, and when it does, it's spontaneous.
I thought about why that could be, in a world where the most informed and sane of us have actual jobs and power, and I realized the reason: we don't trust each other.
This sort of stuff requires you to put your jobs on the line and actually work together. That's a lot more complicated than a protest where your attendance is pretty much the most valuable thing you can contribute, and even then that gets messed up with bad actors like in Minneapolis.
Can you trust someone just because they are mad at the leaked ruling? Can you trust them to do anything more than stand next to you?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
And?
Is this the explanation for Roe not being codified in legislation sometime in the past 50 years? That they were fine with it being decided by the courts, but because it was against their personal morality they didn't want to publicly vote to actually enshrine the right in law?
Thanks for the reminder that someone can have a morally consistent position that also sucks complete ass, I guess. This doesn't absolve a single one of them from the consequences of their inaction.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
NNID: Hakkekage
1. The basis for overturning Roe is that the right to an abortion is not “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” What this means is that there is not a deep and intrinsic political, legal, and social tradition of protecting such a right in America, therefore, the right does not exist. Obviously, this is a hidebound principle that erases any rights gained in the 20th century and beyond. It is literally a principle of “when white landowning men were in charge of everything, history and the constitution ceased”
2. The proper avenue for abortion protection to find its way into the law of the land is by the popular will, expressed through voting for representatives of each state’s legislature. This is beyond disingenuous. This man wrote Abbott v. Perez. Voting rights, too, have been curtailed to a privilege and distorted. When a Justice says this, it is because they know what they’ve done to prevent the political branches from undoing what it has done by law.
NNID: Hakkekage
So, having snipped off the balls of the political branches and cut out the tongues of voters, Alito knows full well there is no political or popular avenue to returning to a country where Roe or something like it is the law of the land.
NNID: Hakkekage
-The people you want us to vote for had 50 years to codify roe v wade into law. They are a party of political ataraxia at best and corporate stooges at worst. The debate goes on because they care about decorum while the other side does not and they agree with the other side on most things economic. They are the new Whigs. Either follow the 19th century Republicans of the post-Whig fall and offer a new emancipation or fall. I do not vote for ataraxia nor corporate stooges.
-Sure, but also the police will protect those figures and not the people who would ambush them making this dangerous. Not that it's bad to do but it's asking a lot for people to potentially upturn their lives for it.
Betrays a serious ignorance of the last 50 years and the evolution of the parties and, crucially, the court.
NNID: Hakkekage
Oh did I say love I meant to say thoroughly loath wild auto correct there
I'm sorry, but the "they had 50 years to codify Roe into law" argument is some disingenuous gooseshit that ignores how American politics works, as well as how the religious right has evolved. It's worth remembering that when Roe passed, it was not a particularly controversial decision - you had the Southern Baptists supporting the decision. At that time, the religious right was still openly trying to defend racism under color of religion - that would be their fight well into the 80s. For a good portion of those "50 years" (about 15 or so), abortion was seen as a settled issue, only relevant to a fringe group of activists. The bans weren't repealed because we historically as a nation don't tend to outright repeal laws that are ruled unconstitutional, in large part because historically stare decisis has been a major barrier to revocation of a decision (and its worth noting that the trampling of it by the Roberts Court is one thing that has been a huge breaking of our legal and political norms.)
So, what happened?
Well, what happened is that after the religious right got legally smacked down over trying to justify racism with a veneer of religion in the 80s, they needed to find a new rallying cry, and they found two in particular - homophobia and opposition to abortion. The latter was attractive in particular to them for two reasons:
*First, from a recruiting perspective, going anti-choice allowed them to bring in that fringe I mentioned earlier, in particular conservative Catholics (that is, the Opus Dei set) whom had historically been at odds with the heavily Southern Protestant religious right movement. It also brought in a and enabled number of rather scary fanatics and outright domestic terrorists as well.
* Second, the religious right realized that a large part of their failure with regards to their mission of defending racism was that there was a growing feeling culturally that they were on the wrong side of the argument morally. The anti-choice position was attractive because they could portray themselves as having the moral high ground via "think of the children", something they would heavily exploit.
This realignment took time as well, so the anti-choice movement as an actor with actual political clout didn't really manifest until the 90s. And it's worth noting that the political realignment that we're still dealing with the ramifications of today was still occurring in that decade, so the pro-choice and anti-choice blocs in Congress weren't yet aligned like they are now. This, along with the belief in the matter being "settled", would preclude attempts for direct legal codification. Casey was a sign of the political shift thanks to the work of the Federalist Society, but wasn't really recognized as such. It wasn't until the ascent of Gingrich and the "modern" GOP coalition that anti-choice activism had actual political clout.
So in short, trying to argue that the Democrats "had 50 years to codify Roe" is an argument that shows a deep unawareness of how all this has worked.
Yeah when I went to vote this morning they asked me if I was a Democrat or Republican. I told them neither and they said I had to choose one and can only vote in that party. I waffled and ended up going Democrat. I fucking KNEW it would register me as that party so I didn't want to start seeing dumb ass mailers and get phone calls about their con party.
Note: You should absolutely talk to your senators about this and shout from the rooftops to pass this law.
However, it will not work. SCOTUS will simply find the law unconstitutional. They'll make up the grounds if they have to.
I figure that, worst case, it’s a less harmful place for us to vent then at each other.
I'm on both mailing lists already from picking whichever felt like I'd be making the most impact in a given election, so I don't worry too much but I will admit to feeling embarrassed sometimes... DeWine and LaRose aren't awesome and certainly didn't make the redistricting any better, but having them on in November is a far better thing than Blystone and Adams would be, not to mention the horrific US Senate primary... the county R at least endorsed Nolan over the guys trying to out Trump one another. Things would probably be less polarized if people could vote in all party primaries but since parties are more a bug than a feature of our government as designed...
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
I cannot believe there are several Republicans running right now that their only platform is "Pro-Trump".
If you want to change that to "they had 50 years to codify Roe, but only 30 of those years were when the threat to it was loud and firm enough for them to be undeniably cognizant of" I suppose that's acceptable.
For at least as long as I have been eligible to vote, the Democrats have campaigned and fund-raised on protecting reproductive rights.
EDIT: Removed old draft.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
And even then I wouldn't put it past those chucklefucks on the bench to find some way to dismiss the Equal Rights Amendment if it had passed.
I do agree that a law should have been passed a long time ago enshrining the right to provide and obtain abortions though. I just think people are overstating the difference it would make today.
It's not like the Conservative justices give a shit about separation of powers (see - VRA). They view themselves as a higher level legislature and will happily rewrite law as they see fit. Although if I understand City of Boerne v. Flores (which I probably don't) they might not even need to bend the rules to do that.
That said obviously Dems should have tried to pass this shit earlier. Although I wonder if it could have gotten through the fucking senate back then either.
Fuck constitutional originalism so much
It’s such a shitty dog whistle
Ok, this is the Abortion thread so it's on topic even with the overlap between the half dozen topical threads.
A law (not Amendment) enshrining a right to provide / obtain an abortion probably could have passed up through the end of Carter's term. Once Reagan was in office he would have vetoed it and you wouldn't have enough votes to override a veto...and after that you only had the brief filibuster-proof trifecta in 2008 but certainly not enough strong pro-choice votes to get it through.
During the 70's the aforementioned Equal Rights Amendment would have made such a law appear redundant and pointless to pass since the ERA seemed destined to pass right up until it didn't. And once it was clear the ERA was stalled the window was basically already closed on Abortion Rights bills.
Edit - not passing an Abortion Rights Bill when it could pass was a mistake in hindsight, but understandable with what was known at the time.
The legal question of whether the Court can constitutionally review the passage of a constitutional amendment and strike it down as unconstitutional is still an open question that this particular Court has fortunately or not not had the opportunity to pass upon
NNID: Hakkekage
We're already seeing it happen, though, with how the Court is using the Free Exercise Clause to render the Establishment Clause unconstitutional.
Gee thanks I really needed a new existential terror to gnaw at the back of my sanity.
I guess at the point they decide to review and overturn the 13th or 19th or something it's kind of moot they bothered to go through the process and give themselves the right to do it...but still our Constitution is so dumb and broken in so many ways. The secret I guess is that it's all always just been Calvinball.
Their VRA ruling basically required them to ignore the plain text of section two of the 15th amendment in favor of something something equal protection for the states something something that they just made up. Don't really need to declare something unconstitutional if you can just decide to ignore it.
Shit.
Yeah multiple states do.
Yeah last report was either 11 or 13 on CNN (I closed the tab) but TN was one of the "full on ban with almost no exceptions and the threat of criminal prosecution"
JFC
This effectively outlaws abortion in marriage or relationships, and makes having regular sex punishable by government mandated pregnancy. Men who don't understand how periods and pregnancy work, and don't care that much about the issue won't care, and Men who oppose abortion for everyone except their 'precious daughters who of course would never have sex but if they did shouldn't be punished for a nights silliness and will tell their daddy immediately' will think they will be unaffected.
Leak that you'll ban it, then change the text and just change it in such a way that it is an effective ban, and most of your vaguely interested people will go back to sleep. Heck, a 6 week ban is probably more effective at punishing women than a total ban. Since if women know there is a total ban, many women will make plans for what to do if they need to go for an out of state procedure, whereas if you throw a few unexpected forms and waiting periods onto a 6 week ban (one week consulation period, there's actually only two clinics in the state, you need your fathers permission) then women can easily be punished far more comprehensively.