Roe vs. Wade overturned

[Thomas Veil]

Good point. 40+% of America self-identify as independents now, and less than 30% identify with Dems, and the same for the GOP.

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

View attachment 10213
As you can see, the most egregious is Wisconsin, but all 5 states are led by a government that does NOT represent the will of the people.

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

 

[SuperMatt]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[SuperMatt]

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

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

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

www.nytimes.com

Possibly the most telling quote:

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

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 This kind of view is a century (or more) out of date.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

 

[SuperMatt]

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

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

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

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

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

www.baltimoresun.com

 

[Thomas Veil]

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

 

[SuperMatt]

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

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

PACK THE COURT.

 

[Thomas Veil]

It's getting closer to that all the time.

 

[Huntn]

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

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

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

 

[Alli]

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

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

We’re screwed.

 

[SuperMatt]

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

 

[JayMysteri0]

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

 

[JayMysteri0]

When THESE guys want to hijack your cause

White Supremacist Group Joins Chicago Anti-Abortion Rally

Patriot Front members showed up with shields(?) at Saturday's March for Life.

jezebel.com

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

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

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

Group members left the area in cars with taped-over license plates.

The group’s manifesto calls for the formation of a white ethnostate. In 2018, the independent media outlet Unicorn Riot reported on leaked audio recordings from the group’s Discord servers which indicated that rape is acceptable to achieve the ethnostate of their dreams (emphasis theirs):

Recorded conversations between members show an obsession with firearms, a non-stop tirade of racist, sexist and otherwise abusive language, and a desire to take action in the real world. Patriot Front members are also told that raping women is acceptable, “as long as you’re raping, like, people in your own race” and describe how in their ideal society, “ethnostate rape gangs” would be allowed to freely target unmarried white women who did not adhere to “traditional values.”

Abortion bans only further their goals of turning pregnancies by rape into babies.

Yeaaahhhh, rrrright...

 

[AG_PhamD]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Thomas Veil]

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

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

 

[Huntn]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[SuperMatt]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Huntn]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JayMysteri0]

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

 

[SuperMatt]

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

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

https://wapo.st/3HAA2Nm

(paywall removed)

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

In his defense:

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

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

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

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

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