-
Figured we should start a thread to record what the politically and religiously stacked Supreme Court is getting up to.
They've been working hard to allow voter discrimination that benefits Republicans:(https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/07/brnovich-vra-scotus-decision-arizona-voting-right/619330/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/07/brnovich-vra-scotus-decision-arizona-voting-right/619330/)).
They're working to make it more difficult for unions to operate:(https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/23/politics/supreme-court-california-unions/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/23/politics/supreme-court-california-unions/index.html)), (https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/23/politics/john-roberts-conservative-california-unions/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/23/politics/john-roberts-conservative-california-unions/index.html))
And of course, we already know that they've voted for the end of Roe v. Wade:(https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473 (https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473)).
More recently they ruled for additional gun violence by saying that the second amendment means that states can no longer regulate concealed carry (https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/politics/supreme-court-guns-second-amendment-new-york-bruen/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/politics/supreme-court-guns-second-amendment-new-york-bruen/index.html)).
They're in for life, so there is a lot more than this to look forward to during the slide into darkness. Let's document it here!
-
They basically gutted Miranda this morning (by making it essentially unenforceable):
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/politics/supreme-court-miranda-rights/index.html
And opened up religious schools to federal funding yesterday:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/court-strikes-down-maines-ban-on-using-public-funds-at-religious-schools/
My stomach is churning this morning. Folks think we'll get Dobbs (Roe decision) tomorrow.
-
I heard reporting that the liberal justices are delaying their dissents until last possible moment to maximize the women in trigger-law states who can seek care.
-
And opened up religious schools to federal funding yesterday:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/court-strikes-down-maines-ban-on-using-public-funds-at-religious-schools/
Cool, can't wait for the Satanic Temple to open a school using federal funds. That's the religious freedom they were talking about, right?
-
And opened up religious schools to federal funding yesterday:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/court-strikes-down-maines-ban-on-using-public-funds-at-religious-schools/
Cool, can't wait for the Satanic Temple to open a school using federal funds. That's the religious freedom they were talking about, right?
Nah. It'll be acceptable for a Christian school but the moment a Muslim school tries it, this Court will carve out a narrow exception based on "community standards" or some other originalist gobbly-gook.
-
I heard reporting that the liberal justices are delaying their dissents until last possible moment to maximize the women in trigger-law states who can seek care.
ugh- that is heartbreaking.
-
They're working to make it more difficult for unions to operate:(https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/23/politics/supreme-court-california-unions/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/23/politics/supreme-court-california-unions/index.html)), (https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/23/politics/john-roberts-conservative-california-unions/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/23/politics/john-roberts-conservative-california-unions/index.html))
This seems like a pretty narrow ruling from the perspective of unions. I think most farm workers are temporary with housing not on the farm - so there's a way to reach them (but that's a wild guess based on remembering one documentary from years ago).
For Apple store employees, the sidewalk isn't Apple property. I suspect visible union organizing at Apple and other companies will have a broader impact than where agricultural union reps can visit without paying.
-
Expected later this year . . . West_Virginia_v._EPA. At stake - the EPA's ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.
-
And here is the Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v Jackson that ends the constitutional right to abortion.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
I am profoundly saddened that American women have just been made slaves again.
-
Welp, we had our one kid, time to schedule a vasectomy
-
And here is the Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v Jackson that ends the constitutional right to abortion.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
I am profoundly saddened that American women have just been made slaves again.
Dammit. I was holding on to a bit of hope that the fierce backlash from the leaked draft opinion would cause the court to moderate the final version, but I was wrong.
All of this is so infuriating. Wondering now if all of those people who don't bother to vote will wake the fuck up.
-
The rulings on Roe v Wade and conceal carry are both constitutionally correct.
They aren't outlawing abortion -- they are leaving it up to the states. This is constitutionally correct according to the 10th amendment.
Meanwhile -- the right to bear arms shall not be infringed is specifically spelled out in the constitution. According to the supremacy clause states can't infringe upon that right.
-
Sure, for originalists, which is a stupid approach in 2022.
-
Thomas' concurring opinion proposes overturning Griswold (right to birth control), Lawrence (sodomy laws) and Obergefell (gay marriage). It's what's up next for the radical right. They do, after all, have to have constant scare and fear and anger campaigns to keep their base rabid, so this is what will keep the mouths frothing and the money rolling in.
As for what is constitutionally correct, @Gronnie your assertion is weak, as most assertions are.
-
Sure, for originalists, which is a stupid approach in 2022.
There's no interpretation to be made -- the Constitution doesn't even mention abortion and is pretty clear about the right to bear arms.
-
Thomas' concurring opinion proposes overturning Griswold (right to birth control), Lawrence (sodomy laws) and Obergefell (gay marriage). It's what's up next for the radical right. They do, after all, have to have constant scare and fear and anger campaigns to keep their base rabid, so this is what will keep the mouths frothing and the money rolling in.
As for what is constitutionally correct, @Gronnie your assertion is weak, as most assertions are.
The burden is on you to explain why it's weak (something tells me your explanation won't be very impressive) -- sounds to me like you are just arguing from emotion.
Let me also make it clear that I'm all for abortion rights and live in a state where it's constitutionally protected and am glad of it.
-
Sure, for originalists, which is a stupid approach in 2022.
There's no interpretation to be made -- the Constitution doesn't even mention abortion and is pretty clear about the right to bear arms.
Roe v Wade wasn't actually about abortion, it was about privacy between a woman and her doctor. Life is more complex in 2022 than what a relatively short document that a bunch of white men drafted in 1787 could have even dreamed of. It's why originalism is stupid for stupid people.
-
The rulings on Roe v Wade and conceal carry are both constitutionally correct.
They aren't outlawing abortion -- they are leaving it up to the states. This is constitutionally correct according to the 10th amendment.
Meanwhile -- the right to bear arms shall not be infringed is specifically spelled out in the constitution. According to the supremacy clause states can't infringe upon that right.
Information question here - in Canada the Federal government has jurisdiction over criminal law and the Provincial governments have jurisdiction over civil law. So the Federal government was able to pass legislation that having or providing an abortion was not a criminal act. Then the provinces, being in charge of health care, each provide health care including abortions. But a province could/can not make an abortion illegal, because that is not their jurisdiction.
So who in the US has jurisdiction over criminal law? Because if it is the Feds, that means a state can't criminalize abortion. But if it is a mix then a State can criminalize something (i.e. abortion) that the Federal government has said is legal? That makes for a very messy legal system.
-
Sure, for originalists, which is a stupid approach in 2022.
There's no interpretation to be made -- the Constitution doesn't even mention abortion and is pretty clear about the right to bear arms.
....It's why originalism is stupid for stupid people.
This post right here is why liberals always seem to lose shortly after coming into power. Attacks and arguments from emotion, "tolerance" as long as everyone believes what they believe, etc.
-
The rulings on Roe v Wade and conceal carry are both constitutionally correct.
They aren't outlawing abortion -- they are leaving it up to the states. This is constitutionally correct according to the 10th amendment.
Meanwhile -- the right to bear arms shall not be infringed is specifically spelled out in the constitution. According to the supremacy clause states can't infringe upon that right.
Information question here - in Canada the Federal government has jurisdiction over criminal law and the Provincial governments have jurisdiction over civil law. So the Federal government was able to pass legislation that having or providing an abortion was not a criminal act. Then the provinces, being in charge of health care, each provide health care including abortions. But a province could/can not make an abortion illegal, because that is not their jurisdiction.
So who in the US has jurisdiction over criminal law? Because if it is the Feds, that means a state can't criminalize abortion. But if it is a mix then a State can criminalize something (i.e. abortion) that the Federal government has said is legal? That makes for a very messy legal system.
A good example in the US would be marijuana laws. It's still federally illegal, it just hasn't been enforced. So even in states where it's legal technically one could still be prosecuted federally. This is also part of why a lot of marijuana companies have trouble finding things such as banks that will work with them.
-
Sure, for originalists, which is a stupid approach in 2022.
There's no interpretation to be made -- the Constitution doesn't even mention abortion and is pretty clear about the right to bear arms.
....It's why originalism is stupid for stupid people.
This post right here is why liberals always seem to lose shortly after coming into power. Attacks and arguments from emotion, "tolerance" as long as everyone believes what they believe, etc.
It is difficult to provide clever responses to stupid arguments.
But in response to your arguments on abortion and guns -
1. The thirteenth amendment outlaws slavery, and making a woman bear a foetus she doesn't want to is slavery, and
2. The right to bear arms is explicitly limited by its purpose of creating a militia and is therefore necessarily and clearly a right that is subject to restriction.
-
Sure, for originalists, which is a stupid approach in 2022.
There's no interpretation to be made -- the Constitution doesn't even mention abortion and is pretty clear about the right to bear arms.
....It's why originalism is stupid for stupid people.
This post right here is why liberals always seem to lose shortly after coming into power. Attacks and arguments from emotion, "tolerance" as long as everyone believes what they believe, etc.
It is difficult to provide clever responses to stupid arguments.
But in response to your arguments on abortion and guns -
1. The thirteenth amendment outlaws slavery, and making a woman bear a foetus she doesn't want to is slavery, and
2. The right to bear arms is explicitly limited by its purpose of creating a militia and is therefore necessarily and clearly a right that is subject to restriction.
1. All I can say to that is "lol wat?"
2. I don't think militia means what you think it means
They aren't stupid arguments, they just don't align with your worldview.
-
Sure, for originalists, which is a stupid approach in 2022.
There's no interpretation to be made -- the Constitution doesn't even mention abortion and is pretty clear about the right to bear arms.
....It's why originalism is stupid for stupid people.
This post right here is why liberals always seem to lose shortly after coming into power. Attacks and arguments from emotion, "tolerance" as long as everyone believes what they believe, etc.
It is difficult to provide clever responses to stupid arguments.
But in response to your arguments on abortion and guns -
1. The thirteenth amendment outlaws slavery, and making a woman bear a foetus she doesn't want to is slavery, and
2. The right to bear arms is explicitly limited by its purpose of creating a militia and is therefore necessarily and clearly a right that is subject to restriction.
Further,
1) There is also 50 years of precedence written by SC Justices.
2) As mentioned, not all constitutional rights are absolute. Yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater is the typical example. Owning an operation Stokes howitzer is another (even with a federal firearms license, some states disallow it).
-
For the originalists here, it does seem like there's at least one signatory to the Constitution who found abortion access to be a useful thing:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/05/ben-franklin-american-instructor-textbook-abortion-recipe.html (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/05/ben-franklin-american-instructor-textbook-abortion-recipe.html)
-
The law that the Supreme Court struck down regarding carrying firearms had stood in New York for 108 years with nobody batting an eye. This happened because it didn't prevent anyone from purchasing firearms to join their local militia. It didn't prevent anyone from carrying a weapon on public land. It only required that a person hiding a handgun on their person while wandering around on public land get a license to do so.
There's nothing in an originalist interpretation of the 2nd amendment that supports this SC decision. The justices weren't making stupid arguments . . . but they were activist arguments pushing a modern political agenda rather than based upon historical consideration of the document they're supposed to be based on.
As far as slavery/abortion . . .
If you are a matching kidney donor and your neighbour will die of kidney failure without you donating it, you're not required to give him access to your body. Even if he dies from your refusal.
By the same token, a woman who doesn't want a fetus in her should not be forced against her will to donate her womb, blood, and nutrients from the food she eats to the fetus. Even if the fetus will die when refused this.
Otherwise, you are giving one person (the fetus) control of another person (the mother) and forcing her to obey the wishes of the other against her will. Which certainly sounds like the definition of slavery.
-
The law that the Supreme Court struck down regarding carrying firearms had stood in New York for 108 years with nobody batting an eye. This happened because it didn't prevent anyone from purchasing firearms to join their local militia. It didn't prevent anyone from carrying a weapon on public land. It only required that a person hiding a handgun on their person while wandering around on public land get a license to do so.
100% incorrect. The NY law required an applicant to show “special cause” to be granted a permit to carry a concealed weapon. This is what was struck down, you do not need to show “special cause” to exercise a right.
-
The rulings on Roe v Wade and conceal carry are both constitutionally correct.
They aren't outlawing abortion -- they are leaving it up to the states. This is constitutionally correct according to the 10th amendment.
Meanwhile -- the right to bear arms shall not be infringed is specifically spelled out in the constitution. According to the supremacy clause states can't infringe upon that right.
Information question here - in Canada the Federal government has jurisdiction over criminal law and the Provincial governments have jurisdiction over civil law. So the Federal government was able to pass legislation that having or providing an abortion was not a criminal act. Then the provinces, being in charge of health care, each provide health care including abortions. But a province could/can not make an abortion illegal, because that is not their jurisdiction.
So who in the US has jurisdiction over criminal law? Because if it is the Feds, that means a state can't criminalize abortion. But if it is a mix then a State can criminalize something (i.e. abortion) that the Federal government has said is legal? That makes for a very messy legal system.
It is a mix, but because of the 10th amendment, states essentially have jurisdiction on criminal law. I feel like I read once that 90+ percent of criminal laws are state laws. The 10th amendment says "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."
So states make most of the civil and criminal laws and then it gets litigated in state and federal courts up the chain to see if it has constitutional coverage under the amendments. Federal laws also get litigated by the SCOTUS.
That was one of the reasons the gun case was also a big deal yesterday. It actually expanded gun rights. Usually the second amendment covers guns, but in the opinion yesterday they also set precedent for the right to conceal carry under the 14th amendment.
Roe was covered under the 14th amendment as well.
ETA - this is frankly why women are also second class citizens under US law. Women are not granted equal protection in the constitution or amendments other than the right to vote. So any other freedoms that women currently have can theoretically be overturned by a supreme court case. And that wasn't really a concern until recently, because no court has actively removed rights from individuals until the last few years (There are probably some other examples, but to me, SCOTUS overturning part of the voting rights act a few years ago was the first major step in removing rights). Generally once rights are granted, they aren't taken away again. (also - someone correct me if I am wrong about this!!)
-
The law that the Supreme Court struck down regarding carrying firearms had stood in New York for 108 years with nobody batting an eye. This happened because it didn't prevent anyone from purchasing firearms to join their local militia. It didn't prevent anyone from carrying a weapon on public land. It only required that a person hiding a handgun on their person while wandering around on public land get a license to do so.
100% incorrect. The NY law required an applicant to show “special cause” to be granted a permit to carry a concealed weapon. This is what was struck down, you do not need to show “special cause” to exercise a right.
Thanks for the clarification here. I was pretty certain the ruling only said they couldn't deny a permit because the person didn't have a reason, not that there couldn't be a permit at all. I thought it commented to that effect on a portion I read very specifically.
-
The law that the Supreme Court struck down regarding carrying firearms had stood in New York for 108 years with nobody batting an eye. This happened because it didn't prevent anyone from purchasing firearms to join their local militia. It didn't prevent anyone from carrying a weapon on public land. It only required that a person hiding a handgun on their person while wandering around on public land get a license to do so.
100% incorrect. The NY law required an applicant to show “special cause” to be granted a permit to carry a concealed weapon. This is what was struck down, you do not need to show “special cause” to exercise a right.
Thanks for the clarification here. I was pretty certain the ruling only said they couldn't deny a permit because the person didn't have a reason, not that there couldn't be a permit at all. I thought it commented to that effect on a portion I read very specifically.
Yup, background check and permitting process, including a class and potentially a test, still applies. But now it won’t be restricted to whatever VIPs the local bureaucrats deem worthy.
-
As far as slavery/abortion . . .
If you are a matching kidney donor and your neighbour will die of kidney failure without you donating it, you're not required to give him access to your body. Even if he dies from your refusal.
By the same token, a woman who doesn't want a fetus in her should not be forced against her will to donate her womb, blood, and nutrients from the food she eats to the fetus. Even if the fetus will die when refused this.
Otherwise, you are giving one person clump of cells (the fetus) control of another person (the mother birthing person) and forcing her him/her/them to obey the wishes of the other against her his/her/their will. Which certainly sounds like the definition of slavery.
FTFY
-
The law that the Supreme Court struck down regarding carrying firearms had stood in New York for 108 years with nobody batting an eye. This happened because it didn't prevent anyone from purchasing firearms to join their local militia. It didn't prevent anyone from carrying a weapon on public land. It only required that a person hiding a handgun on their person while wandering around on public land get a license to do so.
100% incorrect. The NY law required an applicant to show “special cause” to be granted a permit to carry a concealed weapon. This is what was struck down, you do not need to show “special cause” to exercise a right.
Thanks for the clarification here. I was pretty certain the ruling only said they couldn't deny a permit because the person didn't have a reason, not that there couldn't be a permit at all. I thought it commented to that effect on a portion I read very specifically.
Yup, background check and permitting process, including a class and potentially a test, still applies. But now it won’t be restricted to whatever VIPs the local bureaucrats deem worthy.
I think you mean that it won't be restricted to people who have a reason for carrying concealed.
(It still appears possible to restrict concealed carry on the grounds that the person is unfit. Just not because they want to look like a cowboy in Times Square.)
-
Sure, for originalists, which is a stupid approach in 2022.
There's no interpretation to be made -- the Constitution doesn't even mention abortion and is pretty clear about the right to bear arms.
....It's why originalism is stupid for stupid people.
This post right here is why liberals always seem to lose shortly after coming into power. Attacks and arguments from emotion, "tolerance" as long as everyone believes what they believe, etc.
So you're saying the other poster might need to use "stupid" 3 times in a sentence to convince you? I mean, after all they tried 1 ("stupid approach") and 2 ("stupid for stupid people") already... I hope I'm not spoiling anything by predicting 3.
-
The rulings on Roe v Wade and conceal carry are both constitutionally correct.
They aren't outlawing abortion -- they are leaving it up to the states. This is constitutionally correct according to the 10th amendment.
Meanwhile -- the right to bear arms shall not be infringed is specifically spelled out in the constitution. According to the supremacy clause states can't infringe upon that right.
Information question here - in Canada the Federal government has jurisdiction over criminal law and the Provincial governments have jurisdiction over civil law. So the Federal government was able to pass legislation that having or providing an abortion was not a criminal act. Then the provinces, being in charge of health care, each provide health care including abortions. But a province could/can not make an abortion illegal, because that is not their jurisdiction.
So who in the US has jurisdiction over criminal law? Because if it is the Feds, that means a state can't criminalize abortion. But if it is a mix then a State can criminalize something (i.e. abortion) that the Federal government has said is legal? That makes for a very messy legal system.
To answer your question: both. Yes, its messy.
And for the people throwing around insults, cut it out. It doesn't help.
-
As far as slavery/abortion . . .
If you are a matching kidney donor and your neighbour will die of kidney failure without you donating it, you're not required to give him access to your body. Even if he dies from your refusal.
By the same token, a woman who doesn't want a fetus in her should not be forced against her will to donate her womb, blood, and nutrients from the food she eats to the fetus. Even if the fetus will die when refused this.
Otherwise, you are giving one person (the fetus) control of another person (the mother) and forcing her to obey the wishes of the other against her will. Which certainly sounds like the definition of slavery.
Oh, don't even both with this. The other side doesn't care about that. Blah blah the BABY.
-
Clarence Thomas, concurring opinion in Dobbs:
For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents,
That's "correct[ing] the error" in the Court's contraception, sodomy, and gay marriage rulings.
I remember our own John Galt, who insisted that the new Justices wouldn't overturn 50 years of precedent.
-
Clarence Thomas, concurring opinion in Dobbs:
For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents,
That's "correct[ing] the error" in the Court's contraception, sodomy, and gay marriage rulings.
I remember our own John Galt, who insisted that the new Justices wouldn't overturn 50 years of precedent.
Yes, he has been very quiet ever since every single one of his hard argued predictions regarding the impartiality and adherence to established legal precedent that the Supreme Court would follow was proven false.
-
Clarence Thomas, concurring opinion in Dobbs:
For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents,
That's "correct[ing] the error" in the Court's contraception, sodomy, and gay marriage rulings.
I remember our own John Galt, who insisted that the new Justices wouldn't overturn 50 years of precedent.
Yes, he has been very quiet ever since every single one of his hard argued predictions regarding the impartiality and adherence to established legal precedent that the Supreme Court would follow was proven false.
funny how all the conservatives' rules only apply to others, isn't it...
"It's too close to an election, you can't appoint Supreme Court justice"
"lol nevermind"
-
This is unbelievable.
I was going to make a comment about a woman's bodily rights and the bizarre interpretation of a well regulated militia that used muzzle loaders. But these things have all been said before. I am speechless.
-
Its a sad time to be an American.
Between the horrifying developments wrt women's rights, large amounts of gun violence, and that our planet is burning up, its hard to feel anything other than existential dread at what the future holds for our children.
-
As far as slavery/abortion . . .
If you are a matching kidney donor and your neighbour will die of kidney failure without you donating it, you're not required to give him access to your body. Even if he dies from your refusal.
By the same token, a woman who doesn't want a fetus in her should not be forced against her will to donate her womb, blood, and nutrients from the food she eats to the fetus. Even if the fetus will die when refused this.
Otherwise, you are giving one person (the fetus) control of another person (the mother) and forcing her to obey the wishes of the other against her will. Which certainly sounds like the definition of slavery.
When I am using this metaphor, I find it is more effective if I use a father and their child instead of neighbors. A father cannot be forced to provide a kidney for his child, even if the child will die without it. He can't even be forced to donate blood. That is how much more sovereign male bodies are than female bodies.
-
I feel like someone has died. All of this is tragic (in more ways than one), and so unnecessary.
-
I feel like someone has died. All of this is tragic (in more ways than one), and so unnecessary.
Well, yeah. The temporary illusion that women are full-fledged citizens, with the right to control their own bodies (and thus their futures.) Dead as a doornail, just the way the Evangelistan (and their minions in congress) want it.
-
I feel like someone has died. All of this is tragic (in more ways than one), and so unnecessary.
Yeah. What died was women ever believing they might one day be fully equal to men in this country.
-
While overturning Roe v. Wade, Thomas wrote in his opinion "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell".
Seems like a hint as to future directions for the extreme right wing activist supreme court. So let's see, that would cover the removal of:
- the right of married couples to buy contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut)
- the right to consensual gay sex (Lawrence v. Texas)
- the right to same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges)
-
But he doesn’t want to touch Loving vs Virginia. Of course.
-
Of course not. Though once he dies, I'm sure that will be on the chopping block too. Conservatives have always been 'rights for me but not for thee'.
-
They basically gutted Miranda this morning (by making it essentially unenforceable):
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/politics/supreme-court-miranda-rights/index.html
The Biden administration sided with (https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/politics/supreme-court-miranda-rights/index.html) what the Supreme Court ruled.
-
More recently they ruled for additional gun violence by saying that the second amendment means that states can no longer regulate concealed carry (https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/politics/supreme-court-guns-second-amendment-new-york-bruen/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/politics/supreme-court-guns-second-amendment-new-york-bruen/index.html)).
This is gonna be lit. /s
In all seriousness if you are on this forum you can probably relocate out of the USA. I would give that some serious thought, personally.
-
Instead of running away from the issue, perhaps this is the best time for those here who are interested to look for ways to make a meaningful difference. Local government is the incubator for a lot of the attitudes that enable these things to occur at the national level.
I know, for me, it's enough of a reason to do what I can to make sure my kids aren't going to grow up in a world where these protections have been rolled back.
-
Instead of running away from the issue, perhaps this is the best time for those here who are interested to look for ways to make a meaningful difference. Local government is the incubator for a lot of the attitudes that enable these things to occur at the national level.
Are you going to move to a red state to do it (perhaps you already have)? Because the Senate (and electoral college) is the linchpin.
But you can actually run away and contribute at the same time. US citizens living abroad still get to vote and contribute money to political campaigns.
I'm done giving money to politicians. From now on my money goes directly to help people with things like housing/food/abortion.
-
In all seriousness if you are on this forum you can probably relocate out of the USA. I would give that some serious thought, personally.
Legally bound to a red state; not financially secure enough to emigrate. And anyway, retreat isn't how we win.
-
In all seriousness if you are on this forum you can probably relocate out of the USA. I would give that some serious thought, personally.
Legally bound to a red state; not financially secure enough to emigrate. And anyway, retreat isn't how we win.
If you are in a red state you can potentially make a difference. I'm not at all convinced that one more blue state voter in a blue state will do anything. If that legally bound is about your divorce I am very sorry. My blue state lawyer says that isn't a thing here.
-
If that legally bound is about your divorce I am very sorry. My blue state lawyer says that isn't a thing here.
It is; at a minimum it would mean rolling the dice as far as the custody agreement.
We are deep red here. Bans on emergency contraception are already in the works.
-
Sure, for originalists, which is a stupid approach in 2022.
For what it's worth the concept of "originalism" has always made sense to me. A law says what it says. Its meaning should only change when it is explicitly amended. Where ambiguity exists, it seems reasonable to try and use your understanding of the original intent behind the law to resolve that ambiguity.
Now, lots of our Constitution dates back more than two centuries and is probably not the Constitution we would write if we were starting from scratch today. I certainly wouldn't include a blanket right to carry deadly weapons around city streets in our list of inviolable rights, among other things.
The problem we've run into is that our Constitution was designed with a very strong bias toward the status quo. Amending the 2nd Amendment (or any other part of the Constitution) is going nowhere as long as 34% of either house of Congress or 51% of the legislators in 26% of the states think it's good the way it is. I think we're running close to the limits of how much people are willing to tolerate this type of minority rule. We live in interesting times.
-
Sure, for originalists, which is a stupid approach in 2022.
For what it's worth the concept of "originalism" has always made sense to me. A law says what it says. Its meaning should only change when it is explicitly amended. Where ambiguity exists, it seems reasonable to try and use your understanding of the original intent behind the law to resolve that ambiguity.
I too don't mind an originalist take on the constitution, keeping in mind that the founders never intended it to live this long and though that that we would rewrite it possibly through bloody revolt whenever it no longer matched the will of the people. Since I have no romantic feelings towards the founders and believe in democracy that sounds like a good idea to me. Not necessarily the bloody part, revolutions like the Carnation Revolution are largely bloodless.
-
The problem I see with "originalist intent" is twofold;
Firstly, it's impossible to really define the intent beyond the literal words written because the Constitution is intentionally broad and vague. All arguments around and about what the intent of the original writers was for any part of the Constitution are just modern interpretations of what a Judge wants to believe the original writers may have intended for any specific set of circumstances. Not much more than mere conjecture really.
That brings me to the second problem. The history of decisions argued from "original intent" clearly show it is nothing more than a fiction used to justify the outcome the Judge wants. When any sort of realistic attempt to reason from "original intent" is bothersome or would likely lead to an unwanted decision, it is blatantly cast aside in preference for the political bias and agenda wanted.
At least the "living document" proponents are honest about the way they reason.
-
In all seriousness if you are on this forum you can probably relocate out of the USA. I would give that some serious thought, personally.
Legally bound to a red state; not financially secure enough to emigrate. And anyway, retreat isn't how we win.
If you are in a red state you can potentially make a difference. I'm not at all convinced that one more blue state voter in a blue state will do anything. If that legally bound is about your divorce I am very sorry. My blue state lawyer says that isn't a thing here.
I think people in blue states can make a big difference to this issue right now. In California, we are expecting around a 1000% percent increase in demand for abortions as more people need to travel out of their state to get them. California recently created the "Future of Abortion" Council that recommended dozens of policy prescriptions to strengthen abortion in this state and make it easier for people who live here and travel here. Their recommendations are already being passed by the state legislature. Many deep blue states similarly have a lot of things they can do to strengthen their own commitment to human rights and abortion availability for their own citizens and to help out the vacuum created in other states, and this will make a real difference to people everyday.
For people in other blue states, talk to your state legislator(s) now about strengthening protections in your state and making it a sanctuary state for abortion rights! Here's the CA FAB Council report, which *might* have some ideas for your state. Each state is starting from a very different place, so even if very few to none of the recs in here are applicable for your state, talk to your state legislator(s) about convening a similar council in your state to do what's needed there: https://www.cafabcouncil.org/_files/ugd/ddc900_0beac0c75cb54445a230168863566b55.pdf
-
Extremely "excited" to have to worry about whether or not I'll still be able to marry my fiance in a year, ha ha!!! Or, if we do get married, whether our same-sex marriage is going to be annulled by the Christofascists in power. I'm planning on donating to abortion funds, but it's disenheartening how futile any political action seems.
-
Sounds to me like the US needs a Lysistrata revolution.
And maybe remind men that the reason the sexual revolution happened was that women finally had reliable safe birth control? Without that, you keep your little swimmers away from us. No sex without a wedding ring, and no sex a lot of the time even in marriage if you don't want more kids. No living together before marriage, for the same reason. Because that is where we were for a very long time, for good reason.
I grew up in the 50s and was around for the sexual revolution - believe me, it was a big deal. Because before that, guys, if you got your girlfriend pregnant you had just proposed, and the wedding was going to be super soon, before she started showing. Remember the old saying that brides can make a baby in 7 months, everyone else takes 9? And believe me, people did the counting. And I know couples just a few years older than I am who "had" to get married. And you are in the US, where Daddy and his shotgun can really enforce things.
Not married but pregnant, then you have a case of "rheumatic" (romantic) fever and go stay with a distant relative while you recover, and your baby goes up for adoption. Wealthy families had daughters go to Europe.
Believe me, women who have any sense are going to revert to the old morality pretty fast, because it protected them.
And let's not get started on illegal abortions, just go watch some of the episodes of "Call the midwife".
I am so mad on my American sisters behalf.
-
Welp, we had our one kid, time to schedule a vasectomy
This! I can’t fathom women not demanding to see proof of vasectomy before engaging in sexual intercourse, unless they were ok with bearing a child at that point in their lives. Unfortunately, women in abusive relationships don’t have a lot of leverage to do a lot of demanding.
-
I am rapidly running out of reasons to visit the US. When I was a kid I dreamed of emigrating there. The Kafkaesque health system successfully dissuaded me, but I did like to visit once in awhile.
I've often daydreamed about taking a slow BBQ tour of the Southern US. That is not going to happen, any more than my once-planned trip to St. Petersburg.
We have crossed quite a few countries off our lists because of how women are treated. I honestly never thought the US would place itself on that list, but here we are.
Turns out Hillary and Donald weren't actually equally bad, huh?
-
Instead of running away from the issue, perhaps this is the best time for those here who are interested to look for ways to make a meaningful difference. Local government is the incubator for a lot of the attitudes that enable these things to occur at the national level.
Are you going to move to a red state to do it (perhaps you already have)? Because the Senate (and electoral college) is the linchpin.
But you can actually run away and contribute at the same time. US citizens living abroad still get to vote and contribute money to political campaigns.
I'm done giving money to politicians. From now on my money goes directly to help people with things like housing/food/abortion.
For the time being, no. But what I am going to do is become more outwardly vocal against the disturbingly large amount of Christian nationalists in this area. One county over is the home of a Christian nationalist who happens to be the republican nominee for governor.
What this means for my family, I don't know. My SIL is in favor of enshrining a "memorial day for the unborn" to commemorate today's date.
-
Americans: I am Canadian, living in Winnipeg. I have friends all over my country. If you or anyone you know need to come to Canada to access reproductive healthcare, we will host you. I can be contacted on instagram at @versimilidude
-
In all seriousness if you are on this forum you can probably relocate out of the USA. I would give that some serious thought, personally.
Legally bound to a red state; not financially secure enough to emigrate. And anyway, retreat isn't how we win.
If you are in a red state you can potentially make a difference. I'm not at all convinced that one more blue state voter in a blue state will do anything. If that legally bound is about your divorce I am very sorry. My blue state lawyer says that isn't a thing here.
At the very least, us blue-staters can hold the line in Congress against any future Federal bans (because you know the Republican party will try), advocate for Supreme Court reform, and provide abortion resources to as many red state people as we can. That's not nothing.
-
Well the country of Gun Care and Health Control is showing its true colours now. I'm so sorry to all of you reasonably minded people out there.
Can someone smarter than me explain the a few comments I've seen about the 9th Amendment?
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
I understood it to be that the framers did not intend to limit the rights of the people forever into the future to those specified in the original document, just because they hadn't considered rights that may originate in future years.
-
Can someone smarter than me explain the a few comments I've seen about the 9th Amendment?
I can't, but Interpretation: The Ninth Amendment | The National Constitution Center (https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-ix/interps/131) provides several interpretations.
-
So. In terms of realpolitik: Will the Democrats attempt to expand the supreme court by adding less... biased... justices? And do they need success in the midterm election to do so?
The alternative seems to be a steady regression to the 1950s.
-
So. In terms of realpolitik: Will the Democrats attempt to expand the supreme court by adding less... biased... justices? And do they need success in the midterm election to do so?
The alternative seems to be a steady regression to the 1950s.
Packing the court is unlikely to succeed. FDR tried it when Republican-balked justices balked at various New Deal packages, but got (rightly) shot down (despite his huge popularity and the packages' relative popularity). Zero chance that'd succeed now. We're just stuck with the looney tunes court until someone retires / dies.
As a minority and liberal, I can suggest that not all the states pushing these policies really came out of the 1950s culturally, but for sure they're wanting to stay there. I don't really understand Christianity but it seems they think that the Prophet Jesus tells them to worship the 2nd amendment and taking over the world with kids.
-
Sure, for originalists, which is a stupid approach in 2022.
There's no interpretation to be made -- the Constitution doesn't even mention abortion and is pretty clear about the right to bear arms.
Except the Supreme Court is literally making decisions based on interpretation. There is no specific mention of concealed carry in the Constitution. There no specific mention of an individuals right to bear arms outside of a "well regulated militia." You can easily look up what constitutes a "well regulated militia" when the amendment was written and what arms were available. Again, the Supreme Court had/has to interpret what the 2nd amendment covers. They can decide 5 year olds are allowed to carry assault rifles because "right to bear arms." Interpretations are continually being made because the Constitution is far from "pretty clear." Even the framers knew it wasn't perfect and would need to be changed/ratified over time. Thus the amendments. All this ruling does is further cede absolutism to the 2nd amendment.
Of course there is no mention of abortion in a document written in 1787 by 55 men. That would be silly. Claiming abortion is covered by the 10th amendment is simply an interpretation as well. That doesn't mean it's correct. The 10th amendment states "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."
Why not delegate abortion to the people? Meaning the decision should be between the people directly involved in the decision to abort. You know the mother/father and healthcare provider? Its none of your or my fucking business. (pardon my language). I doubt that 10th amendment was written to handle healthcare decisions for women. The government, state and federal, just need to keep their grubby little oppressive hands off women's reproductive rights.
An oligarchy of robed aristocrats now rules our country. Sad day indeed.
-
Instead of running away from the issue, perhaps this is the best time for those here who are interested to look for ways to make a meaningful difference. Local government is the incubator for a lot of the attitudes that enable these things to occur at the national level.
Are you going to move to a red state to do it (perhaps you already have)? Because the Senate (and electoral college) is the linchpin.
But you can actually run away and contribute at the same time. US citizens living abroad still get to vote and contribute money to political campaigns.
I'm done giving money to politicians. From now on my money goes directly to help people with things like housing/food/abortion.
For the time being, no. But what I am going to do is become more outwardly vocal against the disturbingly large amount of Christian nationalists in this area. One county over is the home of a Christian nationalist who happens to be the republican nominee for governor.
What this means for my family, I don't know. My SIL is in favor of enshrining a "memorial day for the unborn" to commemorate today's date.
Well, wait a few years, and she can also create some memorials to actual adult female people who did because of this. Have a look at Poland, for a view of the future.
Oh, wait, that's if she were going to pretend that the lives of actual adult female people mattered. Which, obviously, they do not.
-
The rulings on Roe v Wade and conceal carry are both constitutionally correct.
They aren't outlawing abortion -- they are leaving it up to the states. This is constitutionally correct according to the 10th amendment.
Meanwhile -- the right to bear arms shall not be infringed is specifically spelled out in the constitution. According to the supremacy clause states can't infringe upon that right.
No, they’re not “correct,” although they’re within the plausible range of discretionary outcomes that a court could reach when you accept that they’re applying some discretion to reflect their political views.
-
Sure, for originalists, which is a stupid approach in 2022.
There's no interpretation to be made -- the Constitution doesn't even mention abortion and is pretty clear about the right to bear arms.
Let’s not forget that despite the nonsense that was “Heller,” the word “regulated” is right there in the 2nd Amendment.
I think it’s harder to have a strong view on a federal right to an abortion, but I expect the most conservative states will overreach with their own legislation and there will be decades of ongoing dispute anyway.
-
Sure, for originalists, which is a stupid approach in 2022.
There's no interpretation to be made -- the Constitution doesn't even mention abortion and is pretty clear about the right to bear arms.
Let’s not forget that despite the nonsense that was “Heller,” the word “regulated” is right there in the 2nd Amendment.
I think it’s harder to have a strong view on a federal right to an abortion, but I expect the most conservative states will overreach with their own legislation and there will be decades of ongoing dispute anyway.
I think it's pretty clear that the 13th Amendment outlaws "involuntary servitude" and there is a long and inglorious history of enslaved women being forced to bear children which it clearly encompassed.
-
Clarence Thomas, concurring opinion in Dobbs:
For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents,
And “Loving v. Virginia”?
And the cheek of citing his own concurring opinion styled as authority!
-
Sure, for originalists, which is a stupid approach in 2022.
There's no interpretation to be made -- the Constitution doesn't even mention abortion and is pretty clear about the right to bear arms.
Let’s not forget that despite the nonsense that was “Heller,” the word “regulated” is right there in the 2nd Amendment.
I think it’s harder to have a strong view on a federal right to an abortion, but I expect the most conservative states will overreach with their own legislation and there will be decades of ongoing dispute anyway.
I think it's pretty clear that the 13th Amendment outlaws "involuntary servitude" and there is a long and inglorious history of enslaved women being forced to bear children which it clearly encompassed.
I’m not saying people can’t argue it, but the idea that the current court would fee compelled to find a right to abortion in the 13th Amendment seems far-fetched.
-
Sure, for originalists, which is a stupid approach in 2022.
There's no interpretation to be made -- the Constitution doesn't even mention abortion and is pretty clear about the right to bear arms.
Let’s not forget that despite the nonsense that was “Heller,” the word “regulated” is right there in the 2nd Amendment.
I think it’s harder to have a strong view on a federal right to an abortion, but I expect the most conservative states will overreach with their own legislation and there will be decades of ongoing dispute anyway.
I think it's pretty clear that the 13th Amendment outlaws "involuntary servitude" and there is a long and inglorious history of enslaved women being forced to bear children which it clearly encompassed.
I’m not saying people can’t argue it, but the idea that the current court would fee compelled to find a right to abortion in the 13th Amendment seems far-fetched.
It's clear that the majority on the current Court will find its ideological ideal answer first and then write any old nonsense (from 17th century witch burners onwards) to fill out the space in their opinion. They are wrong and their names will become a hissing and a byword down the centuries.
-
Sounds to me like the US needs a Lysistrata revolution.
And maybe remind men that the reason the sexual revolution happened was that women finally had reliable safe birth control? Without that, you keep your little swimmers away from us. No sex without a wedding ring, and no sex a lot of the time even in marriage if you don't want more kids. No living together before marriage, for the same reason. Because that is where we were for a very long time, for good reason.
I grew up in the 50s and was around for the sexual revolution - believe me, it was a big deal. Because before that, guys, if you got your girlfriend pregnant you had just proposed, and the wedding was going to be super soon, before she started showing. Remember the old saying that brides can make a baby in 7 months, everyone else takes 9? And believe me, people did the counting. And I know couples just a few years older than I am who "had" to get married. And you are in the US, where Daddy and his shotgun can really enforce things.
Not married but pregnant, then you have a case of "rheumatic" (romantic) fever and go stay with a distant relative while you recover, and your baby goes up for adoption. Wealthy families had daughters go to Europe.
Believe me, women who have any sense are going to revert to the old morality pretty fast, because it protected them.
And let's not get started on illegal abortions, just go watch some of the episodes of "Call the midwife".
I am so mad on my American sisters behalf.
But in this instance, like so many others, the outspoken conservatives can have it both ways; they can express their strong conviction about the sanctity of all human life (other than as regards the death penalty) at home, knowing the blue states are there to bail them out. It’s just like relying on the blue states to pay for everything and serve as cauldrons of ingenuity.
-
Sure, for originalists, which is a stupid approach in 2022.
For what it's worth the concept of "originalism" has always made sense to me. A law says what it says. Its meaning should only change when it is explicitly amended. Where ambiguity exists, it seems reasonable to try and use your understanding of the original intent behind the law to resolve that ambiguity.
There’s a concept of originalism and then there’s the application of something quite different under its name. Modern political conservatives are quick to discard a text itself if it doesn’t suit their purpose (e.g., the introduction to the 2nd Amendment) and then to move onto an entirely speculative assessment of what a legislature “would have thought” about a situation that would have been pure science fiction at the time. The presumption that the framers’ intent regarding a narrow issue—formed in in a context that, as far as I’ve been able to uncover, did not include recurring unprovoked school shootings and similar events—can even be meaningfully understood as relevant is absurd. The idea that their specific intent on that issue alone, at that time, should be given primacy above the foundational intent of seeking to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, [and] promote the general Welfare” is just disingenuous.
My personal opinion is that the majority of vocal “originalists” are willing to twist it to be a tool to justify their preferred outcomes, and rarely find an instance where the “intent” they uncover doesn’t just support their demand.
-
There's no interpretation to be made -- the Constitution doesn't even mention abortion and is pretty clear about the right to bear arms.
Let’s not forget that despite the nonsense that was “Heller,” the word “regulated” is right there in the 2nd Amendment.
Well, the 2A is one case where the vagueness (is that a word?) of English really lets us down. Perhaps it was even done on purpose?
The "well regulated" clause can easily be read to mean "bearing arms specifically for the purpose of the militia shall not be infringed" or it can equally well be read as "because well regulated militias are so important that the individual right to bear arms shall not be infringed". And the reader will always read it the way that they personally want it to be read.
-
There's no interpretation to be made -- the Constitution doesn't even mention abortion and is pretty clear about the right to bear arms.
Let’s not forget that despite the nonsense that was “Heller,” the word “regulated” is right there in the 2nd Amendment.
Well, the 2A is one case where the vagueness (is that a word?) of English really lets us down. Perhaps it was even done on purpose?
The "well regulated" clause can easily be read to mean "bearing arms specifically for the purpose of the militia shall not be infringed" or it can equally well be read as "because well regulated militias are so important that the individual right to bear arms shall not be infringed". And the reader will always read it the way that they personally want it to be read.
Yes, it’s hard to believe that anyone claims there’s “no interpretation to be made” of the second amendment. Of course, both of your suggestions have a nexus to a “well-regulated militia,” which was entirely read out of the amendment by people who’d spent decades pointing to the primacy of text, and then intent.
-
Saying the quiet part out loud yet again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAvFfrYA2LM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAvFfrYA2LM)
-
There's no interpretation to be made -- the Constitution doesn't even mention abortion and is pretty clear about the right to bear arms.
Let’s not forget that despite the nonsense that was “Heller,” the word “regulated” is right there in the 2nd Amendment.
Well, the 2A is one case where the vagueness (is that a word?) of English really lets us down. Perhaps it was even done on purpose?
The "well regulated" clause can easily be read to mean "bearing arms specifically for the purpose of the militia shall not be infringed" or it can equally well be read as "because well regulated militias are so important that the individual right to bear arms shall not be infringed". And the reader will always read it the way that they personally want it to be read.
Yes, it’s hard to believe that anyone claims there’s “no interpretation to be made” of the second amendment. Of course, both of your suggestions have a nexus to a “well-regulated militia,” which was entirely read out of the amendment by people who’d spent decades pointing to the primacy of text, and then intent.
Just like their selective reading of their other supposedly sacred text, the Christian bible.
-
Is carrying a concealed weapon in a packed park with a bunch of kids during the day what the founders had in mind as a "right to keep and bear arms"?
-
Of course there is no mention of abortion in a document written in 1787 by 55 men. That would be silly.
^this^
And the reason it's silly is because men don't think of those things.
It's the same reason Padme didn't know she was having twins - because the man who wrote the story didn't think about pregnancy, technology, or ultrasounds.
It's the same reason the first version of the Apple iOS HealthKit thingie didn't have a period tracker - because the men who wrote it didn't care about menstruation and fertility.
The constitution doesn't mention abortion or birth control was the same reason it didn't end slavery - because the guys who wrote thought of women and black people as property.
And if all of the U.S. would think about that for a moment, you'd realize people who treat women and black people like property probably aren't a font of eternal, perfect wisdom that you have to treat like some kind of sacred text.
Toque.
-
The rulings on Roe v Wade and conceal carry are both constitutionally correct.
They aren't outlawing abortion -- they are leaving it up to the states. This is constitutionally correct according to the 10th amendment.
Meanwhile -- the right to bear arms shall not be infringed is specifically spelled out in the constitution. According to the supremacy clause states can't infringe upon that right.
Except that you're infringing on a woman's right to bodily autonomy.
However, as the founding fathers were a bunch of racist, slaving misogynists who regarded women as property, I kind of have to agree with you that we're sticking with the original intent of the Framers.
I just think that keeping slaves and women as broodmares is morally wrong, even if it is constitutionally correct.
-
Let’s not forget that despite the nonsense that was “Heller,” the word “regulated” is right there in the 2nd Amendment.
The 2nd Amendment is certainly written in a confusing fashion. There is certainly an individual right or it would say "the state" and not "the people." But what is the individual right? Is it to keep and bear arms or is it to participate in a well regulated militia?
1. Operative Clause.
a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of
the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.”
The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights
use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the
First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in
the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The
Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The
enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by
the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously
refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights
that may be exercised only through participation in some
corporate body. - DC v Heller
It defies logic and reason to think that the founders meant the people in the first amendment but the state in the second.
Along those lines, in the time of the founders starting a militia meant hanging out with your buddies at the pub.
-
Of course there is no mention of abortion in a document written in 1787 by 55 men. That would be silly.
^this^
And the reason it's silly is because men don't think of those things.
It's the same reason Padme didn't know she was having twins - because the man who wrote the story didn't think about pregnancy, technology, or ultrasounds.
It's the same reason the first version of the Apple iOS HealthKit thingie didn't have a period tracker - because the men who wrote it didn't care about menstruation and fertility.
The constitution doesn't mention abortion or birth control was the same reason it didn't end slavery - because the guys who wrote thought of women and black people as property.
And if all of the U.S. would think about that for a moment, you'd realize people who treat women and black people like property probably aren't a font of eternal, perfect wisdom that you have to treat like some kind of sacred text.
Toque.
Related to this comment (but a tangent for the thread), Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men
by Caroline Criado Perez is a great book that looks at how this affects women and men all over the world.
-
In all seriousness if you are on this forum you can probably relocate out of the USA. I would give that some serious thought, personally.
Legally bound to a red state; not financially secure enough to emigrate. And anyway, retreat isn't how we win.
If you are in a red state you can potentially make a difference. I'm not at all convinced that one more blue state voter in a blue state will do anything. If that legally bound is about your divorce I am very sorry. My blue state lawyer says that isn't a thing here.
At the very least, us blue-staters can hold the line in Congress against any future Federal bans (because you know the Republican party will try), advocate for Supreme Court reform, and provide abortion resources to as many red state people as we can. That's not nothing.
But given that the Uniformed And Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (https://www.justice.gov/crt/uniformed-and-overseas-citizens-absentee-voting-act) allows me to vote for federal offices while living abroad, why do I need to be physically in the USA to do that? How often do you go to brunch with candidates for federal office? By all means live wherever you want to. Be that a blue state, red state, or overseas.
-
In all seriousness if you are on this forum you can probably relocate out of the USA. I would give that some serious thought, personally.
Believe me, it's been on our conversational menu since TFG was elected. We're (morbidly) waiting for the parents to die first.
-
I'm done giving money to politicians. From now on my money goes directly to help people with things like housing/food/abortion.
This has been my strategy for the past 2 decades. I driven far more change in people's lives by giving directly to local people in need than a drop in the bucket donation to a politician who's only going to do what keeps them in office.
Hopefully others have the same revelation that you can do better by giving directly to those in need (but please don't enable bad behavior).
-
Let’s not forget that despite the nonsense that was “Heller,” the word “regulated” is right there in the 2nd Amendment.
The 2nd Amendment is certainly written in a confusing fashion. There is certainly an individual right or it would say "the state" and not "the people." But what is the individual right? Is it to keep and bear arms or is it to participate in a well regulated militia?
1. Operative Clause.
a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of
the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.”
The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights
use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the
First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in
the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The
Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The
enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by
the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously
refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights
that may be exercised only through participation in some
corporate body. - DC v Heller
It defies logic and reason to think that the founders meant the people in the first amendment but the state in the second.
Along those lines, in the time of the founders starting a militia meant hanging out with your buddies at the pub.
I agree that the federal government was meant (and is meant) to be restricted from infringing on the right to bear arms. Saying that the 2nd amendment prohibits a state from regulating arms, though, is a nonsensical application of the incorporation doctrine.
When the founders wrote the bill of rights, they limited the power of the federal government, not the state governments. The expanded application of those rights against the states grew from the adoption and subsequent interpretation of the 14th and 15th amendments, generations later.
Article II of the constitution specifically acknowledges that the militia was “the Militia of the several states”. The states were exactly the source of regulation imposed on the “well regulated” militias of the founders’ day.
Asserting the 2nd amendment against the states in the “full incorporation” model makes no sense. It ignores both the text of the 2nd amendment and the founders’ understanding of how militias operated.
-
Maybe it's time for the federal government to stop transferring large chunks of money from Blue states to Red states.
-
Let’s not forget that despite the nonsense that was “Heller,” the word “regulated” is right there in the 2nd Amendment.
The 2nd Amendment is certainly written in a confusing fashion. There is certainly an individual right or it would say "the state" and not "the people." But what is the individual right? Is it to keep and bear arms or is it to participate in a well regulated militia?
1. Operative Clause.
a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of
the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.”
The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights
use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the
First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in
the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The
Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The
enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by
the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously
refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights
that may be exercised only through participation in some
corporate body. - DC v Heller
It defies logic and reason to think that the founders meant the people in the first amendment but the state in the second.
Along those lines, in the time of the founders starting a militia meant hanging out with your buddies at the pub.
I agree that the federal government was meant (and is meant) to be restricted from infringing on the right to bear arms. Saying that the 2nd amendment prohibits a state from regulating arms, though, is a nonsensical application of the incorporation doctrine.
When the founders wrote the bill of rights, they limited the power of the federal government, not the state governments. The expanded application of those rights against the states grew from the adoption and subsequent interpretation of the 14th and 15th amendments, generations later.
Article II of the constitution specifically acknowledges that the militia was “the Militia of the several states”. The states were exactly the source of regulation imposed on the “well regulated” militias of the founders’ day.
Asserting the 2nd amendment against the states in the “full incorporation” model makes no sense. It ignores both the text of the 2nd amendment and the founders’ understanding of how militias operated.
They certainly understood that militias were great at keeping slave revolts in check. Heck plantation owners themselves were a huge percentage of gun owners.
-
Maybe it's time for the federal government to stop transferring large chunks of money from Blue states to Red states.
Without the blue states to pay for everything and provide a place for Republican congressmen to send their girlfriends for abortions, the whole thing falls apart.
-
So. In terms of realpolitik: Will the Democrats attempt to expand the supreme court by adding less... biased... justices? And do they need success in the midterm election to do so?
The alternative seems to be a steady regression to the 1950s.
Packing the court is unlikely to succeed. FDR tried it when Republican-balked justices balked at various New Deal packages, but got (rightly) shot down (despite his huge popularity and the packages' relative popularity). Zero chance that'd succeed now. We're just stuck with the looney tunes court until someone retires / dies.
As a minority and liberal, I can suggest that not all the states pushing these policies really came out of the 1950s culturally, but for sure they're wanting to stay there. I don't really understand Christianity but it seems they think that the Prophet Jesus tells them to worship the 2nd amendment and taking over the world with kids.
If packing the court is out, then there's no solution to the current extreme misrepresentation right? Everything that I've read says that imposing term limits is equally unlikely.
It seems like it's going to be this way, and they'll keep rolling out these bullshit decisions for another 20-30 years at least unless they're assassinated. (In which case Republicans will just refuse to allow the Democrats to appoint new SC justices anyway . . . so even that wouldn't be a solution.)
Is there really no way out?
-
It might be politically feasible to recover the stolen seat, but that only shifts the court slightly.
I hope the answer is “legislation” because the alternative is what the extreme right has been pushing for- and that fight would be EXTREMELY bloody.
-
So. In terms of realpolitik: Will the Democrats attempt to expand the supreme court by adding less... biased... justices? And do they need success in the midterm election to do so?
The alternative seems to be a steady regression to the 1950s.
Packing the court is unlikely to succeed. FDR tried it when Republican-balked justices balked at various New Deal packages, but got (rightly) shot down (despite his huge popularity and the packages' relative popularity). Zero chance that'd succeed now. We're just stuck with the looney tunes court until someone retires / dies.
As a minority and liberal, I can suggest that not all the states pushing these policies really came out of the 1950s culturally, but for sure they're wanting to stay there. I don't really understand Christianity but it seems they think that the Prophet Jesus tells them to worship the 2nd amendment and taking over the world with kids.
If packing the court is out, then there's no solution to the current extreme misrepresentation right? Everything that I've read says that imposing term limits is equally unlikely.
It seems like it's going to be this way, and they'll keep rolling out these bullshit decisions for another 20-30 years at least unless they're assassinated. (In which case Republicans will just refuse to allow the Democrats to appoint new SC justices anyway . . . so even that wouldn't be a solution.)
Is there really no way out?
The US has bigger problems than a partisan supreme court. Now that Trump and his band of seditionists have started the trend, they have to worry about peaceful transfer of power in the mid-term election this year. And in future elections.
-
Maybe it's time for the federal government to stop transferring large chunks of money from Blue states to Red states.
Paying for that disaster from overseas is even more depressing.
-
Neither party has had a filibuster-proof majority since 1979. Willingness to compromise has been weaponized against moderate politicians, some of which have been primaried right out of their jobs. It doesn't seem likely that legislation will pass to codify Roe, nor will there be sweeping changes to the Supreme Court.
Citizens United (2010) and Shelby (2013) started an extreme erosion of our political system that we have not recovered from, essentially allowing limitless amounts of money to pour into elections and states to disenfranchise voters with no fear of oversight or accountability. These two rulings in my opinion were the most damaging of our generation, and really paved the way for what we are experiencing today.
Leaving the US is like lottery talk in our house, imagining how wonderful life might be elsewhere - where we'd go, who we'd meet, what we'd learn. The reality of it is, the more reasonable-minded people leave this country, the more resources and power we leave in the hands of extremists, and that is an incredibly dangerous proposition globally. We always used to think "we can just leave if we want" and now it's starting to feel like a duty to stay, and I'm privileged that I made it past 40 without having to think in those terms.
-
Leaving the US is like lottery talk in our house, imagining how wonderful life might be elsewhere - where we'd go, who we'd meet, what we'd learn. The reality of it is, the more reasonable-minded people leave this country, the more resources and power we leave in the hands of extremists, and that is an incredibly dangerous proposition globally. We always used to think "we can just leave if we want" and now it's starting to feel like a duty to stay, and I'm privileged that I made it past 40 without having to think in those terms.
I understand what you’re saying, but my higher priority was to give my kids a real option to live elsewhere (not just the legal right, which they already had, but the cultural integration that makes it a real option). And where we’ve gone, who we’ve met, what we’ve learned—all that—has all been great.
-
Is carrying a concealed weapon in a packed park with a bunch of kids during the day what the founders had in mind as a "right to keep and bear arms"?
They certainly didn’t envision any moron being able to shoot anyone for any reason and have any chance of getting away with it.
-
Neither party has had a filibuster-proof majority since 1979. Willingness to compromise has been weaponized against moderate politicians, some of which have been primaried right out of their jobs. It doesn't seem likely that legislation will pass to codify Roe, nor will there be sweeping changes to the Supreme Court.
Incorrect. the 111th congress, from 2009-2011 the Dems had a supermajority and had a 58 (plus 2 independents that caucused with Dems) to 40 GOP filibuster proof majority. That is how they passed ACA (without reading it).
-
I understand what you’re saying, but my higher priority was to give my kids a real option to live elsewhere (not just the legal right, which they already had, but the cultural integration that makes it a real option). And where we’ve gone, who we’ve met, what we’ve learned—all that—has all been great.
Totally makes sense. We are childless so we're just signing ourselves up for a ride on the suffer-bus.
-
Maybe it's time for the federal government to stop transferring large chunks of money from Blue states to Red states.
Paying for that disaster from overseas is even more depressing.
I do not envision a future where I would have to pay for any of that from overseas. Between the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion, Foreign Tax Credit, and various tax treaties I think that I'll be set. But I'm probably stuck here for another eight years (that was always my plan, not new due to recent political events).
What is new is my co-parent calling me up at random to try to figure out if there are any options where we could get all of our kids plus her new husband.
-
Can't you guys host referendums? I mean we hear so much about the majority of Americans (being that blue states are populous, etc) - can't you just vote directly to amend the constitution?
-
Can't you guys host referendums? I mean we hear so much about the majority of Americans (being that blue states are populous, etc) - can't you just vote directly to amend the constitution?
No, the USA isn't a democracy. What do you think this is, Ireland?
-
What's amazing is that every complaint that I'm seeing here is exactly the reverse complaint from the other side. You can almost just swap the words 'Republican' and 'Democrat' and everything else would be the same argument the other side has made for the past 50 years. One side thinks it is 'activist judges' who ruled in RvW and the other side thinks it's 'activist judges' in Dobbs.
Do you want to have nine unelected people make huge decisions that take away the power of our elected representatives? Does that make sense? Isn't that what everyone is complaining about?
The constitution has it's flaws, mostly in that some of it isn't as clear as we would like, but it has served us all very well for almost a quarter of a millennium. Where it totally failed us, we made changes, which the founders knew we would want to do so they outlined a process for doing it. We have one of the longest lasting forms of government in the world. I think we're the oldest stable (that's a subjective term these days) form of government that still exists. That's because our constitution allowed for flexibility and regional differences.
The design of our form of government has roles and responsibilities for each of the 3 branches. The legislature is supposed to make the laws, the courts are supposed to make sure those laws abide by the constitution, and the executive enforces the laws and administers the government.
This has all broken down pretty dramatically with congress refusing to do its job and hoping that they can just make speeches and let the executive try lots of stuff and have courts decide things.
In 1973, seven justices on the Supreme Court decided that they would just imagine that the constitution says something that it doesn't say. Almost all legal scholars, of every political stripe, agree that the ruling in RvW in 1973 had no basis in the constitution- even RBG made this point. They decided to take away the democratic rights of all citizens to have laws drafted and passed by their elected representatives. Casey in the 1990's didn't even try to reconcile RvW with the constitution but rather relied on stari decisisand yet another made up concept of undue burden to try to square the circle. But that just invited more and more challenges because it isn't based in the constitution or in logic.
RvW has poisoned our politics for the past half century. The nomination process of Justices would not be the complete $hit show it has been since the 80s but for RvW.
The Dobbs ruling was about restoring the proper role of the court and putting responsibility for legislating back in the legislature where you can vote for or against the people based on their views on issues important to you.
Some will say 'but what about guns!' and the answer is, the constitution actually does mention guns. You may disagree with it, or with how it's interpreted, but we still have to contend with the fact that it is in there and you can't just ignore it.
I realize that almost everyone thinks abortion is a hugely important issue, whichever side you're on, and I realize that for those in the pro-choice camp, this is a defeat because it means you have to make your case with the voters and your representatives rather than just saying it's a constitutional right. But the fact is, it isn't a constitutional right. Maybe it should be, but it isn't. There is almost no disagreement about this! The argument from the pro-choice side is just based on how long RvW has been on the books, not about whether it was actually the correct decision based on the law.
The constitution has nothing to say about abortion. The judges are therefore correct to remove the court from that decision, neither pro- nor anti- choice. That's up to your democratically elected representatives. Keep the court out of it, thank you.
Ultimately, the majority of Americans are in the middle on the issue of abortion. Had the abortion industry not been constantly pushing the envelope and rubbing people's noses in it for decades, this might be something that went unchallenged. If we could've agreed on more reasonable restrictions and stopped with the absolutist barbarism of things like 'partial birth' and other very late stage abortions maybe we could all have gotten along. Maybe it could have been something that was reasonably available, safe, and rare. And not talked about all the time. Hopefully that's how it will be in the future.
I see people in this thread saying they want to move to Europe to get away from the supposed dystopian nightmare over here. OK, but how does that make sense? You realize that in France and most of Europe the abortion laws (laws, not constitutional rights!) are more restrictive than the Mississippi law that started this case? In France, until 2022 the limit was 12 weeks and now they've made it 14 weeks. That's still more restrictive than the 15 weeks in the Mississippi law! Your average European would think us completely barbaric in the way we allow(ed) on-demand at-any-time until the head crowns abortion.
I realize that no one can ever convince the other team to change their minds. There are two immutable points of view that simply cannot be reconciled. One side thinks the sovereignty of a person over their body is paramount. The other side thinks that there is a second person involved and that their interests should be considered, similar to child welfare laws. There is no common agreement about what an abortion actually is - is it simply a medical procedure to remove an unwanted growth, like a tumor, or is it actually taking a human life away? Without agreeing about the fundamental nature of the act itself, we can never agree on how or if it should be regulated. Democracy is about disagreements. Our constitution outlines how we are supposed to work through those disagreements, which is through our elected representatives at the state and federal level. The Dobbs ruling restores that path for this issue.
-
Almost all legal scholars, of every political stripe, agree that the ruling in RvW in 1973 had no basis in the constitution- even RBG made this point.
Incorrect.
Someone else can address the rest of the gish gallop but RBG did not, in any way, state that Roe had no basis in the Constitution.
Abortion rights were already progressing and she wished that, instead of the Justices declaring abortion legal everywhere, the state legislatures could've made their decisions gradually in order to "reduce rather than to fuel controversy."
In the 12/1992 NYU Law Review, Ginsburg wrote,
A less encompassing Roe, one that merely struck down the extreme Texas law and went no further on that day, I believe and will summarize why, might have served to reduce rather than to fuel controversy.
She continues by stating that Planned Parenthood was a better decision because it used women's equality rather than privacy but her main complaint about Roe was that it led rather than followed state movements to legalize abortion. There's nowhere in her Law Review article nor in her NYU lecture where she stated that Roe was unconstitutional.
-
I think we're the oldest stable (that's a subjective term these days) form of government that still exists. That's because our constitution allowed for flexibility and regional differences.
I think I'd argue that the UK has the USA beaten on this one, it's at least 200 years longer since we've had a civil war than it has been for the USA, and there are no advances into modernity where the USA constitution has been more flexible than the UK one (and yes, we do have a constitution, and it is written, it's just not codified and entrenched the way the USA one is).
This has all broken down pretty dramatically with congress refusing to do its job and hoping that they can just make speeches and let the executive try lots of stuff and have courts decide things.
This is right, but the question is why has this happened? It's because it's what the USA constitution wanted to happen - it was designed to create gridlock and it has done so. The Supreme Court functions because it has no other option: if a legal question is put to a court the court has to answer it yes or no and there is no scope for the Constitution to stymie this the way it has for Congress.
In 1973, seven justices on the Supreme Court decided that they would just imagine that the constitution says something that it doesn't say. Almost all legal scholars, of every political stripe, agree that the ruling in RvW in 1973 had no basis in the constitution- even RBG made this point. They decided to take away the democratic rights of all citizens to have laws drafted and passed by their elected representatives. Casey in the 1990's didn't even try to reconcile RvW with the constitution but rather relied on stari decisisand yet another made up concept of undue burden to try to square the circle. But that just invited more and more challenges because it isn't based in the constitution or in logic.
RvW has poisoned our politics for the past half century. The nomination process of Justices would not be the complete $hit show it has been since the 80s but for RvW.
I would argue (and I haven't seen anything convincing to the contrary) that it is actually the 13th Amendment, preventing involuntary servitude, that prevents both Federal and State governments from imposing a requirement to continue an unwanted pregnancy. There is a long and horrible history before the 13th Amendment came into force of women in the USA being forced to become pregnant and carry to term against their will, and this was clearly one of the things which the 13th Amendment freed women from. I would like to see that case made to the Supreme Court, I think even the current. Justices would have difficulty being on the side of a strained and narrow interpretation of that Amendment. I'm sure there are Republican (and perhaps even Democrat) elected officials who would have a go at it, but then the USA appears to have elected to office, for whatever reasons, some of the most despicable people on the planet. (Other countries, including the UK, have elected their own set of beauties, of course.)
The Dobbs ruling was about restoring the proper role of the court and putting responsibility for legislating back in the legislature where you can vote for or against the people based on their views on issues important to you.
Apart from being badly argued (relying on the logic of a witch burner, really?) Dobbs is in fact just as much about judicial overreach as any argument about Roe might make it. The better answer for the court would not have been to give power to the States to turn women into slaves it would have been to say that abortion was one of the liberties of the people retained by them as set out in the 9th Amendment which is not to be abridged by eithe Federal or State government. A human right, you might say, along with all the other rights that people have to bodily autonomy that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
I realize that almost everyone thinks abortion is a hugely important issue, whichever side you're on, and I realize that for those in the pro-choice camp, this is a defeat because it means you have to make your case with the voters and your representatives rather than just saying it's a constitutional right. But the fact is, it isn't a constitutional right. Maybe it should be, but it isn't. There is almost no disagreement about this! The argument from the pro-choice side is just based on how long RvW has been on the books, not about whether it was actually the correct decision based on the law.
The constitution has nothing to say about abortion. The judges are therefore correct to remove the court from that decision, neither pro- nor anti- choice. That's up to your democratically elected representatives. Keep the court out of it, thank you.
Ultimately, the majority of Americans are in the middle on the issue of abortion. Had the abortion industry not been constantly pushing the envelope and rubbing people's noses in it for decades, this might be something that went unchallenged. If we could've agreed on more reasonable restrictions and stopped with the absolutist barbarism of things like 'partial birth' and other very late stage abortions maybe we could all have gotten along. Maybe it could have been something that was reasonably available, safe, and rare. And not talked about all the time. Hopefully that's how it will be in the future.
Actually it's the other way around: it's the anti-abortion people who have been fighting to limit abortion rights for the last 50 years and pro-choice people who have been defending their existing rights. And you can call late stage abortions barbarous and I can call maternal death in late stage pregnancy barbarous but in both cases it is nature itself that is the culprit, not the solution. No woman carries a foetus until a late stage without it being wanted and it is only when nature gets something badly wrong that the solution of a late stage abortion is all that is left.
-
The constitution has it's flaws, mostly in that some of it isn't as clear as we would like, but it has served us all very well for almost a quarter of a millennium.
So much to unpack with that post, but I about choked when I read “has served us all very well…”
It has served privileged white straight men very well over that time period (excluding the civil war, and a few other periods of unrest).
It has not served people of color, women, the undocumented, the LGBTQ community or the destitute terribly well. Which is to say it hasn’t served most people who live here.
-
The constitution has it's flaws, mostly in that some of it isn't as clear as we would like, but it has served us all very well for almost a quarter of a millennium.
So much to unpack with that post, but I about choked when I read “has served us all very well…”
It has served privileged white straight men very well over that time period (excluding the civil war, and a few other periods of unrest).
It has not served people of color, women, the undocumented, the LGBTQ community or the destitute terribly well. Which is to say it hasn’t served most people who live here.
Yeah. The 13th amendment isn't 250 years old . . . and when the constitution protected slavery I suspect that there are some black people who would disagree with how well it has served them.
I guess nobody remembers the fugitive slave clause?
-
To anyone defending the decision in Dobbs, one of your number just said the quiet part out loud -
https://twitter.com/McFaul/status/1540858615552036865
-
I think we're the oldest stable (that's a subjective term these days) form of government that still exists. That's because our constitution allowed for flexibility and regional differences.
I think I'd argue that the UK has the USA beaten on this one, it's at least 200 years longer since we've had a civil war than it has been for the USA, and there are no advances into modernity where the USA constitution has been more flexible than the UK one (and yes, we do have a constitution, and it is written, it's just not codified and entrenched the way the USA one is).
The Parliamentary system is working quite well for us as well, not perfect, but pretty good.
The US had a bloody Civil War, we had a referendum on Québec séparation. The only lives lost were from the actions of the violent splinter group the FLQ.
-
I think we're the oldest stable (that's a subjective term these days) form of government that still exists. That's because our constitution allowed for flexibility and regional differences.
I think I'd argue that the UK has the USA beaten on this one, it's at least 200 years longer since we've had a civil war than it has been for the USA, and there are no advances into modernity where the USA constitution has been more flexible than the UK one (and yes, we do have a constitution, and it is written, it's just not codified and entrenched the way the USA one is).
The Parliamentary system is working quite well for us as well, not perfect, but pretty good.
The US had a bloody Civil War, we had a referendum on Québec séparation. The only lives lost were from the actions of the violent splinter group the FLQ.
Strictly speaking England had a civil war in 17th century about parliament.
-
It's pretty clear that the US was created by the landed rich (i.e. founding fathers) to protect their economic interests against the British Monarch. Most efforts from Independence through the apartheid were meant to preserve the landed (and then the industrial) rich against populist efforts. A few notable exceptions made the country tolerable for the unprivileged, but these rights are routinely trampled when they threaten the status quo. This is not unique to the US, however.
What is unique about the US compared to most other countries is that this privilege is not strictly hereditary - people (generally white men) can rise into privilege without the overthrow of an existing nobleman. This is a useful propaganda tool to cow the masses that would otherwise oppose an oligarchic society. Convince the uneducated poor that they could one day join the nobility, and use the idea that "others" are benefiting from government largesse to turn them on their fellow poor.
It seems pretty clear that "Originalists" want to return to a semi-feudal system wherein states (run by an aristocracy a la pre-Civil War South) exert significant authority over the commoners (of all races and genders) within their borders, with little interference from other (liberal) states and especially the federal government, which they see as full of meddling bureaucrats that are fighting for this authority. Why else are "states rights" so important? Why are states, which often have little ethnic stability to justify their self-governance and little distinction in cultures (no Quebecs here) the fundamental unit of government for right-wingers? Because they supercede the authority of (liberal) population centers while benefiting from the taxation of these centers. Texas is a good example of this hypocritical championing of "states rights" because it's "closer to the people" while trying to stop individual cities from exercising similar rights. If their concern is decentralization of power to allow for a more democratic society, then they should be for the latter. Their concern is decentralization of power away from checks and balances protecting unprivileged people, not decentralization as a democratic goal unto itself.
-
Tempus, I am not a lawyer so hopefully someone like that will chime in, but even I can see a lot of your assertions are not based in fact. The constitution is not the only basis of law in this land. There are also federal and state laws. What law is built by both written, legal law, and equally important case law and precedent. The constitution was never supposed to be the beginning and end to US law, though it is an important framework and guide. That is why it was so important, qualification, that justices state they will support precedence and case law. So yes it IS a big deal that the supreme law of the land, just threw out and nullified 50 years of case law. Doesn't just have implications for pregnant women, but anyone who has rights and protections determined by previous court rulings. Expansion of protections and rights, is a normal course and evolution of case law, esp given that the constitution was written by white male landed gentry, many whom owned slaves. We don't live in biblical times, we don't live 250 years ago. And as far as your interpretation that all these judges are just making a correction, because it goes beyond the constitution "because abortion is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution" how do you explain conservative "originalist" judges ruling that corporations are people?The framers of the constitution and bill of rights feared the power of corporations and spoke of the need to limit their power. Citizens united granted corporations power, particularly power over elections, that is never mentioned, and specifically warned against by the framers. Laws are meant to be "just" they are meant to allow, despite vast differences in power, opportunity, wealth, that people are treated the same under the law. That the supreme law of the land instead, is giving more rights to the powerful (through proxies like corporations) while removing and weakening the rights of private citizens, has broken my trust, in the system itself. https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/local/article/Angela-Carella-Founding-fathers-worried-about-3628729.php
-
What's amazing is that every complaint that I'm seeing here is exactly the reverse complaint from the other side. You can almost just swap the words 'Republican' and 'Democrat' and everything else would be the same argument the other side has made for the past 50 years. One side thinks it is 'activist judges' who ruled in RvW and the other side thinks it's 'activist judges' in Dobbs.
Actually, claims of an activist Democrat-appointed Supreme Court are hard to support. The composition of the majority in the Roe v. Wade decision was mostly Republican-appointed justices; in fact, even without Marshall and Douglas, the five Republican-appointed justices that joined the majority would have been sufficient! Even the Obergefell (same-sex marriage) decision was authored by a Reagan-appointed Justice. While it may be that anger over partisan rulings this week is “exactly the reverse *complaint*” of one Republicans had, that complaint was completely unjustified on Republicans’ part.
Individual decisions aside, the structural activism of this Court—jettisoning precedent and threatening more—is unrivaled. Thomas’s unexamined reliance on the 14th amendment in the Bruen (NY gun permit) case while trashing it as a source of restrictions against states for any other personal liberty (in his concurring opinion in the Dobbs (abortion) case) is preposterously selective (and as I explained on the prior page, it’s nonsense to use the 14th amendment to apply the 2nd amendment to restrict *the states* in the first place).
-
What's amazing is that every complaint that I'm seeing here is exactly the reverse complaint from the other side. You can almost just swap the words 'Republican' and 'Democrat' and everything else would be the same argument the other side has made for the past 50 years. One side thinks it is 'activist judges' who ruled in RvW and the other side thinks it's 'activist judges' in Dobbs.
Actually, claims of an activist Democrat-appointed Supreme Court are hard to support. The composition of the majority in the Roe v. Wade decision was mostly Republican-appointed justices; in fact, even without Marshall and Douglas, the five Republican-appointed justices that joined the majority would have been sufficient! Even the Obergefell (same-sex marriage) decision was authored by a Reagan-appointed Justice. While it may be that anger over partisan rulings this week is “exactly the reverse *complaint*” of one Republicans had, that complaint was completely unjustified on Republicans’ part.
Yea, because that was when the Republicans used to care about privacy from government overreach.
-
I would argue (and I haven't seen anything convincing to the contrary) that it is actually the 13th Amendment, preventing involuntary servitude, that prevents both Federal and State governments from imposing a requirement to continue an unwanted pregnancy. There is a long and horrible history before the 13th Amendment came into force of women in the USA being forced to become pregnant and carry to term against their will, and this was clearly one of the things which the 13th Amendment freed women from. I would like to see that case made to the Supreme Court, I think even the current. Justices would have difficulty being on the side of a strained and narrow interpretation of that Amendment. I'm sure there are Republican (and perhaps even Democrat) elected officials who would have a go at it, but then the USA appears to have elected to office, for whatever reasons, some of the most despicable people on the planet. (Other countries, including the UK, have elected their own set of beauties, of course.)
I think every state should afford a broad right to abortion, but I think this 13th amendment argument is unpromising as a general basis for finding a right to abortion (and sort of offensive as a comparison to the horror of slavery). If you mean that a woman who is raped should always have a right to an abortion, because to prohibit it is involuntary servitude, I could see that, but to compare an unwanted pregnancy that results from consensual sex to slavery just doesn’t seem honest. Many choices carry a risk of unwanted effects, but losing the gamble doesn’t make those responsibilities “involuntary.”
-
The company I work for has a clause that restricts work for companies domiciled in countries that fail to meet a minimum standard of human rights. That clause has now triggered for any company based in the US. Interesting times...
-
I see people in this thread saying they want to move to Europe to get away from the supposed dystopian nightmare over here. OK, but how does that make sense? You realize that in France and most of Europe the abortion laws (laws, not constitutional rights!) are more restrictive than the Mississippi law that started this case? In France, until 2022 the limit was 12 weeks and now they've made it 14 weeks. That's still more restrictive than the 15 weeks in the Mississippi law! Your average European would think us completely barbaric in the way we allow(ed) on-demand at-any-time until the head crowns abortion.
I’m not French, but live in another European country with a similar law and similar healthcare system. It turns out that if you make abortion free and readily available (at a range of facilities, with widespread, convenient access, which, by the way, are never surrounded by protesters), women who want an abortion can and do get them earlier. I don’t know about France, but our law also allows later abortion for a range of special justifications.
Your comparison of a single factor without acknowledging the vastly different systems is essentially useless. Or are you subtly suggesting that abortion foes really want universal healthcare?
Access to birth control and public day care and education is also relevant.
-
I would argue (and I haven't seen anything convincing to the contrary) that it is actually the 13th Amendment, preventing involuntary servitude, that prevents both Federal and State governments from imposing a requirement to continue an unwanted pregnancy. There is a long and horrible history before the 13th Amendment came into force of women in the USA being forced to become pregnant and carry to term against their will, and this was clearly one of the things which the 13th Amendment freed women from. I would like to see that case made to the Supreme Court, I think even the current. Justices would have difficulty being on the side of a strained and narrow interpretation of that Amendment. I'm sure there are Republican (and perhaps even Democrat) elected officials who would have a go at it, but then the USA appears to have elected to office, for whatever reasons, some of the most despicable people on the planet. (Other countries, including the UK, have elected their own set of beauties, of course.)
I think every state should afford a broad right to abortion, but I think this 13th amendment argument is unpromising as a general basis for finding a right to abortion (and sort of offensive as a comparison to the horror of slavery). If you mean that a woman who is raped should always have a right to an abortion, because to prohibit it is involuntary servitude, I could see that, but to compare an unwanted pregnancy that results from consensual sex to slavery just doesn’t seem honest. Many choices carry a risk of unwanted effects, but losing the gamble doesn’t make those responsibilities “involuntary.”
Slavery included making enslaved women bear children. The horror of slavery specificaly encompassed generations of women not being given a choice about bearing children. It's the fact of being forced to bear a child which is offensive, not the comparison.
And if you check the case law on involuntary servitude a situation can be entered into voluntarily and become involuntary servitude contrary to the 13th Amendment when circumstances change and it is no longer voluntary.
-
I had this exact thought today about how the 13th amendment should mean abortion prohibition is unconstitutional.
-
I would argue (and I haven't seen anything convincing to the contrary) that it is actually the 13th Amendment, preventing involuntary servitude, that prevents both Federal and State governments from imposing a requirement to continue an unwanted pregnancy. There is a long and horrible history before the 13th Amendment came into force of women in the USA being forced to become pregnant and carry to term against their will, and this was clearly one of the things which the 13th Amendment freed women from. I would like to see that case made to the Supreme Court, I think even the current. Justices would have difficulty being on the side of a strained and narrow interpretation of that Amendment. I'm sure there are Republican (and perhaps even Democrat) elected officials who would have a go at it, but then the USA appears to have elected to office, for whatever reasons, some of the most despicable people on the planet. (Other countries, including the UK, have elected their own set of beauties, of course.)
I think every state should afford a broad right to abortion, but I think this 13th amendment argument is unpromising as a general basis for finding a right to abortion (and sort of offensive as a comparison to the horror of slavery). If you mean that a woman who is raped should always have a right to an abortion, because to prohibit it is involuntary servitude, I could see that, but to compare an unwanted pregnancy that results from consensual sex to slavery just doesn’t seem honest. Many choices carry a risk of unwanted effects, but losing the gamble doesn’t make those responsibilities “involuntary.”
Slavery included making enslaved women bear children. The horror of slavery specificaly encompassed generations of women not being given a choice about bearing children. It's the fact of being forced to bear a child which is offensive, not the comparison.
And if you check the case law on involuntary servitude a situation can be entered into voluntarily and become involuntary servitude contrary to the 13th Amendment when circumstances change and it is no longer voluntary.
What cases do you mean? I’m not against any argument to find the right, but I’ve done pro bono representations where the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act and its peonage/slavery language was relevant, and none of the training seemed to contemplate the circumstances of pregnancy resulting from consensual sex. I’m no expert, but I’m interested.
-
I would argue (and I haven't seen anything convincing to the contrary) that it is actually the 13th Amendment, preventing involuntary servitude, that prevents both Federal and State governments from imposing a requirement to continue an unwanted pregnancy. There is a long and horrible history before the 13th Amendment came into force of women in the USA being forced to become pregnant and carry to term against their will, and this was clearly one of the things which the 13th Amendment freed women from. I would like to see that case made to the Supreme Court, I think even the current. Justices would have difficulty being on the side of a strained and narrow interpretation of that Amendment. I'm sure there are Republican (and perhaps even Democrat) elected officials who would have a go at it, but then the USA appears to have elected to office, for whatever reasons, some of the most despicable people on the planet. (Other countries, including the UK, have elected their own set of beauties, of course.)
I think every state should afford a broad right to abortion, but I think this 13th amendment argument is unpromising as a general basis for finding a right to abortion (and sort of offensive as a comparison to the horror of slavery). If you mean that a woman who is raped should always have a right to an abortion, because to prohibit it is involuntary servitude, I could see that, but to compare an unwanted pregnancy that results from consensual sex to slavery just doesn’t seem honest. Many choices carry a risk of unwanted effects, but losing the gamble doesn’t make those responsibilities “involuntary.”
Slavery included making enslaved women bear children. The horror of slavery specificaly encompassed generations of women not being given a choice about bearing children. It's the fact of being forced to bear a child which is offensive, not the comparison.
And if you check the case law on involuntary servitude a situation can be entered into voluntarily and become involuntary servitude contrary to the 13th Amendment when circumstances change and it is no longer voluntary.
What cases do you mean? I’m not against any argument to find the right, but I’ve done pro bono representations where the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act and its peonage/slavery language was relevant, and none of the training seemed to contemplate the circumstances of pregnancy resulting from consensual sex. I’m no expert, but I’m interested.
The fact that the 13th Amendment hasn't been used to enforce a right to abortion doesn't mean that it shouldn't be, it's the most direct route to bodily autonomy that the Constitution provides. As you say it has been used against sex trafficking, and forced pregnancy is a form of sex trafficking.
-
I think we're the oldest stable (that's a subjective term these days) form of government that still exists. That's because our constitution allowed for flexibility and regional differences.
I think I'd argue that the UK has the USA beaten on this one, it's at least 200 years longer since we've had a civil war than it has been for the USA, and there are no advances into modernity where the USA constitution has been more flexible than the UK one (and yes, we do have a constitution, and it is written, it's just not codified and entrenched the way the USA one is).
The Parliamentary system is working quite well for us as well, not perfect, but pretty good.
The US had a bloody Civil War, we had a referendum on Québec séparation. The only lives lost were from the actions of the violent splinter group the FLQ.
Strictly speaking England had a civil war in 17th century about parliament.
Yes and it was definitely bloody. But Scottish nationalism has not needed a civil war, right? (Yet).
-
I would argue (and I haven't seen anything convincing to the contrary) that it is actually the 13th Amendment, preventing involuntary servitude, that prevents both Federal and State governments from imposing a requirement to continue an unwanted pregnancy. There is a long and horrible history before the 13th Amendment came into force of women in the USA being forced to become pregnant and carry to term against their will, and this was clearly one of the things which the 13th Amendment freed women from. I would like to see that case made to the Supreme Court, I think even the current. Justices would have difficulty being on the side of a strained and narrow interpretation of that Amendment. I'm sure there are Republican (and perhaps even Democrat) elected officials who would have a go at it, but then the USA appears to have elected to office, for whatever reasons, some of the most despicable people on the planet. (Other countries, including the UK, have elected their own set of beauties, of course.)
I think every state should afford a broad right to abortion, but I think this 13th amendment argument is unpromising as a general basis for finding a right to abortion (and sort of offensive as a comparison to the horror of slavery). If you mean that a woman who is raped should always have a right to an abortion, because to prohibit it is involuntary servitude, I could see that, but to compare an unwanted pregnancy that results from consensual sex to slavery just doesn’t seem honest. Many choices carry a risk of unwanted effects, but losing the gamble doesn’t make those responsibilities “involuntary.”
Slavery included making enslaved women bear children. The horror of slavery specificaly encompassed generations of women not being given a choice about bearing children. It's the fact of being forced to bear a child which is offensive, not the comparison.
And if you check the case law on involuntary servitude a situation can be entered into voluntarily and become involuntary servitude contrary to the 13th Amendment when circumstances change and it is no longer voluntary.
What cases do you mean? I’m not against any argument to find the right, but I’ve done pro bono representations where the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act and its peonage/slavery language was relevant, and none of the training seemed to contemplate the circumstances of pregnancy resulting from consensual sex. I’m no expert, but I’m interested.
The fact that the 13th Amendment hasn't been used to enforce a right to abortion doesn't mean that it shouldn't be, it's the most direct route to bodily autonomy that the Constitution provides. As you say it has been used against sex trafficking, and forced pregnancy is a form of sex trafficking.
^ and just like anti-choice activists have used the last 40 years to find cases that have a chance at chipping away at Roe, pro-choice activists will now have to start finding cases to reinstate rights to bodily autonomy, and they'll probably be looking for some that strongly fall under 13th protections.
-
FrugalToque criticized the founding fathers, to which I'd add all of us will be viewed as abominable bigots by some future generation. The blame for slavery didn't start in the 1700s - Europe had slavery for a thousand years before the U.S. existed.
"Slavery, or the process of restricting peoples’ freedoms, was widespread within Medieval Europe. Europe and the Mediterranean world were part of a highly interconnected network of slave trading. Throughout Europe, wartime captives were commonly forced into slavery."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_medieval_Europe
-
Neither party has had a filibuster-proof majority since 1979. Willingness to compromise has been weaponized against moderate politicians, some of which have been primaried right out of their jobs. It doesn't seem likely that legislation will pass to codify Roe, nor will there be sweeping changes to the Supreme Court.
Incorrect. the 111th congress, from 2009-2011 the Dems had a supermajority and had a 58 (plus 2 independents that caucused with Dems) to 40 GOP filibuster proof majority. That is how they passed ACA (without reading it).
It wasn't for 2 years. Al Franken was seated late due to a re-count in his Minnesota race, and Sen. Ted Kennedy died in Aug. 2009. There was only a few months that they held a bare majority - assuming everyone voted alike - and that's when the Affordable Care Act passed.
-
I think we're the oldest stable (that's a subjective term these days) form of government that still exists. That's because our constitution allowed for flexibility and regional differences.
I think I'd argue that the UK has the USA beaten on this one, it's at least 200 years longer since we've had a civil war than it has been for the USA, and there are no advances into modernity where the USA constitution has been more flexible than the UK one (and yes, we do have a constitution, and it is written, it's just not codified and entrenched the way the USA one is).
The Parliamentary system is working quite well for us as well, not perfect, but pretty good.
The US had a bloody Civil War, we had a referendum on Québec séparation. The only lives lost were from the actions of the violent splinter group the FLQ.
Strictly speaking England had a civil war in 17th century about parliament.
Yes and it was definitely bloody. But Scottish nationalism has not needed a civil war, right? (Yet).
Not since the forming of the union that I'm aware of. But the Irish fought a war and then later there were the troubles. The BBC has a very good, long, depressing series on the troubles that is available for free on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3scz1KD9eE
-
How about passing a law that requires any man who impregnates a woman to pay at least 50% of all related medical and child care (the latter until the child is independent - which may be never if they are born with severe birth defects) if the relationship was consensual, 100% if the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest?
-
How about passing a law that requires any man who impregnates a woman to pay at least 50% of all related medical and child care (the latter until the child is independent - which may be never if they are born with severe birth defects) if the relationship was consensual, 100% if the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest?
I thought child support was already the law?
If it's not, I don't disagree at all with this proposal.
But also, it doesn't solve the problem of women being made second class citizens that can have their bodies conscripted into acts which they do not or no longer consent to.
And I think this issue of consent and who consented to what when is important too. Too many people talk about consensual sex and resulting pregnancy like that's just a consequence you have to live for it because you "asked for it" basically. But, people are allowed to change their minds for things like this. Like, if someone promised someone to donate their kidney or bone marrow. Even if the donee would die without it and is in the hospital all prepped and ready for that transplant. The donor can change their mind. Even if they consented to it before. Should be no different for a pregnant woman. The fact that people say she got herself into it or asked for it even when they don't think donors of kindeys should be prevented from changing their minds is further proof that this is about subjugating and punishing women, not about saving lives.
-
FrugalToque criticized the founding fathers, to which I'd add all of us will be viewed as abominable bigots by some future generation. The blame for slavery didn't start in the 1700s - Europe had slavery for a thousand years before the U.S. existed.
"Slavery, or the process of restricting peoples’ freedoms, was widespread within Medieval Europe. Europe and the Mediterranean world were part of a highly interconnected network of slave trading. Throughout Europe, wartime captives were commonly forced into slavery."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_medieval_Europe
So did the Sumerians, Egyptions, Greeks and Romans for that matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_antiquity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_antiquity)
-
Since we don't care about bodily autonomy anymore. . . I think an easier approach would be to force each man to have a vasectomy at 18 years old. When they have the signed consent and approval of an interested woman the man could have the procedure reversed for a one month period before having it restored (extension may be available with additional consent forms). This would largely do away with the need for abortion at only a very minor cost of bodily autonomy for men - certainly much less than forcing women everywhere to carry unwanted pregnancies.
-
How about passing a law that requires any man who impregnates a woman to pay at least 50% of all related medical and child care (the latter until the child is independent - which may be never if they are born with severe birth defects) if the relationship was consensual, 100% if the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest?
I thought child support was already the law?
That sure sounds like what my court order says (except I pay more than that - because in OR child support is proportionate to your means).
-
How about passing a law that requires any man who impregnates a woman to pay at least 50% of all related medical and child care (the latter until the child is independent - which may be never if they are born with severe birth defects) if the relationship was consensual, 100% if the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest?
I thought child support was already the law?
That sure sounds like what my court order says (except I pay more than that - because in OR child support is proportionate to your means).
Child support only happens after the child is born. I read OandH to be suggesting to extending it for the entire pregnancy - a bit like what a surrogate would receive. There are extra medical, clothing, food, and childcare (if you already have a child) costs associated with pregnancy. Not to mention it permanently changes the body, can be quite difficult on the person, and carries a risk of death.
-
Do you want to have nine unelected people make huge decisions that take away the power of our elected representatives? Does that make sense? Isn't that what everyone is complaining about?
The constitution has it's flaws, mostly in that some of it isn't as clear as we would like, but it has served us all very well for almost a quarter of a millennium. Where it totally failed us, we made changes, which the founders knew we would want to do so they outlined a process for doing it. We have one of the longest lasting forms of government in the world. I think we're the oldest stable (that's a subjective term these days) form of government that still exists. That's because our constitution allowed for flexibility and regional differences.
The design of our form of government has roles and responsibilities for each of the 3 branches. The legislature is supposed to make the laws, the courts are supposed to make sure those laws abide by the constitution, and the executive enforces the laws and administers the government.
This has all broken down pretty dramatically with congress refusing to do its job and hoping that they can just make speeches and let the executive try lots of stuff and have courts decide things.
I think it broke down when we became ruled by a minority because the founders never envisioned such a division of big cities and rural states (and they were desperate to get agreement so they compromised poorly). There are only 5 Supreme Court justices appointed in history who were confirmed by senators representing only a minority of voters. Those 5 voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. Of those, 3 were appointed by a president elected with a minority of votes. 18% of the population elects 52% of the country's senators.
To me, THAT is the issue to be address. We have modern technology to make each persons vote count the same, no more need to ride a horse across the country to do so. Yet we abide by the old regime because....it keeps one party in power. That party has systematically disenfranchised voters as well. That party will refuse to allow any new territories into the United States or to allow DC representation, because it would diminish their power.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/1/30/20997046/constitution-electoral-college-senate-popular-vote-trump
-
How about passing a law that requires any man who impregnates a woman to pay at least 50% of all related medical and child care (the latter until the child is independent - which may be never if they are born with severe birth defects) if the relationship was consensual, 100% if the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest?
I thought child support was already the law?
That sure sounds like what my court order says (except I pay more than that - because in OR child support is proportionate to your means).
Child support only happens after the child is born. I read OandH to be suggesting to extending it for the entire pregnancy - a bit like what a surrogate would receive. There are extra medical, clothing, food, and childcare (if you already have a child) costs associated with pregnancy. Not to mention it permanently changes the body, can be quite difficult on the person, and carries a risk of death.
That is an interesting point. I still live in a state with good abortion access. I'm not sure if the people on the left in states without abortion access should start arguing that child support starts at conception. I certainly don't know the family case law in every state in the union.
-
How about passing a law that requires any man who impregnates a woman to pay at least 50% of all related medical and child care (the latter until the child is independent - which may be never if they are born with severe birth defects) if the relationship was consensual, 100% if the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest?
I thought child support was already the law?
That sure sounds like what my court order says (except I pay more than that - because in OR child support is proportionate to your means).
Child support only happens after the child is born. I read OandH to be suggesting to extending it for the entire pregnancy - a bit like what a surrogate would receive. There are extra medical, clothing, food, and childcare (if you already have a child) costs associated with pregnancy. Not to mention it permanently changes the body, can be quite difficult on the person, and carries a risk of death.
That is an interesting point. I still live in a state with good abortion access. I'm not sure if the people on the left in states without abortion access should start arguing that child support starts at conception. I certainly don't know the family case law in every state in the union.
I think people are pissed and pointing that out in a "ok you want to go that direction, then fine, but go all in" way.* Also I think that people are trying to make men understand that this decision impacts them too, hence the vasectomy suggestions. Reminds me of the lecture I got before attending a language study program: Women told that if they got pregnant they'd have to go home if they wanted to get an abortion and lose the term. The men laughed. They thought it funny. They were then told that their consequences could be much worse - they'd likely be heavily pressured to marry the woman. The men suddenly stopped laughing.
*I get this perspective, it's the exact same perspective that makes me want to claw back the money the blue states pay to support red states.
-
Requiring child care support hinges on the father having enough assets to pay continuously throughout the entire time there is a dependent. Problem is, poor people still have children.
-
How about passing a law that requires any man who impregnates a woman to pay at least 50% of all related medical and child care (the latter until the child is independent - which may be never if they are born with severe birth defects) if the relationship was consensual, 100% if the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest?
I thought child support was already the law?
That sure sounds like what my court order says (except I pay more than that - because in OR child support is proportionate to your means).
Child support only happens after the child is born. I read OandH to be suggesting to extending it for the entire pregnancy - a bit like what a surrogate would receive. There are extra medical, clothing, food, and childcare (if you already have a child) costs associated with pregnancy. Not to mention it permanently changes the body, can be quite difficult on the person, and carries a risk of death.
That is an interesting point. I still live in a state with good abortion access. I'm not sure if the people on the left in states without abortion access should start arguing that child support starts at conception. I certainly don't know the family case law in every state in the union.
I think people are pissed and pointing that out in a "ok you want to go that direction, then fine, but go all in" way.* Also I think that people are trying to make men understand that this decision impacts them too, hence the vasectomy suggestions. Reminds me of the lecture I got before attending a language study program: Women told that if they got pregnant they'd have to go home if they wanted to get an abortion and lose the term. The men laughed. They thought it funny. They were then told that their consequences could be much worse - they'd likely be heavily pressured to marry the woman. The men suddenly stopped laughing.
Of course it impacts them too. You'd have to be a real moron not to get that. For good or bad we live in a republic with different rules in every state, but in OR I'm on the hook for child support until my kids turn 21 if they want to go to college. If for some reason I didn't pay it my wages are easily garnished, with interest (and not this 1% interest that my Ally account pays). Every time I buy or sell a house the title company actually double checks that I'm not behind on support.
-
Of course it impacts them too. You'd have to be a real moron not to get that.
And yet there are those who don't get it and won't until it smacks them in the face.
-
Requiring child care support hinges on the father having enough assets to pay continuously throughout the entire time there is a dependent. Problem is, poor people still have children.
Also people who will go to almost any lengths not to pay up.
-
Since we don't care about bodily autonomy anymore. . . I think an easier approach would be to force each man to have a vasectomy at 18 years old. When they have the signed consent and approval of an interested woman the man could have the procedure reversed for a one month period before having it restored (extension may be available with additional consent forms). This would largely do away with the need for abortion at only a very minor cost of bodily autonomy for men - certainly much less than forcing women everywhere to carry unwanted pregnancies.
Oh hell, follow the science all the way - his sperm get frozen while he is young and healthy and producing healthy sperm, her eggs get frozen while she is young and healthy and producing healthy eggs, and everyone's tubes get tied. At say 15, 18 is too late. Rite of passage. Want a baby? IVF all the way. And since the State is making this necessary, the state pays for it. That way all babies will be wanted babies.
Yes I know I am dreaming in Technicolor. Because it isn't about babies, it is about controlling women. Because it could also easily be done by easy long-term contraception for women (which is apparently as bad as abortions), and the frozen sperm/tied tubes for men.
Beta colony and Cetaganda do it, it works for them - of course they are fictional, but they both definitely control reproduction. Plus we need good uterine replicators, body births are fraught with danger for the mother and baby. Good luck on that one.
Just as a reminder, women already take risks using contraception, it is just a lower rick for her health than being pregnant. Those blood clot risks that killed one of the Covid vaccines? That risk was much less than the risk a woman using hormonal birth control has. And she has it all the time, not just once for one vaccination.
-
Of course it impacts them too. You'd have to be a real moron not to get that.
And yet there are those who don't get it and won't until it smacks them in the face.
Such is many things in life. But slight OT to this court discussion thread: I don't think that the average male GOP voter in 2022 actually wants his pregnant girlfriend to carry the child to term. I think that they want access to abortion. I think that these changes were brought about by a small but vocal grass roots minority in the party. I'm not sure the party leadership even wanted it. I think that they would have been content to use it as a rallying cry for every election between now and the end of the union. Now they don't have that rallying cry. They're a dog that accidentally caught the car.
-
Of course it impacts them too. You'd have to be a real moron not to get that.
And yet there are those who don't get it and won't until it smacks them in the face.
Such is many things in life. But slight OT to this court discussion thread: I don't think that the average male GOP voter in 2022 actually wants his pregnant girlfriend to carry the child to term. I think that they want access to abortion. I think that these changes were brought about by a small but vocal grass roots minority in the party. I'm not sure the party leadership even wanted it. I think that they would have been content to use it as a rallying cry for every election between now and the end of the union. Now they don't have that rallying cry. They're a dog that accidentally caught the car.
Agreed
-
FrugalToque criticized the founding fathers, to which I'd add all of us will be viewed as abominable bigots by some future generation. The blame for slavery didn't start in the 1700s - Europe had slavery for a thousand years before the U.S. existed.
"Slavery, or the process of restricting peoples’ freedoms, was widespread within Medieval Europe. Europe and the Mediterranean world were part of a highly interconnected network of slave trading. Throughout Europe, wartime captives were commonly forced into slavery."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_medieval_Europe
So did the Sumerians, Egyptions, Greeks and Romans for that matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_antiquity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_antiquity)
These are not societies we want to emulate. Slavery happened in the past, it is actually relevant where and when it stopped being 'normal'. I'm glad it isn't currently allowed - though the US prison industrial system is slavery by another name.
-
Neither party has had a filibuster-proof majority since 1979. Willingness to compromise has been weaponized against moderate politicians, some of which have been primaried right out of their jobs. It doesn't seem likely that legislation will pass to codify Roe, nor will there be sweeping changes to the Supreme Court.
Incorrect. the 111th congress, from 2009-2011 the Dems had a supermajority and had a 58 (plus 2 independents that caucused with Dems) to 40 GOP filibuster proof majority. That is how they passed ACA (without reading it).
It wasn't for 2 years. Al Franken was seated late due to a re-count in his Minnesota race, and Sen. Ted Kennedy died in Aug. 2009. There was only a few months that they held a bare majority - assuming everyone voted alike - and that's when the Affordable Care Act passed.
Yup. They had exactly one shot at any major legislation. Obama wanted to go for a huge climate change package and was persuaded to go for health care overhaul instead.
-
Of course it impacts them too. You'd have to be a real moron not to get that.
And yet there are those who don't get it and won't until it smacks them in the face.
Such is many things in life. But slight OT to this court discussion thread: I don't think that the average male GOP voter in 2022 actually wants his pregnant girlfriend to carry the child to term. I think that they want access to abortion. I think that these changes were brought about by a small but vocal grass roots minority in the party. I'm not sure the party leadership even wanted it. I think that they would have been content to use it as a rallying cry for every election between now and the end of the union. Now they don't have that rallying cry. They're a dog that accidentally caught the car.
Agreed
Yes.
-
Of course it impacts them too. You'd have to be a real moron not to get that.
And yet there are those who don't get it and won't until it smacks them in the face.
Such is many things in life. But slight OT to this court discussion thread: I don't think that the average male GOP voter in 2022 actually wants his pregnant girlfriend to carry the child to term. I think that they want access to abortion. I think that these changes were brought about by a small but vocal grass roots minority in the party. I'm not sure the party leadership even wanted it. I think that they would have been content to use it as a rallying cry for every election between now and the end of the union. Now they don't have that rallying cry. They're a dog that accidentally caught the car.
Oh. that's not a problem at all. They've already teed up their next 10 or so issues. There will be no lack of gnashing of teeth and raising of money with these folks. Whether they want to follow Thomas' path to Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell or keep going on the "groomers" path with things like the Don't Say Gay Bills, or maybe even revisit bathroom bills and rile their base up again about how men are pretending to be transgender to assault their sweet daughters in bathrooms (as if men ever needed to pretend anything to exercise their right to assault women).
Plus, they aren't even done with abortion. They've gotta make sure there are conspiracy laws in the red states so they can prosecute women who plan to go out of state to abort and they need a nationwide ban, so they can still rile their base further with how many abortions are *still happening*, almost as if Roe was never overturned.
There is no end of outrage for these people so long as LGTBQ people exist and women are making any choices for themselves not first approved by the man lawfully in charge of them.
-
There is no end of outrage for these people so long as LGTBQ people exist and women are making any choices for themselves not first approved by the man lawfully in charge of them.
Don't sell them short. They've also been working hard to weaken the voter's rights act so that Republicans can keep non-white people away from the polls.
-
There is no end of outrage for these people so long as LGTBQ people exist and women are making any choices for themselves not first approved by the man lawfully in charge of them.
Don't sell them short. They've also been working hard to weaken the voter's rights act so that Republicans can keep non-white people away from the polls.
True. And if all else fails, they can always stoke terror by reminding their base about all the immigrants that are on their way to invade the country.
-
Of course it impacts them too. You'd have to be a real moron not to get that.
And yet there are those who don't get it and won't until it smacks them in the face.
That's likely because it only really affects those that play by the rules. It's a relatively simple matter to get around those rules if one has the means or desire. Number 45 is a shining example of exactly how easy. So in reality, it sort of doesn't affect men unless the man in question accepts it. Hence why so many men either don't care or support the decision.
-
Of course it impacts them too. You'd have to be a real moron not to get that.
And yet there are those who don't get it and won't until it smacks them in the face.
That's likely because it only really affects those that play by the rules. It's a relatively simple matter to get around those rules if one has the means or desire.
It is certainly easy to get around them if you have sufficient desire. ORS 25.247 says that if I go to prison I don't have to pay child support (unless I have a pile of money somewhere). I, personally, don't think that's really a motivation for most people to go to prison. Short of that I could not pay my child support and immediately have my wages and/or bank accounts garnished, never see another tax refund, have my US passport revoked, and probably lose my drivers license. I guess that some people are willing to live like that, I'm not.
Also, just for the record, I'm happy to pay to support my kids.
-
It is certainly easy to get around them if you have sufficient desire. ORS 25.247 says that if I go to prison I don't have to pay child support (unless I have a pile of money somewhere). I, personally, don't think that's really a motivation for most people to go to prison. Short of that I could not pay my child support and immediately have my wages and/or bank accounts garnished, never see another tax refund, have my US passport revoked, and probably lose my drivers license. I guess that some people are willing to live like that, I'm not.
Also, just for the record, I'm happy to pay to support my kids.
Firstly, I'm glad you're happy to pay to support your kids.
You could also use corporate trusts and other such structures to in effect earn zero and own nothing than can be taken. You could use legal challenges until the other party couldn't afford to fight any more. You could manipulate/intimidate/coerce the other party into aborting the fetus (even if illegal). That's just three options I can think of, I'm sure there are others.
I admit my wording was not really precise as the above would certainly be "playing by the rules" (except accessing an abortion if it is illegal). I simply meant that those that don't want to pay child support have plenty of options to get around it.
-
There is no end of outrage for these people so long as LGTBQ people exist and women are making any choices for themselves not first approved by the man lawfully in charge of them.
Don't sell them short. They've also been working hard to weaken the voter's rights act so that Republicans can keep non-white people away from the polls.
True. And if all else fails, they can always stoke terror by reminding their base about all the immigrants that are on their way to invade the country.
I think they'll go for the pincer-move of maximum outrage to strike while the iron is hot:
1. Illegals! They took our jobs!
2. Bathrooms! Gays in bathrooms! Marrying!
3. VOTING FRAUD!!! Not the Republicans getting indicted for it, but the other sneaky kind involving liberals!
This victory is just throwing chum in the water. The sharks are circling and won't notice that they're biting off their own tails in the feeding frenzy.
-
It is certainly easy to get around them if you have sufficient desire. ORS 25.247 says that if I go to prison I don't have to pay child support (unless I have a pile of money somewhere). I, personally, don't think that's really a motivation for most people to go to prison. Short of that I could not pay my child support and immediately have my wages and/or bank accounts garnished, never see another tax refund, have my US passport revoked, and probably lose my drivers license. I guess that some people are willing to live like that, I'm not.
Also, just for the record, I'm happy to pay to support my kids.
Firstly, I'm glad you're happy to pay to support your kids.
You could also use corporate trusts and other such structures to in effect earn zero and own nothing than can be taken. You could use legal challenges until the other party couldn't afford to fight any more. You could manipulate/intimidate/coerce the other party into aborting the fetus (even if illegal). That's just three options I can think of, I'm sure there are others.
I admit my wording was not really precise as the above would certainly be "playing by the rules" (except accessing an abortion if it is illegal). I simply meant that those that don't want to pay child support have plenty of options to get around it.
You risk the other party managing to pierce the corporate veil or filing for sanctions but a South Dakota trust might do it. IDK, IANAL. In OR you can get state attorneys to help you if you are poor. The state doesn't want to pay for your kids if someone else can. This is extra true if the child ends up in state care. I should clarify that I have seen someone truly successful in evading child support, but they were not a US citizen and the were not in the same country as the mother. Shooting myself in the head would also be successful, but I'm not going to do it.
-
A significant proportion of men will use custody issues as a way out of paying child support or paying the amount of child support they should. They threaten to claim custody when they don't really want it, they tie the woman up in endless court proceedings (often they can afford this and she can't because of the impact of child care on earnings), they pay erratically and just enough below what they owe to make going back to court not worth it. They use the courts prevent the woman from moving to a better economic or social support system. And that's before the threats of violence to the woman and/or children - I'll beat you up/kill you if you name me as the father or claim child support.
I'm not even including the tactics of moving to another state, leaving the country, not leaving an address for service, etc. etc. And even that's supposing that the woman has contact details for the father (rapists don't always leave these) or wasn't a victim of incest or paedophilia, when naming the father puts her at great personal risk.
Yeah, yeah, not all men, you wouldn't do any of that. We've heard it all. But too many men, too much of the time.
-
You risk the other party managing to pierce the corporate veil or filing for sanctions but a South Dakota trust might do it. IDK, IANAL. In OR you can get state attorneys to help you if you are poor. The state doesn't want to pay for your kids if someone else can. This is extra true if the child ends up in state care. I should clarify that I have seen someone truly successful in evading child support, but they were not a US citizen and the were not in the same country as the mother. Shooting myself in the head would also be successful, but I'm not going to do it.
Fine, I withdraw the comment. Obviously there is no way to avoid child support if you are a USA citizen and as such abortion affects men just as much as women.
-
At the very least, stricter laws to enforce child support sounds like a no brainer and should get bipartisan support. I'd even add something about prenatal care. This is an angle I think democrats should push strongly. It's very reasonable, should get bipartisan support, and if it does, great. Republicans who are truly supportive of their perspective should be down with it. If they push back, it would be, imo, very bad optics for them.
-
At the very least, stricter laws to enforce child support sounds like a no brainer and should get bipartisan support. I'd even add something about prenatal care. This is an angle I think democrats should push strongly. It's very reasonable, should get bipartisan support, and if it does, great. Republicans who are truly supportive of their perspective should be down with it. If they push back, it would be, imo, very bad optics for them.
Republicans don't care. They could have done that any time these last 50 years, and added in maternity (and paternity) leave, maternity health care past 8 weeks and made sacking someone for being pregnant or rearing a child unlawful. Don't hold your breath on them doing any of it now.
I'm happy for Democrats to improve requirements to child care but that should be for all children. Republicans might not be aware just how much it costs to look after a severely disabled child and requiring Republican voters to live at poverty levels in order to pay the full costs would be an eye-opener.
-
At the very least, stricter laws to enforce child support sounds like a no brainer and should get bipartisan support. I'd even add something about prenatal care. This is an angle I think democrats should push strongly. It's very reasonable, should get bipartisan support, and if it does, great. Republicans who are truly supportive of their perspective should be down with it. If they push back, it would be, imo, very bad optics for them.
I’m lukewarm on making stricter child support laws, mostly because there are many who can’t pay them, and forcing them to sets up insurmountable barriers and reinforces the idea of a financial penalty for sex. I strongly support paid maternity and paternity leave and free and available daycare. In the US we still tell parents they are largely on their own til the kid hits at least kindergarten.
-
At the very least, stricter laws to enforce child support sounds like a no brainer and should get bipartisan support. I'd even add something about prenatal care. This is an angle I think democrats should push strongly. It's very reasonable, should get bipartisan support, and if it does, great. Republicans who are truly supportive of their perspective should be down with it. If they push back, it would be, imo, very bad optics for them.
I’m lukewarm on making stricter child support laws, mostly because there are many who can’t pay them, and forcing them to sets up insurmountable barriers and reinforces the idea of a financial penalty for sex. I strongly support paid maternity and paternity leave and free and available daycare. In the US we still tell parents they are largely on their own til the kid hits at least kindergarten.
It's a choice, either the parents (both male and female) pay for the child's upbringing or the government does. One or the other. The problem with saying stricter child care laws affect the many who can't pay them is that it almost always men who get away with not paying on the grounds of poverty but the women who look after those children may be just as poor or even poorer but still have to find a way to pay. Letting men off paying sounds nice but the problem doesn't go away, the women who end up paying, in ways that are mostly ignored by men.
-
At the very least, stricter laws to enforce child support sounds like a no brainer and should get bipartisan support. I'd even add something about prenatal care. This is an angle I think democrats should push strongly. It's very reasonable, should get bipartisan support, and if it does, great. Republicans who are truly supportive of their perspective should be down with it. If they push back, it would be, imo, very bad optics for them.
That sounds reasonable only until one considers the nature of modern prenatal care. A lot of prenatal care involves diagnosing conditions in which termination of pregnancy is the treatment of choice.
An abortion ban immediately makes such prenatal care pointless and I would consider it unlikely that insurance companies would cover tests and procedures that, by law, cannot affect treatment decisions. Paying for such money wasting care is also unfair to the other insured.
Finding competent Ob/Gyn practitioners willing to work within such constraints would also be difficult, I suppose.
And that is why abortion bans are first and foremost a denial of healthcare to pregnant patients lacking the means to obtain care on their own dime and wherever they want.
-
At the very least, stricter laws to enforce child support sounds like a no brainer and should get bipartisan support. I'd even add something about prenatal care. This is an angle I think democrats should push strongly. It's very reasonable, should get bipartisan support, and if it does, great. Republicans who are truly supportive of their perspective should be down with it. If they push back, it would be, imo, very bad optics for them.
Republicans don't care. They could have done that any time these last 50 years, and added in maternity (and paternity) leave, maternity health care past 8 weeks and made sacking someone for being pregnant or rearing a child unlawful. Don't hold your breath on them doing any of it now.
I'm happy for Democrats to improve requirements to child care but that should be for all children. Republicans might not be aware just how much it costs to look after a severely disabled child and requiring Republican voters to live at poverty levels in order to pay the full costs would be an eye-opener.
Many Republican politicians may not care. All of them may not. Who knows. The thing is, despite what the echo chamber characteristics of this conversation may convince liberals here, there are numerous everyday conservatives who do care. The Democrats should push it because it's a win, win, right? It's the right thing to do to better enforce men paying for their half of the part in the process. Either the Republicans universally or in decent enough numbers support it, in which case your assessment is wrong, or they don't, and the ones that don't are shown for their hypocrisy. After all, it's not asking for the government to do something, forcing people to give who had nothing to do with it and all those taking points. It's the person directly responsible paying for it. If this was pushed by the Democrats and Republicans balked, it would alienate or at least put something in the minds of some conservatives that their leaders aren't walking the walk, imo. I think it's a good angle to take.
ETA or maybe it does nothing. Bills often go nowhere. This is at least a unique thing to try that would be good if passed.
-
At the very least, stricter laws to enforce child support sounds like a no brainer and should get bipartisan support. I'd even add something about prenatal care. This is an angle I think democrats should push strongly. It's very reasonable, should get bipartisan support, and if it does, great. Republicans who are truly supportive of their perspective should be down with it. If they push back, it would be, imo, very bad optics for them.
Republicans don't care. They could have done that any time these last 50 years, and added in maternity (and paternity) leave, maternity health care past 8 weeks and made sacking someone for being pregnant or rearing a child unlawful. Don't hold your breath on them doing any of it now.
I'm happy for Democrats to improve requirements to child care but that should be for all children. Republicans might not be aware just how much it costs to look after a severely disabled child and requiring Republican voters to live at poverty levels in order to pay the full costs would be an eye-opener.
Many Republican politicians may not care. All of them may not. Who knows. The thing is, despite what the echo chamber characteristics of this conversation may convince liberals here, there are numerous everyday conservatives who do care. The Democrats should push it because it's a win, win, right? It's the right thing to do to better enforce men paying for their half of the part in the process. Either the Republicans universally or in decent enough numbers support it, in which case your assessment is wrong, or they don't, and the ones that don't are shown for their hypocrisy. After all, it's not asking for the government to do something, forcing people to give who had nothing to do with it and all those taking points. It's the person directly responsible paying for it. If this was pushed by the Democrats and Republicans balked, it would alienate or at least put something in the minds of some conservatives that their leaders aren't walking the walk, imo. I think it's a good angle to take.
ETA or maybe it does nothing. Bills often go nowhere. This is at least a unique thing to try that would be good if passed.
Republican leaders haven't been walking the walk for decades now, and their base hasn't lost faith with them. They just use alternate reality media to change the world that the base is aware of. It's really tough for me to believe that getting men to pay child support is going to be the thing that changes that.
Don't get me wrong. It's a sensible policy idea and I think Democrats should push for it.
-
It is certainly easy to get around them if you have sufficient desire. ORS 25.247 says that if I go to prison I don't have to pay child support (unless I have a pile of money somewhere). I, personally, don't think that's really a motivation for most people to go to prison. Short of that I could not pay my child support and immediately have my wages and/or bank accounts garnished, never see another tax refund, have my US passport revoked, and probably lose my drivers license. I guess that some people are willing to live like that, I'm not.
Also, just for the record, I'm happy to pay to support my kids.
Firstly, I'm glad you're happy to pay to support your kids.
You could also use corporate trusts and other such structures to in effect earn zero and own nothing than can be taken. You could use legal challenges until the other party couldn't afford to fight any more. You could manipulate/intimidate/coerce the other party into aborting the fetus (even if illegal). That's just three options I can think of, I'm sure there are others.
I admit my wording was not really precise as the above would certainly be "playing by the rules" (except accessing an abortion if it is illegal). I simply meant that those that don't want to pay child support have plenty of options to get around it.
One could also have a one night stand and disappear.
-
Let's not forget that part II of build back better includes lots of stuff related to childcare and family support and it has no support from Republicans. That stuff will never pass. They have had MANY opportunities to support families and parents and continue to choose not to do it.
-
Here's one encouraging thing. While the VA does not provide abortion services or counseling, it does provide contraceptive care to female veterans. The VA has come out saying they will continue to provide those services, because the VA is a federal entity and not a state entity. In other words, even if you are in a state that has outlawed contraceptives, female veterans contraception care will not be interrupted. (Now if only all of us had access to same level of care).
-
At the very least, stricter laws to enforce child support sounds like a no brainer and should get bipartisan support. I'd even add something about prenatal care. This is an angle I think democrats should push strongly. It's very reasonable, should get bipartisan support, and if it does, great. Republicans who are truly supportive of their perspective should be down with it. If they push back, it would be, imo, very bad optics for them.
I’m lukewarm on making stricter child support laws, mostly because there are many who can’t pay them, and forcing them to sets up insurmountable barriers and reinforces the idea of a financial penalty for sex. I strongly support paid maternity and paternity leave and free and available daycare. In the US we still tell parents they are largely on their own til the kid hits at least kindergarten.
hmmm there's a lot of penalties for sex if you're a woman, being forced to carry to term is a massive penalty that includes financial penalties. Setting up some financial penalties for men so it's harder to get off the hook while reducing the financial penalty for women is fine. But that kind of legislation would be horribly unpopular as most men don't want any consequences for sex, they are fine with women assuming all the risk, so that kind of legislation isn't going to go anywhere.
-
At the very least, stricter laws to enforce child support sounds like a no brainer and should get bipartisan support. I'd even add something about prenatal care. This is an angle I think democrats should push strongly. It's very reasonable, should get bipartisan support, and if it does, great. Republicans who are truly supportive of their perspective should be down with it. If they push back, it would be, imo, very bad optics for them.
That sounds reasonable only until one considers the nature of modern prenatal care. A lot of prenatal care involves diagnosing conditions in which termination of pregnancy is the treatment of choice.
An abortion ban immediately makes such prenatal care pointless and I would consider it unlikely that insurance companies would cover tests and procedures that, by law, cannot affect treatment decisions. Paying for such money wasting care is also unfair to the other insured.
Finding competent Ob/Gyn practitioners willing to work within such constraints would also be difficult, I suppose.
And that is why abortion bans are first and foremost a denial of healthcare to pregnant patients lacking the means to obtain care on their own dime and wherever they want.
I'll preface this with I am not a doctor.
Sure some prenatal conditions have abortion as a recommendation. Some can be treated, though. Some have abortion offered but there are treatments that could be used. I have a relative whose situation fit that bill. She didn't abort, requested treatment, and their baby is doing well.
The point being, sure, some prenatal care recommends abortions. Not all does though. Insurance companies may fight paying for prenatal care since there can't be abortions. They pay for things now, though. Don't know why they'd do worse then they are now. If it's a viable prenatal treatment and they pay for it now, not sure why they'd not without abortions. If nothing changes with insurance, I'm not sure how that'd affect the issue of making men pay for prenatal support. There would be challenges like what care to do for different things, and that would have to be managed. For other things like paying for ending ectopic pregnancies, if the worst care situations come to pass where that's banned as well, that's a separate issue. Payment wouldn't be the issue.
-
At the very least, stricter laws to enforce child support sounds like a no brainer and should get bipartisan support. I'd even add something about prenatal care. This is an angle I think democrats should push strongly. It's very reasonable, should get bipartisan support, and if it does, great. Republicans who are truly supportive of their perspective should be down with it. If they push back, it would be, imo, very bad optics for them.
Republicans don't care. They could have done that any time these last 50 years, and added in maternity (and paternity) leave, maternity health care past 8 weeks and made sacking someone for being pregnant or rearing a child unlawful. Don't hold your breath on them doing any of it now.
I'm happy for Democrats to improve requirements to child care but that should be for all children. Republicans might not be aware just how much it costs to look after a severely disabled child and requiring Republican voters to live at poverty levels in order to pay the full costs would be an eye-opener.
Many Republican politicians may not care. All of them may not. Who knows. The thing is, despite what the echo chamber characteristics of this conversation may convince liberals here, there are numerous everyday conservatives who do care. The Democrats should push it because it's a win, win, right? It's the right thing to do to better enforce men paying for their half of the part in the process. Either the Republicans universally or in decent enough numbers support it, in which case your assessment is wrong, or they don't, and the ones that don't are shown for their hypocrisy. After all, it's not asking for the government to do something, forcing people to give who had nothing to do with it and all those taking points. It's the person directly responsible paying for it. If this was pushed by the Democrats and Republicans balked, it would alienate or at least put something in the minds of some conservatives that their leaders aren't walking the walk, imo. I think it's a good angle to take.
ETA or maybe it does nothing. Bills often go nowhere. This is at least a unique thing to try that would be good if passed.
Republican leaders haven't been walking the walk for decades now, and their base hasn't lost faith with them. They just use alternate reality media to change the world that the base is aware of. It's really tough for me to believe that getting men to pay child support is going to be the thing that changes that.
Don't get me wrong. It's a sensible policy idea and I think Democrats should push for it.
Maybe it would do nothing. Even if it's "probably it would do nothing" I'd still push it. Democrats pushing to federally legalize abortion is nothing surprising or novel. Pushing to say, ok, you want this, this is what comes with it is at least to me worth a shot.
-
Republican leaders haven't been walking the walk for decades now, and their base hasn't lost faith with them. They just use alternate reality media to change the world that the base is aware of. It's really tough for me to believe that getting men to pay child support is going to be the thing that changes that.
Don't get me wrong. It's a sensible policy idea and I think Democrats should push for it.
Maybe it would do nothing. Even if it's "probably it would do nothing" I'd still push it. Democrats pushing to federally legalize abortion is nothing surprising or novel. Pushing to say, ok, you want this, this is what comes with it is at least to me worth a shot.
I think you're vastly underestimating Republican voters' tolerance for hypocrisy. They've never cared before when their elected officials squashed every attempt to expand healthcare or other protections for women and children. Why should they care now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned?
-
At the very least, stricter laws to enforce child support sounds like a no brainer and should get bipartisan support. I'd even add something about prenatal care. This is an angle I think democrats should push strongly. It's very reasonable, should get bipartisan support, and if it does, great. Republicans who are truly supportive of their perspective should be down with it. If they push back, it would be, imo, very bad optics for them.
That sounds reasonable only until one considers the nature of modern prenatal care. A lot of prenatal care involves diagnosing conditions in which termination of pregnancy is the treatment of choice.
An abortion ban immediately makes such prenatal care pointless and I would consider it unlikely that insurance companies would cover tests and procedures that, by law, cannot affect treatment decisions. Paying for such money wasting care is also unfair to the other insured.
Finding competent Ob/Gyn practitioners willing to work within such constraints would also be difficult, I suppose.
And that is why abortion bans are first and foremost a denial of healthcare to pregnant patients lacking the means to obtain care on their own dime and wherever they want.
I'll preface this with I am not a doctor.
Sure some prenatal conditions have abortion as a recommendation. Some can be treated, though. Some have abortion offered but there are treatments that could be used. I have a relative whose situation fit that bill. She didn't abort, requested treatment, and their baby is doing well.
The point being, sure, some prenatal care recommends abortions. Not all does though. Insurance companies may fight paying for prenatal care since there can't be abortions. They pay for things now, though. Don't know why they'd do worse then they are now. If it's a viable prenatal treatment and they pay for it now, not sure why they'd not without abortions. If nothing changes with insurance, I'm not sure how that'd affect the issue of making men pay for prenatal support. There would be challenges like what care to do for different things, and that would have to be managed. For other things like paying for ending ectopic pregnancies, if the worst care situations come to pass where that's banned as well, that's a separate issue. Payment wouldn't be the issue.
There are quite a few indications for invasive procedures, like amniocentesis if fetal abnormalities are suspected, that are only valid if abortion is an option. There is no medical justification for diagnostic procedures that carry risks including fetal demise if there is no treatment option. In fact, fetal demise following such a procedure might be construed as abortion if performed only "just to know".
Practically, a good part of modern prenatal care and high risk pregnancy care cannot be provided under abortion bans and such services will become unavailable in affected areas rather soon because of the inevitable provider harrassment abortion bans result in (and failure to get reimbursed is only the tip of the iceberg).
The most likely outcome of this is that reproductive health services will further wither away or be driven underground while surveillance of pregnancy is increasingly a matter of law enforcement in the affected states.
-
The most likely outcome of this is that reproductive health services will further wither away or be driven underground while surveillance of pregnancy is increasingly a matter of law enforcement in the affected states.
Particularly with the new snitch laws.
-
The most likely outcome of this is that reproductive health services will further wither away or be driven underground while surveillance of pregnancy is increasingly a matter of law enforcement in the affected states.
Particularly with the new snitch laws.
And because anti-abortionists, GOP politicians and some radical SCOTUS judges are completely ignorant of what is coming down the pipeline, they are unable to see how the 13th and 14th Amendments cover the right to noncoercive reproductive care including abortion just fine.
-
You risk the other party managing to pierce the corporate veil or filing for sanctions but a South Dakota trust might do it. IDK, IANAL. In OR you can get state attorneys to help you if you are poor. The state doesn't want to pay for your kids if someone else can. This is extra true if the child ends up in state care. I should clarify that I have seen someone truly successful in evading child support, but they were not a US citizen and the were not in the same country as the mother. Shooting myself in the head would also be successful, but I'm not going to do it.
Fine, I withdraw the comment. Obviously there is no way to avoid child support if you are a USA citizen and as such abortion affects men just as much as women.
I wouldn't go that far and nothing I wrote was meant to suggest that. My worst case for poor access to abortion is watching my daughter die and her worst case is dying. Philosophy aside I think that's worse for her than me. I've just never met a single man in the USA who thinks that they can get another US resident pregnant and there will be no financial consequences.
-
This is a sign of things to come.
A school in NC required girls to wear a skirt because girls are a "fragile vessel." The school lost but here's a dissenting opinion,
To a great many people, dress codes represent an ideal of chivalry that is not patronizing to women, but appreciative and respectful of them.
See? We're not trying to control women. We're just being respectful by controlling their clothing choices! </s>
The school tried to claim that, though it received public funding, it was a charter school and thus not a state actor. The full 4th Circuit dismissed that claim.
The concerning part? It was 10-6.
Given the Bremerton decision today, we can expect to see more of these type of cases percolate, eventually, to the SC.
-
At the very least, stricter laws to enforce child support sounds like a no brainer and should get bipartisan support. I'd even add something about prenatal care. This is an angle I think democrats should push strongly. It's very reasonable, should get bipartisan support, and if it does, great. Republicans who are truly supportive of their perspective should be down with it. If they push back, it would be, imo, very bad optics for them.
That sounds reasonable only until one considers the nature of modern prenatal care. A lot of prenatal care involves diagnosing conditions in which termination of pregnancy is the treatment of choice.
An abortion ban immediately makes such prenatal care pointless and I would consider it unlikely that insurance companies would cover tests and procedures that, by law, cannot affect treatment decisions. Paying for such money wasting care is also unfair to the other insured.
Finding competent Ob/Gyn practitioners willing to work within such constraints would also be difficult, I suppose.
And that is why abortion bans are first and foremost a denial of healthcare to pregnant patients lacking the means to obtain care on their own dime and wherever they want.
I'll preface this with I am not a doctor.
Sure some prenatal conditions have abortion as a recommendation. Some can be treated, though. Some have abortion offered but there are treatments that could be used. I have a relative whose situation fit that bill. She didn't abort, requested treatment, and their baby is doing well.
The point being, sure, some prenatal care recommends abortions. Not all does though. Insurance companies may fight paying for prenatal care since there can't be abortions. They pay for things now, though. Don't know why they'd do worse then they are now. If it's a viable prenatal treatment and they pay for it now, not sure why they'd not without abortions. If nothing changes with insurance, I'm not sure how that'd affect the issue of making men pay for prenatal support. There would be challenges like what care to do for different things, and that would have to be managed. For other things like paying for ending ectopic pregnancies, if the worst care situations come to pass where that's banned as well, that's a separate issue. Payment wouldn't be the issue.
There are quite a few indications for invasive procedures, like amniocentesis if fetal abnormalities are suspected, that are only valid if abortion is an option. There is no medical justification for diagnostic procedures that carry risks including fetal demise if there is no treatment option. In fact, fetal demise following such a procedure might be construed as abortion if performed only "just to know".
Practically, a good part of modern prenatal care and high risk pregnancy care cannot be provided under abortion bans and such services will become unavailable in affected areas rather soon because of the inevitable provider harrassment abortion bans result in (and failure to get reimbursed is only the tip of the iceberg).
The most likely outcome of this is that reproductive health services will further wither away or be driven underground while surveillance of pregnancy is increasingly a matter of law enforcement in the affected states.
You clearly know more about the technical parts prenatal care than I do, but again I don't see how that would affect a law that would put men on the hook for at least part of any bills that apply for prenatal care.
-
At the very least, stricter laws to enforce child support sounds like a no brainer and should get bipartisan support. I'd even add something about prenatal care. This is an angle I think democrats should push strongly. It's very reasonable, should get bipartisan support, and if it does, great. Republicans who are truly supportive of their perspective should be down with it. If they push back, it would be, imo, very bad optics for them.
That sounds reasonable only until one considers the nature of modern prenatal care. A lot of prenatal care involves diagnosing conditions in which termination of pregnancy is the treatment of choice.
An abortion ban immediately makes such prenatal care pointless and I would consider it unlikely that insurance companies would cover tests and procedures that, by law, cannot affect treatment decisions. Paying for such money wasting care is also unfair to the other insured.
Finding competent Ob/Gyn practitioners willing to work within such constraints would also be difficult, I suppose.
And that is why abortion bans are first and foremost a denial of healthcare to pregnant patients lacking the means to obtain care on their own dime and wherever they want.
I'll preface this with I am not a doctor.
Sure some prenatal conditions have abortion as a recommendation. Some can be treated, though. Some have abortion offered but there are treatments that could be used. I have a relative whose situation fit that bill. She didn't abort, requested treatment, and their baby is doing well.
The point being, sure, some prenatal care recommends abortions. Not all does though. Insurance companies may fight paying for prenatal care since there can't be abortions. They pay for things now, though. Don't know why they'd do worse then they are now. If it's a viable prenatal treatment and they pay for it now, not sure why they'd not without abortions. If nothing changes with insurance, I'm not sure how that'd affect the issue of making men pay for prenatal support. There would be challenges like what care to do for different things, and that would have to be managed. For other things like paying for ending ectopic pregnancies, if the worst care situations come to pass where that's banned as well, that's a separate issue. Payment wouldn't be the issue.
There are quite a few indications for invasive procedures, like amniocentesis if fetal abnormalities are suspected, that are only valid if abortion is an option. There is no medical justification for diagnostic procedures that carry risks including fetal demise if there is no treatment option. In fact, fetal demise following such a procedure might be construed as abortion if performed only "just to know".
Practically, a good part of modern prenatal care and high risk pregnancy care cannot be provided under abortion bans and such services will become unavailable in affected areas rather soon because of the inevitable provider harrassment abortion bans result in (and failure to get reimbursed is only the tip of the iceberg).
The most likely outcome of this is that reproductive health services will further wither away or be driven underground while surveillance of pregnancy is increasingly a matter of law enforcement in the affected states.
You clearly know more about the technical parts prenatal care than I do, but again I don't see how that would affect a law that would put men on the hook for at least part of any bills that apply for prenatal care.
Prenatal care would be really cheap because little is going to be provided in certain states going forward. So men there have little to worry about bills from that especially if care is obtained under the radar out of state, but that discission is somewhat off topic.
-
At the very least, stricter laws to enforce child support sounds like a no brainer and should get bipartisan support. I'd even add something about prenatal care. This is an angle I think democrats should push strongly. It's very reasonable, should get bipartisan support, and if it does, great. Republicans who are truly supportive of their perspective should be down with it. If they push back, it would be, imo, very bad optics for them.
That sounds reasonable only until one considers the nature of modern prenatal care. A lot of prenatal care involves diagnosing conditions in which termination of pregnancy is the treatment of choice.
An abortion ban immediately makes such prenatal care pointless and I would consider it unlikely that insurance companies would cover tests and procedures that, by law, cannot affect treatment decisions. Paying for such money wasting care is also unfair to the other insured.
Finding competent Ob/Gyn practitioners willing to work within such constraints would also be difficult, I suppose.
And that is why abortion bans are first and foremost a denial of healthcare to pregnant patients lacking the means to obtain care on their own dime and wherever they want.
I'll preface this with I am not a doctor.
Sure some prenatal conditions have abortion as a recommendation. Some can be treated, though. Some have abortion offered but there are treatments that could be used. I have a relative whose situation fit that bill. She didn't abort, requested treatment, and their baby is doing well.
The point being, sure, some prenatal care recommends abortions. Not all does though. Insurance companies may fight paying for prenatal care since there can't be abortions. They pay for things now, though. Don't know why they'd do worse then they are now. If it's a viable prenatal treatment and they pay for it now, not sure why they'd not without abortions. If nothing changes with insurance, I'm not sure how that'd affect the issue of making men pay for prenatal support. There would be challenges like what care to do for different things, and that would have to be managed. For other things like paying for ending ectopic pregnancies, if the worst care situations come to pass where that's banned as well, that's a separate issue. Payment wouldn't be the issue.
There are quite a few indications for invasive procedures, like amniocentesis if fetal abnormalities are suspected, that are only valid if abortion is an option. There is no medical justification for diagnostic procedures that carry risks including fetal demise if there is no treatment option. In fact, fetal demise following such a procedure might be construed as abortion if performed only "just to know".
Practically, a good part of modern prenatal care and high risk pregnancy care cannot be provided under abortion bans and such services will become unavailable in affected areas rather soon because of the inevitable provider harrassment abortion bans result in (and failure to get reimbursed is only the tip of the iceberg).
The most likely outcome of this is that reproductive health services will further wither away or be driven underground while surveillance of pregnancy is increasingly a matter of law enforcement in the affected states.
You clearly know more about the technical parts prenatal care than I do, but again I don't see how that would affect a law that would put men on the hook for at least part of any bills that apply for prenatal care.
Prenatal care would be really cheap because little is going to be provided in certain states going forward. So men there have little to worry about bills from that especially if care is obtained under the radar out of state, but that discission is somewhat off topic.
I was thinking more of a check for support beyond just medical care anyways. Child support is not exclusively or even a majority, usually, about helping out if the kid breaks an arm, right. I'm thinking a check to pay for general expenses pre natal as if the child was born. It would, though, be in part for prenatal care which women will still get..we had general expenses with my wife even though we declined some specific tests because we knew we wouldn't abort (seemingly a mini case study of what we're discussing). There's also birth costs and so on in addition to other random things. I'm not sure what the nuts and bolts would look like, but I feel like there would still be plenty, regardless of the law, for men to pay for before and including birth.
ETA: for clarification, these were tests for uncorrectable abnormalities later in pregnancy, not early stage issues like ectopic that would result in completely non viable pregnancies with significant risk to the life of DW.
-
Just curious why so many outside the US care so much about our laws, politics, court rulings, etc.? I see a lot of non-US citizens (and non-US residents) expending a lot of time and mental energy on things that have zero effect on them - and that they have zero ability to impact (i.e. voting, donating to rival candidates, etc.)
-
Just curious why so many outside the US care so much about our laws, politics, court rulings, etc.? I see a lot of non-US citizens (and non-US residents) expending a lot of time and mental energy on things that have zero effect on them - and that they have zero ability to impact (i.e. voting, donating to rival candidates, etc.)
The USA has been touting its moral leadership of the world order since 1945. You don't get to duck out of that just because you don't like being called out on your fuck-ups.
-
Just curious why so many outside the US care so much about our laws, politics, court rulings, etc.? I see a lot of non-US citizens (and non-US residents) expending a lot of time and mental energy on things that have zero effect on them - and that they have zero ability to impact (i.e. voting, donating to rival candidates, etc.)
Living in America's hat, it's surprising how much the internal US politics ends up spilling over into our country.
Over the years our right wing Conservative party has picked up a lot of the radicalization techniques pioneered by the Republicans. Shit US gun control directly translates into more guns on Canadian streets. US anti-vaxx/covid restriction money funded the trucker convoy that disrupted life in our country earlier this year. Many of our clinics are gearing up to help American women get access to abortions.
US politics impact Canada very deeply, so we tend to keep an eye on it.
-
Not since the forming of the union that I'm aware of. But the Irish fought a war and then later there were the troubles. The BBC has a very good, long, depressing series on the troubles that is available for free on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3scz1KD9eE
Thank you this link. SO much history was simply not taught in my red state public school. I'm still finding new topics several decades later.
-
Just curious why so many outside the US care so much about our laws, politics, court rulings, etc.? I see a lot of non-US citizens (and non-US residents) expending a lot of time and mental energy on things that have zero effect on them - and that they have zero ability to impact (i.e. voting, donating to rival candidates, etc.)
As a US citizen that spent over a decade living abroad, it's eye opening how constantly the US pushes its views and policies onto other countries (directly and indirectly), even ones which are allies. We do it through our foreign policy initiatives, trade policy, through military campaigns, and through 'spillover' (see GuitarStv's response). Ironically the US in general has very little tolerance for other nations pushing their views in similar ways.
All the attention is precisely because such monumental changes can have direct and measurable impacts on citizens elsewhere.
-
Just curious why so many outside the US care so much about our laws, politics, court rulings, etc.? I see a lot of non-US citizens (and non-US residents) expending a lot of time and mental energy on things that have zero effect on them - and that they have zero ability to impact (i.e. voting, donating to rival candidates, etc.)
Living in America's hat, it's surprising how much the internal US politics ends up spilling over into our country.
Over the years our right wing Conservative party has picked up a lot of the radicalization techniques pioneered by the Republicans. Shit US gun control directly translates into more guns on Canadian streets. US anti-vaxx/covid restriction money funded the trucker convoy that disrupted life in our country earlier this year. Many of our clinics are gearing up to help American women get access to abortions.
US politics impact Canada very deeply, so we tend to keep an eye on it.
It's similar to being in an apartmnet and being able to listen to the downstairs neighbours talk about lighting their unit on fire.
-
Just curious why so many outside the US care so much about our laws, politics, court rulings, etc.? I see a lot of non-US citizens (and non-US residents) expending a lot of time and mental energy on things that have zero effect on them - and that they have zero ability to impact (i.e. voting, donating to rival candidates, etc.)
As a US citizen that spent over a decade living abroad, it's eye opening how constantly the US pushes its views and policies onto other countries (directly and indirectly), even ones which are allies. We do it through our foreign policy initiatives, trade policy, through military campaigns, and through 'spillover' (see GuitarStv's response). Ironically the US in general has very little tolerance for other nations pushing their views in similar ways.
All the attention is precisely because such monumental changes can have direct and measurable impacts on citizens elsewhere.
Elephants are big and not always careful where they put their feet.
The US was prepared to meddle with Quebec independence. We don't trust American politicians to mind their own business. Plus there is lots of American right-wing private money coming into Canada. They spent it in the US and it worked, now we are the easy neighbouring target.
You know all that shining beacon of liberty and democracy propaganda that Americans spew? We watch like hawks to see what nonsense and crap is coming our way. Margaret Atwood didn't get the Hand-maiden's tale out of standard Canadian attitudes.
-
Just curious why so many outside the US care so much about our laws, politics, court rulings, etc.? I see a lot of non-US citizens (and non-US residents) expending a lot of time and mental energy on things that have zero effect on them - and that they have zero ability to impact (i.e. voting, donating to rival candidates, etc.)
As a US citizen that spent over a decade living abroad, it's eye opening how constantly the US pushes its views and policies onto other countries (directly and indirectly), even ones which are allies. We do it through our foreign policy initiatives, trade policy, through military campaigns, and through 'spillover' (see GuitarStv's response). Ironically the US in general has very little tolerance for other nations pushing their views in similar ways.
All the attention is precisely because such monumental changes can have direct and measurable impacts on citizens elsewhere.
Elephants are big and not always careful where they put their feet.
The US was prepared to meddle with Quebec independence. We don't trust American politicians to mind their own business. Plus there is lots of American right-wing private money coming into Canada. They spent it in the US and it worked, now we are the easy neighbouring target.
You know all that shining beacon of liberty and democracy propaganda that Americans spew? We watch like hawks to see what nonsense and crap is coming our way. Margaret Atwood didn't get the Hand-maiden's tale out of standard Canadian attitudes.
But does anyone outside the US actually understand what the ruling means? Do provinces make their own abortion laws in Canada, or is it regulated by the national government?
-
I'm happy for Democrats to improve requirements to child care but that should be for all children. Republicans might not be aware just how much it costs to look after a severely disabled child and requiring Republican voters to live at poverty levels in order to pay the full costs would be an eye-opener.
Any more I'm convinced all this is intentional on the GOP's part. Limit people's resources and earning potential. Keep the lowest rungs of society stocked with people desperate enough to do anything to make a living at poverty level wages. Meanwhile companies make solid profits.
No I don't have any proof but everything they do seems to reinforce these situations. Limited or no healthcare/childcare/housing/abortions. Limited oversight on high interest credit and other predatory business practices. Uneven school funding based on neighborhood property values instead of state wide equal public school funding. Keep the electorate scared, too busy to think, upset about the liberals, reinforce antique religious beliefs, keep people tied to their employers for insurance and their cars with few alternatives. Do as I say, not as I do.
-
Just curious why so many outside the US care so much about our laws, politics, court rulings, etc.? I see a lot of non-US citizens (and non-US residents) expending a lot of time and mental energy on things that have zero effect on them - and that they have zero ability to impact (i.e. voting, donating to rival candidates, etc.)
As a US citizen that spent over a decade living abroad, it's eye opening how constantly the US pushes its views and policies onto other countries (directly and indirectly), even ones which are allies. We do it through our foreign policy initiatives, trade policy, through military campaigns, and through 'spillover' (see GuitarStv's response). Ironically the US in general has very little tolerance for other nations pushing their views in similar ways.
All the attention is precisely because such monumental changes can have direct and measurable impacts on citizens elsewhere.
Elephants are big and not always careful where they put their feet.
The US was prepared to meddle with Quebec independence. We don't trust American politicians to mind their own business. Plus there is lots of American right-wing private money coming into Canada. They spent it in the US and it worked, now we are the easy neighbouring target.
You know all that shining beacon of liberty and democracy propaganda that Americans spew? We watch like hawks to see what nonsense and crap is coming our way. Margaret Atwood didn't get the Hand-maiden's tale out of standard Canadian attitudes.
But does anyone outside the US actually understand what the ruling means? Do provinces make their own abortion laws in Canada, or is it regulated by the national government?
I asked about the American law on one of these threads. In Canada the Federal government is in charge of criminal law and the provinces are in charge of civil law. Abortion was de-criminalized a good while ago - if you want to know our history, look up Henry Morgentaler.
-
Just curious why so many outside the US care so much about our laws, politics, court rulings, etc.? I see a lot of non-US citizens (and non-US residents) expending a lot of time and mental energy on things that have zero effect on them - and that they have zero ability to impact (i.e. voting, donating to rival candidates, etc.)
Things that happen in the USA absolutely impact other countries, especially countries that share a border like Canada and Mexico. As to not being able to contribute to US politics, is that true? I don't believe that there is any law preventing foreign nationals living wherever from contributing to 527s.
-
Just curious why so many outside the US care so much about our laws, politics, court rulings, etc.? I see a lot of non-US citizens (and non-US residents) expending a lot of time and mental energy on things that have zero effect on them - and that they have zero ability to impact (i.e. voting, donating to rival candidates, etc.)
As a US citizen that spent over a decade living abroad, it's eye opening how constantly the US pushes its views and policies onto other countries (directly and indirectly), even ones which are allies. We do it through our foreign policy initiatives, trade policy, through military campaigns, and through 'spillover' (see GuitarStv's response). Ironically the US in general has very little tolerance for other nations pushing their views in similar ways.
All the attention is precisely because such monumental changes can have direct and measurable impacts on citizens elsewhere.
Elephants are big and not always careful where they put their feet.
The US was prepared to meddle with Quebec independence. We don't trust American politicians to mind their own business. Plus there is lots of American right-wing private money coming into Canada. They spent it in the US and it worked, now we are the easy neighbouring target.
You know all that shining beacon of liberty and democracy propaganda that Americans spew? We watch like hawks to see what nonsense and crap is coming our way. Margaret Atwood didn't get the Hand-maiden's tale out of standard Canadian attitudes.
But does anyone outside the US actually understand what the ruling means? Do provinces make their own abortion laws in Canada, or is it regulated by the national government?
I asked about the American law on one of these threads. In Canada the Federal government is in charge of criminal law and the provinces are in charge of civil law. Abortion was de-criminalized a good while ago - if you want to know our history, look up Henry Morgentaler.
Abortion is decriminalized in Canada, but not recognized as a right. That's why when Conservatives start talking about opening up the abortion 'debate' people get riled up.
-
Those pointing out that US laws have effects outside the US are absolutely right, but let's not miss the irony of someone who is in favor of legislating women's healthcare choices asking why anyone would care about what other people do.
What the US does with our women is none of y'all's business /s
-
Just curious why so many outside the US care so much about our laws, politics, court rulings, etc.? I see a lot of non-US citizens (and non-US residents) expending a lot of time and mental energy on things that have zero effect on them - and that they have zero ability to impact (i.e. voting, donating to rival candidates, etc.)
As a US citizen that spent over a decade living abroad, it's eye opening how constantly the US pushes its views and policies onto other countries (directly and indirectly), even ones which are allies. We do it through our foreign policy initiatives, trade policy, through military campaigns, and through 'spillover' (see GuitarStv's response). Ironically the US in general has very little tolerance for other nations pushing their views in similar ways.
All the attention is precisely because such monumental changes can have direct and measurable impacts on citizens elsewhere.
Elephants are big and not always careful where they put their feet.
The US was prepared to meddle with Quebec independence. We don't trust American politicians to mind their own business. Plus there is lots of American right-wing private money coming into Canada. They spent it in the US and it worked, now we are the easy neighbouring target.
You know all that shining beacon of liberty and democracy propaganda that Americans spew? We watch like hawks to see what nonsense and crap is coming our way. Margaret Atwood didn't get the Hand-maiden's tale out of standard Canadian attitudes.
But does anyone outside the US actually understand what the ruling means? Do provinces make their own abortion laws in Canada, or is it regulated by the national government?
I asked about the American law on one of these threads. In Canada the Federal government is in charge of criminal law and the provinces are in charge of civil law. Abortion was de-criminalized a good while ago - if you want to know our history, look up Henry Morgentaler.
Abortion is decriminalized in Canada, but not recognized as a right. That's why when Conservatives start talking about opening up the abortion 'debate' people get riled up.
That is actually very surprising
-
Those pointing out that US laws have effects outside the US are absolutely right, but let's not miss the irony of someone who is in favor of legislating women's healthcare choices asking why anyone would care about what other people do.
What the US does with our women is none of y'all's business /s
I care that assisted suicide is legal in the Netherlands (I'm opposed to it). But I don't spend hours on Dutch message boards trying to change people's minds. Or in this case, yell into an echo chamber.
-
Just curious why so many outside the US care so much about our laws, politics, court rulings, etc.? I see a lot of non-US citizens (and non-US residents) expending a lot of time and mental energy on things that have zero effect on them - and that they have zero ability to impact (i.e. voting, donating to rival candidates, etc.)
As a US citizen that spent over a decade living abroad, it's eye opening how constantly the US pushes its views and policies onto other countries (directly and indirectly), even ones which are allies. We do it through our foreign policy initiatives, trade policy, through military campaigns, and through 'spillover' (see GuitarStv's response). Ironically the US in general has very little tolerance for other nations pushing their views in similar ways.
All the attention is precisely because such monumental changes can have direct and measurable impacts on citizens elsewhere.
Elephants are big and not always careful where they put their feet.
The US was prepared to meddle with Quebec independence. We don't trust American politicians to mind their own business. Plus there is lots of American right-wing private money coming into Canada. They spent it in the US and it worked, now we are the easy neighbouring target.
You know all that shining beacon of liberty and democracy propaganda that Americans spew? We watch like hawks to see what nonsense and crap is coming our way. Margaret Atwood didn't get the Hand-maiden's tale out of standard Canadian attitudes.
But does anyone outside the US actually understand what the ruling means? Do provinces make their own abortion laws in Canada, or is it regulated by the national government?
I asked about the American law on one of these threads. In Canada the Federal government is in charge of criminal law and the provinces are in charge of civil law. Abortion was de-criminalized a good while ago - if you want to know our history, look up Henry Morgentaler.
Abortion is decriminalized in Canada, but not recognized as a right. That's why when Conservatives start talking about opening up the abortion 'debate' people get riled up.
Exactly. Although it is solid enough that Harper tried to keep it down in his caucus.
-
Those pointing out that US laws have effects outside the US are absolutely right, but let's not miss the irony of someone who is in favor of legislating women's healthcare choices asking why anyone would care about what other people do.
What the US does with our women is none of y'all's business /s
I care that assisted suicide is legal in the Netherlands (I'm opposed to it). But I don't spend hours on Dutch message boards trying to change people's minds. Or in this case, yell into an echo chamber.
I haven’t encountered the Dutch trying to push their culture onto Americans the way we frequently do throughout Europe.
I also find it odd that you care but won’t engage with someone because they are Dutch, but you are quite active when they are American. Why is it ok to limit other’s choices only when they are American? I don’t understand the logic there…
-
Those pointing out that US laws have effects outside the US are absolutely right, but let's not miss the irony of someone who is in favor of legislating women's healthcare choices asking why anyone would care about what other people do.
What the US does with our women is none of y'all's business /s
I care that assisted suicide is legal in the Netherlands (I'm opposed to it). But I don't spend hours on Dutch message boards trying to change people's minds. Or in this case, yell into an echo chamber.
I haven’t encountered the Dutch trying to push their culture onto Americans the way we frequently do throughout Europe.
I also find it odd that you care but won’t engage with someone because they are Dutch, but you are quite active when they are American. Why is it ok to limit other’s choices only when they are American? I don’t understand the logic there…
Hmm, women (or at least some women) care when women elsewhere are subjugated. Because we care about our sisters, and we also know that if we are not careful we could be next. I am part of a group that is heavily involved in education for women in countries where they have difficulty getting an education. Right now we are particularly involved in Afghanistan. Hmm, another country where women were doing not too badly until recently.
Or I suppose I could quote John Donne.
No man is an island,
Entire of itself;
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less,
As well as if a promontory were:
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were.
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
Or better still
No man one is an island,
Entire of itself;
Every man one is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less,
As well as if a promontory were:
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were.
Any man'sperson's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in man humankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
Since technically man includes woman, but really people read man and think male.
-
Those pointing out that US laws have effects outside the US are absolutely right, but let's not miss the irony of someone who is in favor of legislating women's healthcare choices asking why anyone would care about what other people do.
What the US does with our women is none of y'all's business /s
I care that assisted suicide is legal in the Netherlands (I'm opposed to it). But I don't spend hours on Dutch message boards trying to change people's minds. Or in this case, yell into an echo chamber.
Ok, I can follow that reasoning. But in that case, why are borders/nationality relevant. In some instances laws affect you directly so country matters, because self interest, but laws regarding abortion and assisted suicide are about telling someone else what to do. Why does it matter where someone is from if you want to force your morality on them?
-
laws...are about telling someone else what to do.
Aren't they all? ;)
-
Just curious why so many outside the US care so much about our laws, politics, court rulings, etc.? I see a lot of non-US citizens (and non-US residents) expending a lot of time and mental energy on things that have zero effect on them - and that they have zero ability to impact (i.e. voting, donating to rival candidates, etc.)
I cannot speak to all the underlying "whys" but here in Sweden the news reports US news including politics and some court rulings to a much higher degrees than they do report the same thing from our neighboring countries like Russia, Denmark or Germany. If something more local (as opposed to national) is reported from the US it is usually from California or New York City.
Some of this - like the recent Johnny Depp / Amber Heard trial - is probably just an effect of the US domination of popular culture in the western world.
Since I've started reading more US sources (including this forum), I've also come to realize that when Swedish media reports about e.g. the US presidential elections, almost all Swedish media are very close to the US news sources that are leaning more towards the democratic party. The general Swedish population always seems surprised when a republican politician is elected even in a close race.
Why this focus? Damned if I know. We should care more about what happens close to us. I'm sure most of my fellow swedes could not name the runner up in big elections in countries in our vicinity. Many cannot surely not even name the winners of the presidency or the prime minister post in such countries unless they have been part of a scandal of some sort. But the US names are repeated often enough to be remembered.
-
Just curious why so many outside the US care so much about our laws, politics, court rulings, etc.? I see a lot of non-US citizens (and non-US residents) expending a lot of time and mental energy on things that have zero effect on them - and that they have zero ability to impact (i.e. voting, donating to rival candidates, etc.)
I find it curious someone would have trouble understanding the desire to discuss and expend mental energy on a situation in which roughly 50% of the population of a country is being stripped of a fundamental right the other 50% enjoys just because it doesn't personally affect the one wanting to discuss it.
Having said that, it probably has something to do with the USA having the largest military in the world, not to mention and buttload of nukes, coupled with the history of US democracy being spread at the business end of a gun. You country is becoming more and more controlled by extreme right wing nut-jobs. I'd like to believe y'all will keep your special kind of crazy confined to your own borders. History says you will do your damnedest to spread it as far and wide as you can and you will use whatever means available.
Why would anyone with sense not be interested in what goes on over there whether they can stop the crazy or not?
-
Those of us who are outside the US can help stop the crazy by donating to AidAccess, which can provide women in the USA who live in States which have banned abortion with abortion pills prescribed by a doctor in the Netherlands and sent from India -
https://aidaccess.org/en/i-need-an-abortion
They've just had a donation from me and will go on my repeat donations list.
-
Just curious why so many outside the US care so much about our laws, politics, court rulings, etc.? I see a lot of non-US citizens (and non-US residents) expending a lot of time and mental energy on things that have zero effect on them - and that they have zero ability to impact (i.e. voting, donating to rival candidates, etc.)
I cannot speak to all the underlying "whys" but here in Sweden the news reports US news including politics and some court rulings to a much higher degrees than they do report the same thing from our neighboring countries like Russia, Denmark or Germany. If something more local (as opposed to national) is reported from the US it is usually from California or New York City.
Some of this - like the recent Johnny Depp / Amber Heard trial - is probably just an effect of the US domination of popular culture in the western world.
Since I've started reading more US sources (including this forum), I've also come to realize that when Swedish media reports about e.g. the US presidential elections, almost all Swedish media are very close to the US news sources that are leaning more towards the democratic party. The general Swedish population always seems surprised when a republican politician is elected even in a close race.
Why this focus? Damned if I know. We should care more about what happens close to us. I'm sure most of my fellow swedes could not name the runner up in big elections in countries in our vicinity. Many cannot surely not even name the winners of the presidency or the prime minister post in such countries unless they have been part of a scandal of some sort. But the US names are repeated often enough to be remembered.
I hope that the Swedish press is also up in arms about the almost total abortion ban much closer to home in Poland.
-
I hope that the Swedish press is also up in arms about the almost total abortion ban much closer to home in Poland.
It has been mentioned, but much less so than the American situation. I do remember especially that it was mentioned as many women fled from Ukraine to Poland after the invasion and a major Swedish hospital tried to make noise to get those refugees wanting abortion to go on from Poland to reach the Swedish system in time (18 weeks is the cut-off to do it at will here).
There have been very recent discussions about putting the right to abortion in our basic laws (the closest thing we have to a constitution) but that was triggered by the American situation, not the Polish. Our basic laws are rather easy to change so given a big political shift in the nation it would be harder to do than a regular law change but not by much. It would however require a big political shift as only one or possibly two parties (of currently eight parties in the parliament) have anti-abortion fractions that can be heard.
-
I hope that the Swedish press is also up in arms about the almost total abortion ban much closer to home in Poland.
It has been mentioned, but much less so than the American situation. I do remember especially that it was mentioned as many women fled from Ukraine to Poland after the invasion and a major Swedish hospital tried to make noise to get those refugees wanting abortion to go on from Poland to reach the Swedish system in time (18 weeks is the cut-off to do it at will here).
There have been very recent discussions about putting the right to abortion in our basic laws (the closest thing we have to a constitution) but that was triggered by the American situation, not the Polish. Our basic laws are rather easy to change so given a big political shift in the nation it would be harder to do than a regular law change but not by much. It would however require a big political shift as only one or possibly two parties (of currently eight parties in the parliament) have anti-abortion fractions that can be heard.
That 18 week number came up in US media (also 12- and 14-week numbers from other Europeans). A lot of conservatives are using those numbers to say that the US (under Roe and Casey) was a libertine abortion paradise compared to Europe, while totally ignoring the lack of resources available for health care and birth control here in the US.
-
I hope that the Swedish press is also up in arms about the almost total abortion ban much closer to home in Poland.
It has been mentioned, but much less so than the American situation. I do remember especially that it was mentioned as many women fled from Ukraine to Poland after the invasion and a major Swedish hospital tried to make noise to get those refugees wanting abortion to go on from Poland to reach the Swedish system in time (18 weeks is the cut-off to do it at will here).
There have been very recent discussions about putting the right to abortion in our basic laws (the closest thing we have to a constitution) but that was triggered by the American situation, not the Polish. Our basic laws are rather easy to change so given a big political shift in the nation it would be harder to do than a regular law change but not by much. It would however require a big political shift as only one or possibly two parties (of currently eight parties in the parliament) have anti-abortion fractions that can be heard.
That 18 week number came up in US media (also 12- and 14-week numbers from other Europeans). A lot of conservatives are using those numbers to say that the US (under Roe and Casey) was a libertine abortion paradise compared to Europe, while totally ignoring the lack of resources available for health care and birth control here in the US.
Yes, this is why the 6 week and similar cut-offs make me so mad. The SAME people who want to restrict abortion to very narrow time windows are making it impossible for women to get an early abortion by imposing waiting periods, ultrasounds, closing down abortion services in the community and forcing them to travel long distances. All these delay tactics make things worse for everyone. No one wants a late term abortion. You want it done ASAP, but they're making them jump through hoops until the window has closed. So sure, it's easy for me to get an early abortion in Connecticut, where I have more time and abortion services within 5 miles of my house, but in the states where they restrict it, they've made it nearly impossible for people to meet those time limits. I would be money that people who live in my state get more early abortions vs later abortions because we don't have to go through an obstacle course. And then they'll wring their hands about women choosing later abortions.
-
Just curious why so many outside the US care so much about our laws, politics, court rulings, etc.? I see a lot of non-US citizens (and non-US residents) expending a lot of time and mental energy on things that have zero effect on them - and that they have zero ability to impact (i.e. voting, donating to rival candidates, etc.)
I live in Canada.
When Donald Trump drew your racists out of their cockroach-holes? Ours started coming out of their cockroach holes too. All of a sudden, we have these Trucker Convoy jackasses with their swastikas, 3% shirts and White Replacement Theory parading around our capital city.
When your anti-abortion ruling came out? Our anti-abortion politicians started getting bolder.
We're close enough that your society deeply affects ours.
So yes, we pay attention.
Toque.
-
Any more I'm convinced all this is intentional on the GOP's part. Limit people's resources and earning potential. Keep the lowest rungs of society stocked with people desperate enough to do anything to make a living at poverty level wages. Meanwhile companies make solid profits.
No I don't have any proof but everything they do seems to reinforce these situations. Limited or no healthcare/childcare/housing/abortions. Limited oversight on high interest credit and other predatory business practices. Uneven school funding based on neighborhood property values instead of state wide equal public school funding. Keep the electorate scared, too busy to think, upset about the liberals, reinforce antique religious beliefs, keep people tied to their employers for insurance and their cars with few alternatives. Do as I say, not as I do.
I grew up in an evangelical fundamentalist household, so I think I have something to say about the state of desperation and what it's used for.
From my perspective, now, as an adult, given everything I have learned about human psychology, the point of church as I experienced it was to activate the internal threat system. One to three times a week, we filed in and sat down to be yelled at for an hour by an angry man about how bad something or other was. We had to DO something, or God would punish everyone.
- If we give money to the homeless, they will spend it on SIN and God will be pissed.
If we allow children to learn about other worldviews, they will SIN and God will be pissed.
If we give handouts to people in bad situations because of SIN, they will SIN MORE and God will be pissed. We were not to interfere in God's punishments, because it would create a sin surplus and then we'd all be fucked.
It creates a system where inequality is untouchable and winner-take-all is divinely ordained.
I see now that it doesn't make any sense, but it was the basis of my life and for all I can tell, most people continue to believe it and live the same high-stress, high-threat lifestyle their whole lives. It's the lens through which they view everything.
Being in a state of threat all the time makes you very exploitable, because you no longer have a clear idea of what is and isn't a threat to you, and any innocuous thing can be handily converted into a threat (Rock music! Dungeons & Dragons! Spaghetti-strap tank tops! Leggings as pants!). The only means by which you are really allowed to help someone, as a fundamentalist, is to try to convert them.
All religious people and all Republicans aren't like this, obviously. But there is a nice wide base of people like this who can be mobilized about more or less anything. It doesn't matter if it's abortion or the Dixie Chicks. When the threat system is active, there is no longer a concept of small matters vs. large matters.
-
I live in Canada and in addition to having basic human compassion for other women who are losing their fundamental human rights, I can also see ripple effects here. The day after the ruling, some zealots left a graphic anti-abortion flyer at my house. It contained incorrect information and featured large colour images that were extremely distressing, especially as someone who has suffered a miscarriage. I see the efforts on the right to restrict and make abortion access more difficult here, and they are being empowered by what happens in America. It's a sad time to be a woman in the supposed democracy that is the USA.
-
Any more I'm convinced all this is intentional on the GOP's part. Limit people's resources and earning potential. Keep the lowest rungs of society stocked with people desperate enough to do anything to make a living at poverty level wages. Meanwhile companies make solid profits.
No I don't have any proof but everything they do seems to reinforce these situations. Limited or no healthcare/childcare/housing/abortions. Limited oversight on high interest credit and other predatory business practices. Uneven school funding based on neighborhood property values instead of state wide equal public school funding. Keep the electorate scared, too busy to think, upset about the liberals, reinforce antique religious beliefs, keep people tied to their employers for insurance and their cars with few alternatives. Do as I say, not as I do.
I grew up in an evangelical fundamentalist household, so I think I have something to say about the state of desperation and what it's used for.
From my perspective, now, as an adult, given everything I have learned about human psychology, the point of church as I experienced it was to activate the internal threat system. One to three times a week, we filed in and sat down to be yelled at for an hour by an angry man about how bad something or other was. We had to DO something, or God would punish everyone.
- If we give money to the homeless, they will spend it on SIN and God will be pissed.
If we allow children to learn about other worldviews, they will SIN and God will be pissed.
If we give handouts to people in bad situations because of SIN, they will SIN MORE and God will be pissed. We were not to interfere in God's punishments, because it would create a sin surplus and then we'd all be fucked.
It creates a system where inequality is untouchable and winner-take-all is divinely ordained.
I see now that it doesn't make any sense, but it was the basis of my life and for all I can tell, most people continue to believe it and live the same high-stress, high-threat lifestyle their whole lives. It's the lens through which they view everything.
Being in a state of threat all the time makes you very exploitable, because you no longer have a clear idea of what is and isn't a threat to you, and any innocuous thing can be handily converted into a threat (Rock music! Dungeons & Dragons! Spaghetti-strap tank tops! Leggings as pants!). The only means by which you are really allowed to help someone, as a fundamentalist, is to try to convert them.
All religious people and all Republicans aren't like this, obviously. But there is a nice wide base of people like this who can be mobilized about more or less anything. It doesn't matter if it's abortion or the Dixie Chicks. When the threat system is active, there is no longer a concept of small matters vs. large matters.
Thanks for bringing this up. Someone earlier posted a link to Ana Kasparian talking about how she doesn't care if you want to live as a Christian, she just doesn't want to be told to live by Christian/Biblical values. I feel like people who weren't raised in an evangelical/conservative household don't understand that this isn't an argument to evangelicals.
The entire point of evangelical Christianity is to EVANGELIZE. If you don't spread the gospel, there are people out there who won't get saved and it's YOUR FAULT they're going to hell. If those people sin because they never heard the Good News, that's your fault too. You are pushed over and over and over again to "fix" the whole world, and it's on your shoulders if people sin and die and go to hell.
Christians are saving you from yourself, and saving other people from your mistakes/sins, when they push legislation that is aligned with Christian values. Saying "you go be a good Christian, just leave me alone" means literally NOTHING to a lot of people.
And yes, obviously not all Christians are like this. It's definitely how I was raised, though, and especially as a child and a young adult, it feels like it makes sense if that's all you've ever heard. It's really hard to get away from that viewpoint.
-
Any more I'm convinced all this is intentional on the GOP's part. Limit people's resources and earning potential. Keep the lowest rungs of society stocked with people desperate enough to do anything to make a living at poverty level wages. Meanwhile companies make solid profits.
No I don't have any proof but everything they do seems to reinforce these situations. Limited or no healthcare/childcare/housing/abortions. Limited oversight on high interest credit and other predatory business practices. Uneven school funding based on neighborhood property values instead of state wide equal public school funding. Keep the electorate scared, too busy to think, upset about the liberals, reinforce antique religious beliefs, keep people tied to their employers for insurance and their cars with few alternatives. Do as I say, not as I do.
I grew up in an evangelical fundamentalist household, so I think I have something to say about the state of desperation and what it's used for.
From my perspective, now, as an adult, given everything I have learned about human psychology, the point of church as I experienced it was to activate the internal threat system. One to three times a week, we filed in and sat down to be yelled at for an hour by an angry man about how bad something or other was. We had to DO something, or God would punish everyone.
- If we give money to the homeless, they will spend it on SIN and God will be pissed.
If we allow children to learn about other worldviews, they will SIN and God will be pissed.
If we give handouts to people in bad situations because of SIN, they will SIN MORE and God will be pissed. We were not to interfere in God's punishments, because it would create a sin surplus and then we'd all be fucked.
It creates a system where inequality is untouchable and winner-take-all is divinely ordained.
I see now that it doesn't make any sense, but it was the basis of my life and for all I can tell, most people continue to believe it and live the same high-stress, high-threat lifestyle their whole lives. It's the lens through which they view everything.
Being in a state of threat all the time makes you very exploitable, because you no longer have a clear idea of what is and isn't a threat to you, and any innocuous thing can be handily converted into a threat (Rock music! Dungeons & Dragons! Spaghetti-strap tank tops! Leggings as pants!). The only means by which you are really allowed to help someone, as a fundamentalist, is to try to convert them.
All religious people and all Republicans aren't like this, obviously. But there is a nice wide base of people like this who can be mobilized about more or less anything. It doesn't matter if it's abortion or the Dixie Chicks. When the threat system is active, there is no longer a concept of small matters vs. large matters.
Thanks for bringing this up. Someone earlier posted a link to Ana Kasparian talking about how she doesn't care if you want to live as a Christian, she just doesn't want to be told to live by Christian/Biblical values. I feel like people who weren't raised in an evangelical/conservative household don't understand that this isn't an argument to evangelicals.
I assume quoting Matthew 25:31-46 back to them and telling them that they are doing it wrong isn't super helpful?
-
Any more I'm convinced all this is intentional on the GOP's part. Limit people's resources and earning potential. Keep the lowest rungs of society stocked with people desperate enough to do anything to make a living at poverty level wages. Meanwhile companies make solid profits.
No I don't have any proof but everything they do seems to reinforce these situations. Limited or no healthcare/childcare/housing/abortions. Limited oversight on high interest credit and other predatory business practices. Uneven school funding based on neighborhood property values instead of state wide equal public school funding. Keep the electorate scared, too busy to think, upset about the liberals, reinforce antique religious beliefs, keep people tied to their employers for insurance and their cars with few alternatives. Do as I say, not as I do.
I grew up in an evangelical fundamentalist household, so I think I have something to say about the state of desperation and what it's used for.
From my perspective, now, as an adult, given everything I have learned about human psychology, the point of church as I experienced it was to activate the internal threat system. One to three times a week, we filed in and sat down to be yelled at for an hour by an angry man about how bad something or other was. We had to DO something, or God would punish everyone.
- If we give money to the homeless, they will spend it on SIN and God will be pissed.
If we allow children to learn about other worldviews, they will SIN and God will be pissed.
If we give handouts to people in bad situations because of SIN, they will SIN MORE and God will be pissed. We were not to interfere in God's punishments, because it would create a sin surplus and then we'd all be fucked.
It creates a system where inequality is untouchable and winner-take-all is divinely ordained.
I see now that it doesn't make any sense, but it was the basis of my life and for all I can tell, most people continue to believe it and live the same high-stress, high-threat lifestyle their whole lives. It's the lens through which they view everything.
Being in a state of threat all the time makes you very exploitable, because you no longer have a clear idea of what is and isn't a threat to you, and any innocuous thing can be handily converted into a threat (Rock music! Dungeons & Dragons! Spaghetti-strap tank tops! Leggings as pants!). The only means by which you are really allowed to help someone, as a fundamentalist, is to try to convert them.
All religious people and all Republicans aren't like this, obviously. But there is a nice wide base of people like this who can be mobilized about more or less anything. It doesn't matter if it's abortion or the Dixie Chicks. When the threat system is active, there is no longer a concept of small matters vs. large matters.
Thanks for bringing this up. Someone earlier posted a link to Ana Kasparian talking about how she doesn't care if you want to live as a Christian, she just doesn't want to be told to live by Christian/Biblical values. I feel like people who weren't raised in an evangelical/conservative household don't understand that this isn't an argument to evangelicals.
I assume quoting Matthew 25:31-46 back to them and telling them that they are doing it wrong isn't super helpful?
Oh they get real mad if you quote the Bible in an argument...
-
I assume quoting Matthew 25:31-46 back to them and telling them that they are doing it wrong isn't super helpful?
There is a certain type of believer who will read Matthew 25 and feel exactly that cognitive dissonance. I mean, US Christian churches basically have an entire "left" comprised mostly of mainline Protestants. The problem is, for the doubting evangelical, there is also an army of dudes who call themselves "theologians" (because "dude with a lot of opinions" doesn't sound important enough) and their vanity publishing imprints, who are ready with books, magazines, think-pieces, and radio shows to explain why when Jesus said "love one another," he didn't mean like that.
My family had several subscriptions to magazines that told us what movies and shows we shouldn't watch and what books we shouldn't read. An awful lot of them were documentaries, or books by people who were patently Christian, but not the right flavor. Leaving that fold is incredibly difficult. They are very careful to poison your trust in yourself and in everyone outside their small approved list. Which is why, when I grew up and moved away, I was deeply shocked to discover there were entire Christian denominations that approved of a woman's right to choose. In fact, I later learned that the denomination I grew up in had actually written an amicus brief in support of Roe v. Wade. The position had totally shifted in the decade before I was born.
-
Just curious why so many outside the US care so much about our laws, politics, court rulings, etc.? I see a lot of non-US citizens (and non-US residents) expending a lot of time and mental energy on things that have zero effect on them - and that they have zero ability to impact (i.e. voting, donating to rival candidates, etc.)
I live in Canada.
When Donald Trump drew your racists out of their cockroach-holes? Ours started coming out of their cockroach holes too. All of a sudden, we have these Trucker Convoy jackasses with their swastikas, 3% shirts and White Replacement Theory parading around our capital city.
When your anti-abortion ruling came out? Our anti-abortion politicians started getting bolder.
We're close enough that your society deeply affects ours.
So yes, we pay attention.
Toque.
I noticed that as well. I make it a point to try and pay attention as to how it affects Canada in particular. Hopefully it never truly takes hold as it has here in the states. I would hate to move Canada down the list of places we are targeting to move to next. ( :
-
laws...are about telling someone else what to do.
Aren't they all? ;)
They sure are. But if you hadn't chopped up the context of that quote it would be obvious that I meant telling people what to do when it doesn't affect you
The important question was:
Why does it matter where someone is from if you want to force your morality on them?
This question also requires prior context. If you're interested in this discussion i'd ask that you go back to the other posters initial question and follow along.
-
laws...are about telling someone else what to do.
Aren't they all? ;)
They sure are. But if you hadn't chopped up the context of that quote it would be obvious that I meant telling people what to do when it doesn't affect you
The important question was:
Why does it matter where someone is from if you want to force your morality on them?
This question also requires prior context. If you're interested in this discussion i'd ask that you go back to the other posters initial question and follow along.
Laws are the collective moral judgment of the citizenry that enforces them, whether any one individual is affected by a given law or not.
-
laws...are about telling someone else what to do.
Aren't they all? ;)
They sure are. But if you hadn't chopped up the context of that quote it would be obvious that I meant telling people what to do when it doesn't affect you
The important question was:
Why does it matter where someone is from if you want to force your morality on them?
This question also requires prior context. If you're interested in this discussion i'd ask that you go back to the other posters initial question and follow along.
Laws are the collective moral judgment of the citizenry that enforces them, whether any one individual is affected by a given law or not.
You can just say you're not interested in the context or discussion, that's ok.
-
You can just say you're not interested in the context or discussion, that's ok.
You can ignore the point - that's ok, too.
-
Can I attempt to describe the point:
In order to have a society based on law, we implicitly bake a set of moral ideas into those laws?
Even if the moral ideas are not explicitly laid out (say as the United States has in its founding documents), they still take shape over time as courts build up a set of rulings.
-
Can I attempt to describe the point:
In order to have a society based on law, we implicitly bake a set of moral ideas into those laws?
Even if the moral ideas are not explicitly laid out (say as the United States has in its founding documents), they still take shape over time as courts build up a set of rulings.
Yes, this is logically consistent.
Morality is an artificial human construct used to determine which actions are right or wrong.
Laws are a written codification of (some part of) this morality generally accepted and enforced by the rulers of the society.
There are also many non-legally enforced morality standards that society demands of it's members - etiquette, expected behaviour, taboo, etc. (It's not illegal to swear while in church, but most of us wouldn't do it. It's legal for women to walk around topless in Canada, but almost none ever do.)
-
Can I attempt to describe the point:
In order to have a society based on law, we implicitly bake a set of moral ideas into those laws?
Even if the moral ideas are not explicitly laid out (say as the United States has in its founding documents), they still take shape over time as courts build up a set of rulings.
Yes, this is logically consistent.
Morality is an artificial human construct used to determine which actions are right or wrong.
Laws are a written codification of (some part of) this morality generally accepted and enforced by the rulers of the society.
There are also many non-legally enforced morality standards that society demands of it's members - etiquette, expected behaviour, taboo, etc. (It's not illegal to swear while in church, but most of us wouldn't do it. It's legal for women to walk around topless in Canada, but almost none ever do.)
Yeah, sunburn in the summer, frostbite in the winter, yahoos inside, why would we? And it is all cultural, I've been to Club Meds that had mostly Europeans staying there and topless was common. I'm Canadian, for me clothing is protection and I certainly wouldn't want to be topless while wearing a life jacket. So it is cultural.
Cultural mores do shift - women used to hide away in public bathrooms when they were out and needed to breastfeed - now there are nice areas set aside, or they just do it discretely right out in pubic and no-one says boo.
-
I assume quoting Matthew 25:31-46 back to them and telling them that they are doing it wrong isn't super helpful?
There is a certain type of believer who will read Matthew 25 and feel exactly that cognitive dissonance. I mean, US Christian churches basically have an entire "left" comprised mostly of mainline Protestants. The problem is, for the doubting evangelical, there is also an army of dudes who call themselves "theologians" (because "dude with a lot of opinions" doesn't sound important enough) and their vanity publishing imprints, who are ready with books, magazines, think-pieces, and radio shows to explain why when Jesus said "love one another," he didn't mean like that.
My family had several subscriptions to magazines that told us what movies and shows we shouldn't watch and what books we shouldn't read. An awful lot of them were documentaries, or books by people who were patently Christian, but not the right flavor. Leaving that fold is incredibly difficult. They are very careful to poison your trust in yourself and in everyone outside their small approved list. Which is why, when I grew up and moved away, I was deeply shocked to discover there were entire Christian denominations that approved of a woman's right to choose. In fact, I later learned that the denomination I grew up in had actually written an amicus brief in support of Roe v. Wade. The position had totally shifted in the decade before I was born.
Your post is spot on, thank you for sharing it. My husband was raised in an evangelical household and grew up consuming only media published by Focus on Family. He still reflexively says "Clinton News Network" any time I say CNN. He has spent almost 20 years now picking apart and questioning the framework in which he was raised. It is A LOT of work.
-
Abortion bans and the subsequent dismantling of Ob-Gyn services are a quick and effective way to destroy a state´s attractiveness for businesses:
Abortion doctors’ post-Roe dilemma: Move, stay or straddle state lines
Health experts warn that this potential migration could be devastating for patients, leaving them without access to birth control, prenatal care and other reproductive health services.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/29/abortion-doctors-post-roe-dilemma-move-stay-or-straddle-state-lines-00040660
-
Another article:
Roe v. Wade: Medical Groups React to Supreme Court Decision
"I'd like to take a moment to talk about the future of the medical profession," said ACOG Chief Executive Officer Maureen G. Phipps, MD, MPH. "Today's decision is, as Dr Hoskins clearly said, a tragic one for our patients in states across the country, but the harm does not end there."
Phipps described overturning Roe v. Wade as "the boldest act of legislative interference that we have seen in this country. It will allow state legislators to tell physicians what care they can and cannot provide to their patients."
"It will leave physicians looking over our shoulders, wondering if a patient is an enough of a crisis to permit an exception to a law," Phipps added. "This is an affront to all that drew my colleagues and me into medicine."
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/976186?src=WNL_trdalrt_pos1_220628&uac=172418FT&impID=4377841
-
I'm from Europe, have been in the US for 20 years (currently in Texas) and am seriously considering moving back because of the direction I see this country going. It's a tough decision but I realize I am fortunate having another option and money to facilitate the move. I am torn though as I feel I am leaving the less fortunate to fight this battle alone. Also, I have an 18 year old daughter and I am scared for her being a young woman in Texas (part of me hopes that if I move back to Europe eventually she might move there too). I seriously can't believe we are here, in the US, where half of the population lack basic human rights and are ruled by the Christian minority. I don't know where to cry or scream on a daily basis.
-
Cultural mores do shift - women used to hide away in public bathrooms when they were out and needed to breastfeed - now there are nice areas set aside, or they just do it discretely right out in pubic and no-one says boo.
Minor quibble, but no, they didn't, until they did. There are historical photos of women breastfeeding freely in public from the earliest days of photography, approximately through the second world war. In fact, a locket photo of your wife breastfeeding your baby was quite a fad for gentlemen of means in the 1910s. In historical terms, hiding to nurse is more fad than cultural more.
-
Phipps described overturning Roe v. Wade as "the boldest act of legislative interference that we have seen in this country. It will allow state legislators to tell physicians what care they can and cannot provide to their patients."
"It will leave physicians looking over our shoulders, wondering if a patient is an enough of a crisis to permit an exception to a law," Phipps added. "This is an affront to all that drew my colleagues and me into medicine."
At one point a central plank of the GOP was that government should leave decisions about medical care to the patient and their doctor. This was a core objection to the ACA (and often applied to debunked claims of what the ACA would do, aka "death panels").
We now have a GOP that is actively clamoring for increased governmental involvement and third-party enforcement of medical care. We are now in a world where state legislatures will be imposing forced pregnancies on people.
-
I feel like it bears repeating that overturning Roe v. Wade did not make abortions illegal in the US. It removed a constitutional right that was created by Roe w. Wade 50 years ago from an interpretation of the 4th amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...." It has now returned it to a state level issue per the 10th amendment.
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.
Many states still allow abortions (22 states - basically the west coast, all of the northeast, and several other blue states in the middle of the country). In some states it is now illegal (13 states - parts of the south and north central US). In some states there are restrictions and may eventually be complete bans (15 states - deep south and parts of the midwest).
-
I feel like it bears repeating that overturning Roe v. Wade did not make abortions illegal in the US. It removed a constitutional right that was created by Roe w. Wade 50 years ago from an interpretation of the 4th amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...." It has now returned it to a state level issue per the 10th amendment.
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.
Many states still allow abortions (22 states - basically the west coast, all of the northeast, and several other blue states in the middle of the country). In some states it is now illegal (13 states - parts of the south and north central US). In some states there are restrictions and may eventually be complete bans (15 states - deep south and parts of the midwest).
If you don't think that the next step is to push for a nationwide ban, you are out of your mind.
-
I feel like it bears repeating that overturning Roe v. Wade did not make abortions illegal in the US. It removed a constitutional right that was created by Roe w. Wade 50 years ago from an interpretation of the 4th amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...." It has now returned it to a state level issue per the 10th amendment.
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.
Many states still allow abortions (22 states - basically the west coast, all of the northeast, and several other blue states in the middle of the country). In some states it is now illegal (13 states - parts of the south and north central US). In some states there are restrictions and may eventually be complete bans (15 states - deep south and parts of the midwest).
Yes, states are now free to enact laws which violate the 14th amendment - making pregnant women slaves to their fetuses.
-
I'm from Europe, have been in the US for 20 years (currently in Texas) and am seriously considering moving back because of the direction I see this country going. It's a tough decision but I realize I am fortunate having another option and money to facilitate the move. I am torn though as I feel I am leaving the less fortunate to fight this battle alone. Also, I have an 18 year old daughter and I am scared for her being a young woman in Texas (part of me hopes that if I move back to Europe eventually she might move there too). I seriously can't believe we are here, in the US, where half of the population lack basic human rights and are ruled by the Christian minority. I don't know where to cry or scream on a daily basis.
I would not characterize moving that way (bolded), unless there are things you think you will do, living in Texas, that you would not or could not do if you moved. TBH, if you aren't a citizen, probably the most effective thing you can do is donate money, and you can do that equally well whether you live in a heinous place or not. Also, moving makes a statement and, if enough people do it, can actually matter in material terms, so you could be doing some good by moving. I totally understand why you are torn and how it feels that way....but hope that adds some perspective.
-
Cultural mores do shift - women used to hide away in public bathrooms when they were out and needed to breastfeed - now there are nice areas set aside, or they just do it discretely right out in pubic and no-one says boo.
Minor quibble, but no, they didn't, until they did. There are historical photos of women breastfeeding freely in public from the earliest days of photography, approximately through the second world war. In fact, a locket photo of your wife breastfeeding your baby was quite a fad for gentlemen of means in the 1910s. In historical terms, hiding to nurse is more fad than cultural more.
Hmm, maybe we can get the GOP to want to go back to 1910 instead of 1950? Because in the 50s not only did a woman not breastfeed in public, breastfeeding was thought a second best to formula. Breastfeeding was something that only happened in 3rd world countries or some similar attitude. We in the west were more civilized than that. /s
But that info also shows that so many of our behaviours are cultural, and what is acceptable can change quite easily. Of course I also suspect that a lot of our present "cultural norms" are what is good for big business, you can make money off of formula but not breast milk. Certainly the whole advertising industry and planned obsolescence got a big push after WWII. There were all these industries geared up to make things for the war, and then there was no war. They had to find new markets.
So something worth considering is why is this good (anti-abortion and all the other rights that are being or will be suppressed) for big business? I thought the economy benefited from women working and families having 2 incomes to spend. I know Quebec found it was economically beneficial for the Provincial economy to subsidize daycare. But I am not an economist - can an economist comment? Or is it purely misogyny?
-
I'm from Europe, have been in the US for 20 years (currently in Texas) and am seriously considering moving back because of the direction I see this country going. It's a tough decision but I realize I am fortunate having another option and money to facilitate the move. I am torn though as I feel I am leaving the less fortunate to fight this battle alone. Also, I have an 18 year old daughter and I am scared for her being a young woman in Texas (part of me hopes that if I move back to Europe eventually she might move there too). I seriously can't believe we are here, in the US, where half of the population lack basic human rights and are ruled by the Christian minority. I don't know where to cry or scream on a daily basis.
I would not characterize moving that way (bolded), unless there are things you think you will do, living in Texas, that you would not or could not do if you moved. TBH, if you aren't a citizen, probably the most effective thing you can do is donate money, and you can do that equally well whether you live in a heinous place or not. Also, moving makes a statement and, if enough people do it, can actually matter in material terms, so you could be doing some good by moving. I totally understand why you are torn and how it feels that way....but hope that adds some perspective.
In some respects, it makes it much easier to be part of the abortion underground. Helping women who want an abortion makes you immune to the silly citizen abortion lawsuits if you're a non-resident.
-
I feel like it bears repeating that overturning Roe v. Wade did not make abortions illegal in the US.
I feel like this is a distinction without a difference in reference to the earlier posts. The end result is that women can be forced to carry a pregnancy to term. In the worst cases they can be forced to carry a pregnancy they did not consent to and that carries a serious medical risk.
-
I'm from Europe, have been in the US for 20 years (currently in Texas) and am seriously considering moving back because of the direction I see this country going. It's a tough decision but I realize I am fortunate having another option and money to facilitate the move. I am torn though as I feel I am leaving the less fortunate to fight this battle alone. Also, I have an 18 year old daughter and I am scared for her being a young woman in Texas (part of me hopes that if I move back to Europe eventually she might move there too). I seriously can't believe we are here, in the US, where half of the population lack basic human rights and are ruled by the Christian minority. I don't know where to cry or scream on a daily basis.
I would not characterize moving that way (bolded), unless there are things you think you will do, living in Texas, that you would not or could not do if you moved. TBH, if you aren't a citizen, probably the most effective thing you can do is donate money, and you can do that equally well whether you live in a heinous place or not. Also, moving makes a statement and, if enough people do it, can actually matter in material terms, so you could be doing some good by moving. I totally understand why you are torn and how it feels that way....but hope that adds some perspective.
In some respects, it makes it much easier to be part of the abortion underground. Helping women who want an abortion makes you immune to the silly citizen abortion lawsuits if you're a non-resident.
It remains to be seen how the current Supreme Court will rule on cases involving this sort of thing.
-
...
So something worth considering is why is this good (anti-abortion and all the other rights that are being or will be suppressed) for big business? I thought the economy benefited from women working and families having 2 incomes to spend. I know Quebec found it was economically beneficial for the Provincial economy to subsidize daycare. But I am not an economist - can an economist comment? Or is it purely misogyny?
Actually, big business hates the current situation as it has introduced political risk/uncertainty which makes long term planning difficult and effectively attaches strings of unpredictable nature to any tax incentive deal or similar.
Add to that the dismantling of healthcare services for half the potential employee pool and the hostility of governments of abortion ban states to efforts to mitigate the detrimental effects on employee health, such as travel allowances etc., and the interest of many businesses in operating in such states might be found not to be as strong as in the past.
Big business does not like the current and evolving situation and cannot wait for it to be sorted out either with a nationwide abortion ban or the nationwide elimination of abortion bans. And of those two options, elimination of abortion bans nationwide is economically far preferable.
Only Mike Pence has so far stepped up and proclaimed to campaign for a federal abortion ban - likely hoping to reel in donors who understand that the current situation is unsustainable, particularly with the economic damage mostly accrueing in GOP states, and who are ready to push forward with whatever it takes to implement a federal ban.
-
Cultural mores do shift - women used to hide away in public bathrooms when they were out and needed to breastfeed - now there are nice areas set aside, or they just do it discretely right out in pubic and no-one says boo.
Minor quibble, but no, they didn't, until they did. There are historical photos of women breastfeeding freely in public from the earliest days of photography, approximately through the second world war. In fact, a locket photo of your wife breastfeeding your baby was quite a fad for gentlemen of means in the 1910s. In historical terms, hiding to nurse is more fad than cultural more.
Hmm, maybe we can get the GOP to want to go back to 1910 instead of 1950? Because in the 50s not only did a woman not breastfeed in public, breastfeeding was thought a second best to formula. Breastfeeding was something that only happened in 3rd world countries or some similar attitude. We in the west were more civilized than that. /s
But that info also shows that so many of our behaviours are cultural, and what is acceptable can change quite easily. Of course I also suspect that a lot of our present "cultural norms" are what is good for big business, you can make money off of formula but not breast milk. Certainly the whole advertising industry and planned obsolescence got a big push after WWII. There were all these industries geared up to make things for the war, and then there was no war. They had to find new markets.
So something worth considering is why is this good (anti-abortion and all the other rights that are being or will be suppressed) for big business? I thought the economy benefited from women working and families having 2 incomes to spend. I know Quebec found it was economically beneficial for the Provincial economy to subsidize daycare. But I am not an economist - can an economist comment? Or is it purely misogyny?
Actually Janet Yellen--when she was still in her academic position--published at least one paper studying women who chose to terminate pregnancies, and looking at their later labor market earnings and take-up rates for public benefits.
-
I feel like it bears repeating that overturning Roe v. Wade did not make abortions illegal in the US. It removed a constitutional right that was created by Roe w. Wade 50 years ago from an interpretation of the 4th amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...." It has now returned it to a state level issue per the 10th amendment.
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.
Many states still allow abortions (22 states - basically the west coast, all of the northeast, and several other blue states in the middle of the country). In some states it is now illegal (13 states - parts of the south and north central US). In some states there are restrictions and may eventually be complete bans (15 states - deep south and parts of the midwest).
Im addition to cosigning the others' response to this, I have to protest your incorrect characterization of Roe. I'm not going to pull out my law school notes on this to do a good job on it myself, but I will refer you to top tier legal reporter Dahlia Lithwick, just recently interviewed by Ezra Klein, for a good, though partial, discussion. Here's the transcript and to skip to the discussion about this just Ctrl+F "peanut butter".
-
You add some interesting perspectives on why moving may be positive. I am a US citizen so I would continue to vote in every single election wherever I am (assuming Texas doesn't make it harder than they already do). Maybe I can do more good out of state/ country, definitely food for thought
-
I'm from Europe, have been in the US for 20 years (currently in Texas) and am seriously considering moving back because of the direction I see this country going. It's a tough decision but I realize I am fortunate having another option and money to facilitate the move. I am torn though as I feel I am leaving the less fortunate to fight this battle alone. Also, I have an 18 year old daughter and I am scared for her being a young woman in Texas (part of me hopes that if I move back to Europe eventually she might move there too). I seriously can't believe we are here, in the US, where half of the population lack basic human rights and are ruled by the Christian minority. I don't know where to cry or scream on a daily basis.
I would not characterize moving that way (bolded), unless there are things you think you will do, living in Texas, that you would not or could not do if you moved. TBH, if you aren't a citizen, probably the most effective thing you can do is donate money, and you can do that equally well whether you live in a heinous place or not. Also, moving makes a statement and, if enough people do it, can actually matter in material terms, so you could be doing some good by moving. I totally understand why you are torn and how it feels that way....but hope that adds some perspective.
In some respects, it makes it much easier to be part of the abortion underground. Helping women who want an abortion makes you immune to the silly citizen abortion lawsuits if you're a non-resident.
It remains to be seen how the current Supreme Court will rule on cases involving this sort of thing.
True, the SC could make it legal to sue out-of-state residents for "crimes" committed against residents while out-of-state.
I'm certain that the SC would also carve out a narrow exception for abortion; suing a Texas resident for breaking California environmental laws in Texas would be beyond the pale! But suing an abortion provider in California for performing an abortion on a Texas (or Missouri) resident makes complete sense because something-something-commerce-clause.
If it came to that, the US has been there before. Many of the Northern states simply ignored the federal fugitive slave act.
-
I feel like it bears repeating that overturning Roe v. Wade did not make abortions illegal in the US.
Correct. What it did was turn the USA into a place where in some states, rapists can choose who the mothers of their children will be. What a blessing.
-
States can only legislate activity within their borders. They cannot generally legislate activity of residents (we are not citizens of a state, but only residents) when that person is out of state. This applies to all abortion laws, since there is no federal regulation outlawing abortions.
Further reading: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5-4-7-1/ALDE_00000907/
-
States can only legislate activity within their borders. They cannot generally legislate activity of residents (we are not citizens of a state, but only residents) when that person is out of state. This applies to all abortion laws, since there is no federal regulation outlawing abortions.
Further reading: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5-4-7-1/ALDE_00000907/
That absolutely will not stop a motivated state and a sympathetic SCOTUS from ruling that residents of other states, even having never set foot in the state in question, can be prosecuted for helping to obtain an abortion once the relevant laws are passed. Between the commerce clause and relevant long-arm statutes, where the defendant must have "sufficient connection" with the state in question (and you could spend a long time reading the case law on "sufficient connection" not that it would matter to the current SCOTUS anyway since they would not be concerned with stare decisis for this purpose), there are a million ways a handful of lawyers with pea-sized brains (and unfortunately, their side has much more and better than that at their disposal) will make a case 5 or 6 justices will jump at the chance to support.
-
States can only legislate activity within their borders. They cannot generally legislate activity of residents (we are not citizens of a state, but only residents) when that person is out of state. This applies to all abortion laws, since there is no federal regulation outlawing abortions.
Further reading: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5-4-7-1/ALDE_00000907/
That absolutely will not stop a motivated state and a sympathetic SCOTUS from ruling that residents of other states, even having never set foot in the state in question, can be prosecuted for helping to obtain an abortion once the relevant laws are passed. Between the commerce clause and relevant long-arm statutes, where the defendant must have "sufficient connection" with the state in question (and you could spend a long time reading the case law on "sufficient connection" not that it would matter to the current SCOTUS anyway since they would not be concerned with stare decisis for this purpose), there are a million ways a handful of lawyers with pea-sized brains (and unfortunately, their side has much more and better than that at their disposal) will make a case 5 or 6 justices will jump at the chance to support.
But what is the originalist view of the commerce clause and long arm jurisdiction? Doesn't the commerce clause protect the federal government's right to regulate interstate trade? Also, can't the SCOTUS nope out of that and just refuse to hear it, saying that it is an issue for the two states to resolve WRT extradition?
-
States can only legislate activity within their borders. They cannot generally legislate activity of residents (we are not citizens of a state, but only residents) when that person is out of state. This applies to all abortion laws, since there is no federal regulation outlawing abortions.
Further reading: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5-4-7-1/ALDE_00000907/
That absolutely will not stop a motivated state and a sympathetic SCOTUS from ruling that residents of other states, even having never set foot in the state in question, can be prosecuted for helping to obtain an abortion once the relevant laws are passed. Between the commerce clause and relevant long-arm statutes, where the defendant must have "sufficient connection" with the state in question (and you could spend a long time reading the case law on "sufficient connection" not that it would matter to the current SCOTUS anyway since they would not be concerned with stare decisis for this purpose), there are a million ways a handful of lawyers with pea-sized brains (and unfortunately, their side has much more and better than that at their disposal) will make a case 5 or 6 justices will jump at the chance to support.
Yeah I agree this court is a total fascist wildcard, so who knows what they’ll do.
-
States can only legislate activity within their borders. They cannot generally legislate activity of residents (we are not citizens of a state, but only residents) when that person is out of state. This applies to all abortion laws, since there is no federal regulation outlawing abortions.
Further reading: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5-4-7-1/ALDE_00000907/
That absolutely will not stop a motivated state and a sympathetic SCOTUS from ruling that residents of other states, even having never set foot in the state in question, can be prosecuted for helping to obtain an abortion once the relevant laws are passed. Between the commerce clause and relevant long-arm statutes, where the defendant must have "sufficient connection" with the state in question (and you could spend a long time reading the case law on "sufficient connection" not that it would matter to the current SCOTUS anyway since they would not be concerned with stare decisis for this purpose), there are a million ways a handful of lawyers with pea-sized brains (and unfortunately, their side has much more and better than that at their disposal) will make a case 5 or 6 justices will jump at the chance to support.
But what is the originalist view of the commerce clause and long arm jurisdiction? Doesn't the commerce clause protect the federal government's right to regulate interstate trade? Also, can't the SCOTUS nope out of that and just refuse to hear it, saying that it is an issue for the two states to resolve WRT extradition?
I picture the commerce clause being used by the federal govt (once the Rs take control of the WH again in 2024 and they'll most likely already have the House and Senate) to pass a bill protecting the right of the states to grab people in other states, maybe along the lines of the Fugitive Slave Act. I'm sure the right-wing will find that on-point.
I honestly cannot speculate on the originalist view of long-arm statutes, but my understanding is that states have never refused to extradite alleged criminals to a fellow state, so this could be new territory and doesn't sound good for ability of states to protect their residents if accused. SCOTUS has ruled on long-arm statutes and has plenty of precedent, but you know <shrug>.
-
States can only legislate activity within their borders. They cannot generally legislate activity of residents (we are not citizens of a state, but only residents) when that person is out of state. This applies to all abortion laws, since there is no federal regulation outlawing abortions.
Further reading: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5-4-7-1/ALDE_00000907/
That absolutely will not stop a motivated state and a sympathetic SCOTUS from ruling that residents of other states, even having never set foot in the state in question, can be prosecuted for helping to obtain an abortion once the relevant laws are passed. Between the commerce clause and relevant long-arm statutes, where the defendant must have "sufficient connection" with the state in question (and you could spend a long time reading the case law on "sufficient connection" not that it would matter to the current SCOTUS anyway since they would not be concerned with stare decisis for this purpose), there are a million ways a handful of lawyers with pea-sized brains (and unfortunately, their side has much more and better than that at their disposal) will make a case 5 or 6 justices will jump at the chance to support.
But what is the originalist view of the commerce clause and long arm jurisdiction? Doesn't the commerce clause protect the federal government's right to regulate interstate trade? Also, can't the SCOTUS nope out of that and just refuse to hear it, saying that it is an issue for the two states to resolve WRT extradition?
I picture the commerce clause being used by the federal govt (once the Rs take control of the WH again in 2024 and they'll most likely already have the House and Senate) to pass a bill protecting the right of the states to grab people in other states, maybe along the lines of the Fugitive Slave Act. I'm sure the right-wing will find that on-point.
I honestly cannot speculate on the originalist view of long-arm statutes, but my understanding is that states have never refused to extradite alleged criminals to a fellow state, so this could be new territory and doesn't sound good for ability of states to protect their residents if accused. SCOTUS has ruled on long-arm statutes and has plenty of precedent, but you know <shrug>.
I agree with the possibility of a modern day fugitive slave act, but wouldn't that take a filibuster proof majority? I guess they could just end the filibuster.
-
States can only legislate activity within their borders. They cannot generally legislate activity of residents (we are not citizens of a state, but only residents) when that person is out of state. This applies to all abortion laws, since there is no federal regulation outlawing abortions.
Further reading: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5-4-7-1/ALDE_00000907/
That absolutely will not stop a motivated state and a sympathetic SCOTUS from ruling that residents of other states, even having never set foot in the state in question, can be prosecuted for helping to obtain an abortion once the relevant laws are passed. Between the commerce clause and relevant long-arm statutes, where the defendant must have "sufficient connection" with the state in question (and you could spend a long time reading the case law on "sufficient connection" not that it would matter to the current SCOTUS anyway since they would not be concerned with stare decisis for this purpose), there are a million ways a handful of lawyers with pea-sized brains (and unfortunately, their side has much more and better than that at their disposal) will make a case 5 or 6 justices will jump at the chance to support.
But what is the originalist view of the commerce clause and long arm jurisdiction? Doesn't the commerce clause protect the federal government's right to regulate interstate trade? Also, can't the SCOTUS nope out of that and just refuse to hear it, saying that it is an issue for the two states to resolve WRT extradition?
I picture the commerce clause being used by the federal govt (once the Rs take control of the WH again in 2024 and they'll most likely already have the House and Senate) to pass a bill protecting the right of the states to grab people in other states, maybe along the lines of the Fugitive Slave Act. I'm sure the right-wing will find that on-point.
I honestly cannot speculate on the originalist view of long-arm statutes, but my understanding is that states have never refused to extradite alleged criminals to a fellow state, so this could be new territory and doesn't sound good for ability of states to protect their residents if accused. SCOTUS has ruled on long-arm statutes and has plenty of precedent, but you know <shrug>.
I agree with the possibility of a modern day fugitive slave act, but wouldn't that take a filibuster proof majority? I guess they could just end the filibuster.
That's a given. Why would they not? They'll probably actually do it to pass a nationwide ban on abortion first, so maybe the idea of a Fugitive Woman Act would be moot.
-
States can only legislate activity within their borders. They cannot generally legislate activity of residents (we are not citizens of a state, but only residents) when that person is out of state. This applies to all abortion laws, since there is no federal regulation outlawing abortions.
Further reading: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5-4-7-1/ALDE_00000907/
That absolutely will not stop a motivated state and a sympathetic SCOTUS from ruling that residents of other states, even having never set foot in the state in question, can be prosecuted for helping to obtain an abortion once the relevant laws are passed. Between the commerce clause and relevant long-arm statutes, where the defendant must have "sufficient connection" with the state in question (and you could spend a long time reading the case law on "sufficient connection" not that it would matter to the current SCOTUS anyway since they would not be concerned with stare decisis for this purpose), there are a million ways a handful of lawyers with pea-sized brains (and unfortunately, their side has much more and better than that at their disposal) will make a case 5 or 6 justices will jump at the chance to support.
But what is the originalist view of the commerce clause and long arm jurisdiction? Doesn't the commerce clause protect the federal government's right to regulate interstate trade? Also, can't the SCOTUS nope out of that and just refuse to hear it, saying that it is an issue for the two states to resolve WRT extradition?
I picture the commerce clause being used by the federal govt (once the Rs take control of the WH again in 2024 and they'll most likely already have the House and Senate) to pass a bill protecting the right of the states to grab people in other states, maybe along the lines of the Fugitive Slave Act. I'm sure the right-wing will find that on-point.
I honestly cannot speculate on the originalist view of long-arm statutes, but my understanding is that states have never refused to extradite alleged criminals to a fellow state, so this could be new territory and doesn't sound good for ability of states to protect their residents if accused. SCOTUS has ruled on long-arm statutes and has plenty of precedent, but you know <shrug>.
I agree with the possibility of a modern day fugitive slave act, but wouldn't that take a filibuster proof majority? I guess they could just end the filibuster.
That's a given. Why would they not? They'll probably actually do it to pass a nationwide ban on abortion first, so maybe the idea of a Fugitive Woman Act would be moot.
Why would they now when they didn't during 115th congress? Just because they think that they can get away with a national abortion ban? I can't wait for balkanization.
-
I feel like it bears repeating that overturning Roe v. Wade did not make abortions illegal in the US. It removed a constitutional right that was created by Roe w. Wade 50 years ago from an interpretation of the 4th amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...." It has now returned it to a state level issue per the 10th amendment.
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.
Many states still allow abortions (22 states - basically the west coast, all of the northeast, and several other blue states in the middle of the country). In some states it is now illegal (13 states - parts of the south and north central US). In some states there are restrictions and may eventually be complete bans (15 states - deep south and parts of the midwest).
That’s neither here nor there as a response to the assertion that the “GOP … is actively clamoring for increased governmental involvement.” It’s the same party, in the Supreme Court, allowing its adherents and lawmakers, in the states, to assume control over this medical decision.
The federal system allows some states to take positions beyond what even many of their proponents could stomach at a national level, because the more liberal states serve as a relief valve. It’s an opportunity for posturing without having to fully bear the costs of the posture, which is the ideal situation for the GOP.
-
laws...are about telling someone else what to do.
Aren't they all? ;)
They sure are. But if you hadn't chopped up the context of that quote it would be obvious that I meant telling people what to do when it doesn't affect you
The important question was:
Why does it matter where someone is from if you want to force your morality on them?
This question also requires prior context. If you're interested in this discussion i'd ask that you go back to the other posters initial question and follow along.
Laws are the collective moral judgment of the citizenry that enforces them, whether any one individual is affected by a given law or not.
Not when they’re allowed and imposed by electoral and governmental systems that let a minority of the population to dictate the law.
-
States can only legislate activity within their borders. They cannot generally legislate activity of residents (we are not citizens of a state, but only residents) when that person is out of state. This applies to all abortion laws, since there is no federal regulation outlawing abortions.
Further reading: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5-4-7-1/ALDE_00000907/
That absolutely will not stop a motivated state and a sympathetic SCOTUS from ruling that residents of other states, even having never set foot in the state in question, can be prosecuted for helping to obtain an abortion once the relevant laws are passed. Between the commerce clause and relevant long-arm statutes, where the defendant must have "sufficient connection" with the state in question (and you could spend a long time reading the case law on "sufficient connection" not that it would matter to the current SCOTUS anyway since they would not be concerned with stare decisis for this purpose), there are a million ways a handful of lawyers with pea-sized brains (and unfortunately, their side has much more and better than that at their disposal) will make a case 5 or 6 justices will jump at the chance to support.
Yeah I agree this court is a total fascist wildcard, so who knows what they’ll do.
I think it would be trivial for a court to distinguish seeking personal medical services from the interstate commerce meant to be regulated by the federal government, and for a court to assert that the federal government has no role to play.
-
I feel like it bears repeating that overturning Roe v. Wade did not make abortions illegal in the US. It removed a constitutional right that was created by Roe w. Wade 50 years ago from an interpretation of the 4th amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...." It has now returned it to a state level issue per the 10th amendment.
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.
Many states still allow abortions (22 states - basically the west coast, all of the northeast, and several other blue states in the middle of the country). In some states it is now illegal (13 states - parts of the south and north central US). In some states there are restrictions and may eventually be complete bans (15 states - deep south and parts of the midwest).
That’s neither here nor there as a response to the assertion that the “GOP … is actively clamoring for increased governmental involvement.” It’s the same party, in the Supreme Court, allowing its adherents and lawmakers, in the states, to assume control over this medical decision.
The federal system allows some states to take positions beyond what even many of their proponents could stomach at a national level, because the more liberal states serve as a relief valve. It’s an opportunity for posturing without having to fully bear the costs of the posture, which is the ideal situation for the GOP.
This is a pretty neat explanation of the inconsistencies in the Republican position, which is that if you think it is inconsistent you are looking at it from the wrong angle -
https://medium.com/@_EthanGrey/the-message-of-the-republican-party-dont-tread-on-me-i-tread-on-you-936037958bce
-
States can only legislate activity within their borders. They cannot generally legislate activity of residents (we are not citizens of a state, but only residents) when that person is out of state. This applies to all abortion laws, since there is no federal regulation outlawing abortions.
Further reading: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5-4-7-1/ALDE_00000907/
That absolutely will not stop a motivated state and a sympathetic SCOTUS from ruling that residents of other states, even having never set foot in the state in question, can be prosecuted for helping to obtain an abortion once the relevant laws are passed. Between the commerce clause and relevant long-arm statutes, where the defendant must have "sufficient connection" with the state in question (and you could spend a long time reading the case law on "sufficient connection" not that it would matter to the current SCOTUS anyway since they would not be concerned with stare decisis for this purpose), there are a million ways a handful of lawyers with pea-sized brains (and unfortunately, their side has much more and better than that at their disposal) will make a case 5 or 6 justices will jump at the chance to support.
But what is the originalist view of the commerce clause and long arm jurisdiction? Doesn't the commerce clause protect the federal government's right to regulate interstate trade? Also, can't the SCOTUS nope out of that and just refuse to hear it, saying that it is an issue for the two states to resolve WRT extradition?
As we've seen from multiple SC decisions, originalism is a total fiction.
When anything in the constitution seems like it might support right wing ideology, then it's originalism and the right wing path is taken. When the actual text of the constitution disagrees with right wing ideology an originalist simply changes his interpretation of what the founders really meant to that it's compatible and then claims it's originalist (like the 2nd amendment).
-
States can only legislate activity within their borders. They cannot generally legislate activity of residents (we are not citizens of a state, but only residents) when that person is out of state. This applies to all abortion laws, since there is no federal regulation outlawing abortions.
Further reading: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5-4-7-1/ALDE_00000907/
That absolutely will not stop a motivated state and a sympathetic SCOTUS from ruling that residents of other states, even having never set foot in the state in question, can be prosecuted for helping to obtain an abortion once the relevant laws are passed. Between the commerce clause and relevant long-arm statutes, where the defendant must have "sufficient connection" with the state in question (and you could spend a long time reading the case law on "sufficient connection" not that it would matter to the current SCOTUS anyway since they would not be concerned with stare decisis for this purpose), there are a million ways a handful of lawyers with pea-sized brains (and unfortunately, their side has much more and better than that at their disposal) will make a case 5 or 6 justices will jump at the chance to support.
Yeah I agree this court is a total fascist wildcard, so who knows what they’ll do.
I think we already know what they'll do.
https://kfor.com/news/local/supreme-court-ruling-allows-states-to-prosecute-crimes-on-reservations/
“The Supreme Court has said very clearly that the state can have jurisdiction over crimes and Indians in Indian Country,” said Bob Nance, shareholder and director in Riggs Abney Law Firm’s Oklahoma City office.
-
States can only legislate activity within their borders. They cannot generally legislate activity of residents (we are not citizens of a state, but only residents) when that person is out of state. This applies to all abortion laws, since there is no federal regulation outlawing abortions.
Further reading: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5-4-7-1/ALDE_00000907/
That absolutely will not stop a motivated state and a sympathetic SCOTUS from ruling that residents of other states, even having never set foot in the state in question, can be prosecuted for helping to obtain an abortion once the relevant laws are passed. Between the commerce clause and relevant long-arm statutes, where the defendant must have "sufficient connection" with the state in question (and you could spend a long time reading the case law on "sufficient connection" not that it would matter to the current SCOTUS anyway since they would not be concerned with stare decisis for this purpose), there are a million ways a handful of lawyers with pea-sized brains (and unfortunately, their side has much more and better than that at their disposal) will make a case 5 or 6 justices will jump at the chance to support.
But what is the originalist view of the commerce clause and long arm jurisdiction? Doesn't the commerce clause protect the federal government's right to regulate interstate trade? Also, can't the SCOTUS nope out of that and just refuse to hear it, saying that it is an issue for the two states to resolve WRT extradition?
I picture the commerce clause being used by the federal govt (once the Rs take control of the WH again in 2024 and they'll most likely already have the House and Senate) to pass a bill protecting the right of the states to grab people in other states, maybe along the lines of the Fugitive Slave Act. I'm sure the right-wing will find that on-point.
I honestly cannot speculate on the originalist view of long-arm statutes, but my understanding is that states have never refused to extradite alleged criminals to a fellow state, so this could be new territory and doesn't sound good for ability of states to protect their residents if accused. SCOTUS has ruled on long-arm statutes and has plenty of precedent, but you know <shrug>.
I agree with the possibility of a modern day fugitive slave act, but wouldn't that take a filibuster proof majority? I guess they could just end the filibuster.
That's a given. Why would they not? They'll probably actually do it to pass a nationwide ban on abortion first, so maybe the idea of a Fugitive Woman Act would be moot.
Why would they now when they didn't during 115th congress? Just because they think that they can get away with a national abortion ban? I can't wait for balkanization.
Thgey couldn't do a nationwide ban before Roe was overturned.
-
States can only legislate activity within their borders. They cannot generally legislate activity of residents (we are not citizens of a state, but only residents) when that person is out of state. This applies to all abortion laws, since there is no federal regulation outlawing abortions.
Further reading: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5-4-7-1/ALDE_00000907/
That absolutely will not stop a motivated state and a sympathetic SCOTUS from ruling that residents of other states, even having never set foot in the state in question, can be prosecuted for helping to obtain an abortion once the relevant laws are passed. Between the commerce clause and relevant long-arm statutes, where the defendant must have "sufficient connection" with the state in question (and you could spend a long time reading the case law on "sufficient connection" not that it would matter to the current SCOTUS anyway since they would not be concerned with stare decisis for this purpose), there are a million ways a handful of lawyers with pea-sized brains (and unfortunately, their side has much more and better than that at their disposal) will make a case 5 or 6 justices will jump at the chance to support.
But what is the originalist view of the commerce clause and long arm jurisdiction? Doesn't the commerce clause protect the federal government's right to regulate interstate trade? Also, can't the SCOTUS nope out of that and just refuse to hear it, saying that it is an issue for the two states to resolve WRT extradition?
I picture the commerce clause being used by the federal govt (once the Rs take control of the WH again in 2024 and they'll most likely already have the House and Senate) to pass a bill protecting the right of the states to grab people in other states, maybe along the lines of the Fugitive Slave Act. I'm sure the right-wing will find that on-point.
I honestly cannot speculate on the originalist view of long-arm statutes, but my understanding is that states have never refused to extradite alleged criminals to a fellow state, so this could be new territory and doesn't sound good for ability of states to protect their residents if accused. SCOTUS has ruled on long-arm statutes and has plenty of precedent, but you know <shrug>.
I agree with the possibility of a modern day fugitive slave act, but wouldn't that take a filibuster proof majority? I guess they could just end the filibuster.
That's a given. Why would they not? They'll probably actually do it to pass a nationwide ban on abortion first, so maybe the idea of a Fugitive Woman Act would be moot.
Why would they now when they didn't during 115th congress? Just because they think that they can get away with a national abortion ban? I can't wait for balkanization.
Thgey couldn't do a nationwide ban before Roe was overturned.
We're planning to serve women fleeing the US for abortions here in Canada . . . so there would still be reason for the fugitive woman act.
-
I feel like it bears repeating that overturning Roe v. Wade did not make abortions illegal in the US. It removed a constitutional right that was created by Roe w. Wade 50 years ago from an interpretation of the 4th amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...." It has now returned it to a state level issue per the 10th amendment.
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.
Many states still allow abortions (22 states - basically the west coast, all of the northeast, and several other blue states in the middle of the country). In some states it is now illegal (13 states - parts of the south and north central US). In some states there are restrictions and may eventually be complete bans (15 states - deep south and parts of the midwest).
That’s neither here nor there as a response to the assertion that the “GOP … is actively clamoring for increased governmental involvement.” It’s the same party, in the Supreme Court, allowing its adherents and lawmakers, in the states, to assume control over this medical decision.
The federal system allows some states to take positions beyond what even many of their proponents could stomach at a national level, because the more liberal states serve as a relief valve. It’s an opportunity for posturing without having to fully bear the costs of the posture, which is the ideal situation for the GOP.
This is a pretty neat explanation of the inconsistencies in the Republican position, which is that if you think it is inconsistent you are looking at it from the wrong angle -
https://medium.com/@_EthanGrey/the-message-of-the-republican-party-dont-tread-on-me-i-tread-on-you-936037958bce
Spot on.
-
This is a pretty neat explanation of the inconsistencies in the Republican position, which is that if you think it is inconsistent you are looking at it from the wrong angle -
https://medium.com/@_EthanGrey/the-message-of-the-republican-party-dont-tread-on-me-i-tread-on-you-936037958bce
He nailed it!
-
Well, guess the EPA can't regulate emissions anymore. To +2 degrees celcius and beyond!
This is why I'm not having children. The planet is going to be a pretty awful place in 50 years and we have conservatives to thank for that.
-
I picture the commerce clause being used by the federal govt (once the Rs take control of the WH again in 2024 and they'll most likely already have the House and Senate) to pass a bill protecting the right of the states to grab people in other states, maybe along the lines of the Fugitive Slave Act. I'm sure the right-wing will find that on-point.
I honestly cannot speculate on the originalist view of long-arm statutes, but my understanding is that states have never refused to extradite alleged criminals to a fellow state, so this could be new territory and doesn't sound good for ability of states to protect their residents if accused. SCOTUS has ruled on long-arm statutes and has plenty of precedent, but you know <shrug>.
I agree with the possibility of a modern day fugitive slave act, but wouldn't that take a filibuster proof majority? I guess they could just end the filibuster.
That's a given. Why would they not? They'll probably actually do it to pass a nationwide ban on abortion first, so maybe the idea of a Fugitive Woman Act would be moot.
Why would they now when they didn't during 115th congress? Just because they think that they can get away with a national abortion ban? I can't wait for balkanization.
Thgey couldn't do a nationwide ban before Roe was overturned.
Indeed. But do you really think that the average GOP apparatchik cares about abortion or that their average donor cares about abortion? I think that they care about tax policy for their wealthiest donors. I'm not at all convinced that they are willing to spend the magic bullet of the filibuster on a national abortion ban. I guess we'll get to see in 2024.
-
Indeed. But do you really think that the average GOP apparatchik cares about abortion or that their average donor cares about abortion? I think that they care about tax policy for their wealthiest donors. I'm not at all convinced that they are willing to spend the magic bullet of the filibuster on a national abortion ban. I guess we'll get to see in 2024.
I think this was true in the Bush years, but the true believers have long since taken over the party. I absolutely believe they will spend the bullet. The tail has been wagging the dog ever since the Tea Party was whipped up. I remember when John Boehner was driven out of the House because he wasn't radical enough for what would become the Trump wing of his party.
If they cared about tax policy, why hand the Democrats a perfect fundraising opportunity right before the midterms? If they cared about tax policy, why put people in power who will create more kids in poverty by removing abortion access? If they cared about tax policy, why add more people who will be dependent on the social safety net?
Answer: They genuinely care about abortion, not teaching CRT, and harrassing LGBT+ people back into the closet or worse. They will absolutely end the filibuster, and then when the lose the next election SCREAM about how liberals can't do the same or they will be hypocrites somehow.
-
Indeed. But do you really think that the average GOP apparatchik cares about abortion or that their average donor cares about abortion? I think that they care about tax policy for their wealthiest donors. I'm not at all convinced that they are willing to spend the magic bullet of the filibuster on a national abortion ban. I guess we'll get to see in 2024.
I think this was true in the Bush years, but the true believers have long since taken over the party. I absolutely believe they will spend the bullet. The tail has been wagging the dog ever since the Tea Party was whipped up. I remember when John Boehner was driven out of the House because he wasn't radical enough for what would become the Trump wing of his party.
If they cared about tax policy, why hand the Democrats a perfect fundraising opportunity right before the midterms? If they cared about tax policy, why put people in power who will create more kids in poverty by removing abortion access? If they cared about tax policy, why add more people who will be dependent on the social safety net?
Answer: They genuinely care about abortion, not teaching CRT, and harrassing LGBT+ people back into the closet or worse. They will absolutely end the filibuster, and then when the lose the next election SCREAM about how liberals can't do the same or they will be hypocrites somehow.
Assuming that's true, what's going to happen to their donors? How are big business types like Jeff Bezos and Cathie Wood going to take that? Because right now Bezos is paying for his employees' abortion travel. What's going to happen to the US west coast tech scene? Is some other country going to capitalize on this situation?
I, personally, think that if there is a national abortion ban* in 2024 we are going to get to live through a breakup of the union. I don't think that WA/OR/CA are going to take that sitting down.
* - a real one, not one on paper like cannabis
-
I think this was true in the Bush years, but the true believers have long since taken over the party. I absolutely believe they will spend the bullet. The tail has been wagging the dog ever since the Tea Party was whipped up. I remember when John Boehner was driven out of the House because he wasn't radical enough for what would become the Trump wing of his party.
If they cared about tax policy, why hand the Democrats a perfect fundraising opportunity right before the midterms? If they cared about tax policy, why put people in power who will create more kids in poverty by removing abortion access? If they cared about tax policy, why add more people who will be dependent on the social safety net?
Answer: They genuinely care about abortion, not teaching CRT, and harrassing LGBT+ people back into the closet or worse. They will absolutely end the filibuster, and then when the lose the next election SCREAM about how liberals can't do the same or they will be hypocrites somehow.
Assuming that's true, what's going to happen to their donors? How are big business types like Jeff Bezos and Cathie Wood going to take that? Because right now Bezos is paying for his employees' abortion travel. What's going to happen to the US west coast tech scene? Is some other country going to capitalize on this situation?
I, personally, think that if there is a national abortion ban* in 2024 we are going to get to live through a breakup of the union. I don't think that WA/OR/CA are going to take that sitting down.
* - a real one, not one on paper like cannabis
Bezos donates to both parties to make sure they both remain very friendly to Amazon. Same with all the other big companies, tech or otherwise. I can't see how an abortion ban would change a single thing for them. You think paying for abortion travel is an expense to these people? They know damn well that an abortion is a lot cheaper for them to pay for than maternity care and leave. And the second that it becomes federally illegal they will stop paying for travel to ensure they aren't liable.
And yes, I think WA/OR/CA will fight this as hard as we can, but I can't see Trump country letting us secede peacefully.
-
I think this was true in the Bush years, but the true believers have long since taken over the party. I absolutely believe they will spend the bullet. The tail has been wagging the dog ever since the Tea Party was whipped up. I remember when John Boehner was driven out of the House because he wasn't radical enough for what would become the Trump wing of his party.
If they cared about tax policy, why hand the Democrats a perfect fundraising opportunity right before the midterms? If they cared about tax policy, why put people in power who will create more kids in poverty by removing abortion access? If they cared about tax policy, why add more people who will be dependent on the social safety net?
Answer: They genuinely care about abortion, not teaching CRT, and harrassing LGBT+ people back into the closet or worse. They will absolutely end the filibuster, and then when the lose the next election SCREAM about how liberals can't do the same or they will be hypocrites somehow.
Assuming that's true, what's going to happen to their donors? How are big business types like Jeff Bezos and Cathie Wood going to take that? Because right now Bezos is paying for his employees' abortion travel. What's going to happen to the US west coast tech scene? Is some other country going to capitalize on this situation?
I, personally, think that if there is a national abortion ban* in 2024 we are going to get to live through a breakup of the union. I don't think that WA/OR/CA are going to take that sitting down.
* - a real one, not one on paper like cannabis
Bezos donates to both parties to make sure they both remain very friendly to Amazon. Same with all the other big companies, tech or otherwise. I can't see how an abortion ban would change a single thing for them. You think paying for abortion travel is an expense to these people? They know damn well that an abortion is a lot cheaper for them to pay for than maternity care and leave. And the second that it becomes federally illegal they will stop paying for travel to ensure they aren't liable.
And yes, I think WA/OR/CA will fight this as hard as we can, but I can't see Trump country letting us secede peacefully.
I agree with almost everything that you have written. I only question that in the event of a national abortion ban that big business will keep playing both sides since they know abortions are cheaper than maternity care. An abortion ban is anti-business and anti-workplace participation in a time when businesses are begging for more workers.
-
Long-arm statutes are already affecting the care women can receive, even without specific laws on conspiracy to travel out of state, etc. etc. https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/1542605443649966080
I don't blame them - this Republican SCOTUS and the extremist and sociopathic Republicans in this country are stopping at nothing to get their way, including widespread drooling at the thought of a civil war where they get to kill as many of the rest of us as possible. It's unfortunately totally fair to feel like you have to protect yourself from inhumane assholes like these.
-
Well, guess the EPA can't regulate emissions anymore. To +2 degrees celcius and beyond!
This is why I'm not having children. The planet is going to be a pretty awful place in 50 years and we have conservatives to thank for that.
And THIS is a decision that absolutely DOES impact everyone around the world. American exceptionalism at its absolute worst.
-
Well, guess the EPA can't regulate emissions anymore. To +2 degrees celcius and beyond!
This is why I'm not having children. The planet is going to be a pretty awful place in 50 years and we have conservatives to thank for that.
And THIS is a decision that absolutely DOES impact everyone around the world. American exceptionalism at its absolute worst.
Downstream effect is that (poor) parts of red states will have declining air quality. So they get crap climate and a hacking cough.
-
Well, guess the EPA can't regulate emissions anymore. To +2 degrees celcius and beyond!
This is why I'm not having children. The planet is going to be a pretty awful place in 50 years and we have conservatives to thank for that.
And THIS is a decision that absolutely DOES impact everyone around the world. American exceptionalism at its absolute worst.
Downstream effect is that (poor) parts of red states will have declining air quality. So they get crap climate and a hacking cough.
So was that the plan all along? No abortions to make up for population losses due to Republican led out of control pollution?
-
Well, guess the EPA can't regulate emissions anymore. To +2 degrees celcius and beyond!
This is why I'm not having children. The planet is going to be a pretty awful place in 50 years and we have conservatives to thank for that.
And THIS is a decision that absolutely DOES impact everyone around the world. American exceptionalism at its absolute worst.
Downstream effect is that (poor) parts of red states will have declining air quality. So they get crap climate and a hacking cough.
So was that the plan all along? No abortions to make up for population losses due to Republican led out of control pollution?
And the increased maternal and infant mortality. Which the pollution will exacerbate.
-
Well, guess the EPA can't regulate emissions anymore. To +2 degrees celcius and beyond!
This is why I'm not having children. The planet is going to be a pretty awful place in 50 years and we have conservatives to thank for that.
IANAL but I always found the argument that the EPA could regulate CO2 emissions because of some laws that were passed in the 1970s that absolutely were not about climate change to be on legally shaky ground. But I also haven't read the ruling yet so I don't know what other dumb ass shit they did.
Not that I don't care about climate change. I'm basically a single issue climate change voter.
How long until the USA is ostracized by the international community for being a pariah?
-
Laws are the collective moral judgment of the citizenry that enforces them, whether any one individual is affected by a given law or not.
Not when they’re allowed and imposed by electoral and governmental systems that let a minority of the population to dictate the law.
Short of a pure democracy, in which everyone votes on everything, we have what we have. This post (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/extreme-right-wing-partisan-decisions-made-by-the-republican-supreme-court/msg3031954/#msg3031954) from talltexan and the one following by GuitarStv seem apropos.
Your point about "minority rule" is well taken in regard to the starting topic of this thread: as long as there are extremists on one side equating contraception with murder, and extremists on the other side equating pregnancy with slavery, and those extremists hold inordinate sway over their respective parties, it may be difficult (although one can hope...) to find a politically achievable middle ground between "no abortions - never" and "any abortion - ever".
-
Laws are the collective moral judgment of the citizenry that enforces them, whether any one individual is affected by a given law or not.
Not when they’re allowed and imposed by electoral and governmental systems that let a minority of the population to dictate the law.
Short of a pure democracy, in which everyone votes on everything, we have what we have. This post (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/extreme-right-wing-partisan-decisions-made-by-the-republican-supreme-court/msg3031954/#msg3031954) from talltexan and the one following by GuitarStv seem apropos.
Your point about "minority rule" is well taken in regard to the starting topic of this thread: as long as there are extremists on one side equating contraception with murder, and extremists on the other side equating pregnancy with slavery, and those extremists hold inordinate sway over their respective parties, it may be difficult (although one can hope...) to find a politically achievable middle ground between "no abortions - never" and "any abortion - ever".
You're posing a false dichotomy though. There are literally no people, even the most extreme, on the liberal side that would say pregnany is slavery. *Forced* pregnancy is slavery (and, to be real about it, forced pregnancy is a hallmark example of the American system of chattel slavery for several hundred years, so let's not have any pretending about forced pregnancy not being slavery or that that's any kind of extreme view *at all*). So if you didn't pose a false dichotomy, you'd see that the extremism is really one-sided entirely. There is a reasonable middle ground and that is that the person with the body with the pregnancy gets to decide what happens with their body.
-
There are literally no people, even the most extreme, on the liberal side that would say pregnany is slavery. *Forced* pregnancy is slavery....
Which leads us down the rabbit hole of defining "forced". E.g., there are real differences between rape and incest at one extreme, and partial-birth abortion at the other.
-
There are literally no people, even the most extreme, on the liberal side that would say pregnany is slavery. *Forced* pregnancy is slavery....
Which leads us down the rabbit hole of defining "forced". E.g., there are real differences between rape and incest at one extreme, and partial-birth abortion at the other.
Let me help you with that: A forced pregnancy is any pregnancy that was not terminated because access to abortion services was denied.
It´s not that difficult, really.
-
“Partial birth abortion” is not a medical term.
Explanation from the olden days:
https://www.npr.org/2006/02/21/5168163/partial-birth-abortion-separating-fact-from-spin
-
I'm well aware that the posting population at this site skews left (perhaps "way left") of center. Don't need any "help" understanding the issues, nor what commonly used terms mean. ;)
-
Laws are the collective moral judgment of the citizenry that enforces them, whether any one individual is affected by a given law or not.
Not when they’re allowed and imposed by electoral and governmental systems that let a minority of the population to dictate the law.
Short of a pure democracy, in which everyone votes on everything, we have what we have. This post (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/extreme-right-wing-partisan-decisions-made-by-the-republican-supreme-court/msg3031954/#msg3031954) from talltexan and the one following by GuitarStv seem apropos.
Your point about "minority rule" is well taken in regard to the starting topic of this thread: as long as there are extremists on one side equating contraception with murder, and extremists on the other side equating pregnancy with slavery, and those extremists hold inordinate sway over their respective parties, it may be difficult (although one can hope...) to find a politically achievable middle ground between "no abortions - never" and "any abortion - ever".
I do agree with other posters that dichotomy is not the way to understand this. There are dials that increase/decrease the extent to which government is answerable to popular vote. Setting the districts of representation, setting the laws that govern when people vote and what conditions they must endure to appear to vote, setting the terms under which money can be deployed to shape popular opinion are just some examples of these things.
-
“Partial birth abortion” is not a medical term.
Explanation from the olden days:
https://www.npr.org/2006/02/21/5168163/partial-birth-abortion-separating-fact-from-spin
The Ohio physician, Martin Haskell, called his method "dilation and extraction," or D&X. It involved dilating the woman's cervix, then pulling the fetus through it feet first until only the head remained inside. Using scissors or another sharp instrument, the head was then punctured, and the skull compressed, so it, too, could fit through the dilated cervix.
So the biggest problem is calling this "partial birth abortion" and not "dilation and extraction?" I see.
There is currently no statistical information available on why "dilation and extraction" abortions are performed.
In a widely-publicized interview with The New York Times in 1997, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, estimated that in the majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother and healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along in development.
And the majority performed are not medically necessary? Got it.
-
“Partial birth abortion” is not a medical term.
Explanation from the olden days:
https://www.npr.org/2006/02/21/5168163/partial-birth-abortion-separating-fact-from-spin
The Ohio physician, Martin Haskell, called his method "dilation and extraction," or D&X. It involved dilating the woman's cervix, then pulling the fetus through it feet first until only the head remained inside. Using scissors or another sharp instrument, the head was then punctured, and the skull compressed, so it, too, could fit through the dilated cervix.
So the biggest problem is calling this "partial birth abortion" and not "dilation and extraction?" I see.
There is currently no statistical information available on why "dilation and extraction" abortions are performed.
In a widely-publicized interview with The New York Times in 1997, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, estimated that in the majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother and healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along in development.
And the majority performed are not medically necessary? Got it.
You left out the rest of that passage:
Under what health circumstances are D&X abortions performed?
There is currently no statistical information available on why "dilation and extraction" abortions are performed.
In a widely-publicized interview with The New York Times in 1997, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, estimated that in the majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother and healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along in development.
Yet the procedure is also performed in cases where the woman's health is at risk, or when the fetus shows signs of serious abnormalities, some of which don't become apparent until late in pregnancy.
Take, for example, cases in which the fetus develops hydrocephalus (commonly known as water on the brain). Often undetectable until well into the second three months of pregnancy, the condition causes enlargement of the skull up to two-and-a-half times its normal size. It not only results in severe brain damage to the fetus, it can also create severe health risks to the mother if she tries to deliver it vaginally.
Some doctors say D&X abortion is a preferable method for ending such pregnancies without damaging the woman's cervix. Those in the anti-abortion camp, however, argue that the procedure is never medically necessary, noting that enough fluid can be drained from hydrocephalus babies in the womb to ensure a safe delivery.
Indeed, many abortion opponents believe even severely deformed fetuses should be delivered regardless of their prospects for a healthy life.
"We don't believe that sick babies — babies with disabilities — should be pulled out by the legs and struck through the head," Right to Life's Johnson told The New Republic. "We believe they should live out their life — whether it's a few minutes or six hours."
-
ok, will you compromise and publicly oppose late term abortions that are not medically necessary?
-
ok, will you compromise and publicly oppose late term abortions that are not medically necessary?
I would be up for discussing this (and let me emphaisze that that's a big give, since I know if it were men there would never be any talk of needing to compromise bodily autonomy, no matter how many people, not fetuses, needed to die). But, only if all obstacles were erased from a woman's path. She would need to be able to get an abortion the moment she found out she was pregnant, or at another convenient time ASAP, nearby to her, and at the same cost structure as the rest of her health care (i.e. *maybe* there'd be a small co-pay and it should be entirely covered for people on Medicaid, etc.). Because right-wing extremists have built in so many ways to create weeks and weeks of delays for women, abortions get pushed out much later here in the US.
Let's not pretend there's any sort of epidemic of women in the US that are pregnant for 20 weeks, are mostly cool with it, but then suddenly decide at 24 weeks that they don't want it after all. On a whim. There might be like.....2 of them per year that do that? The rest of later term abortions have much more complex stories. Medical and right-wing extremist meddling being the top two.
There are still a handful of people that don't even discover they are pregnant until they are 24-26 or more weeks, which is crazy, but which I have seen and been involved with. But I'm willing to let those go for purposes of this discussion. I would like those women to have a choice, too, but honestly most of them just roll with it. If I honestly had the chance to get rid of right wing extremist meddling so that women could get their abortions faster, easier, cheaper and not NEED to go to 20 or more weeks so often, I'd be celebrating.
-
These are Canadian statistics. Obviously when abortion is easy to get because it is a medical procedure, most abortions happen early. And it isn't a bunch of very young girls, it is mostly women in their 20s, 30s and 40s.
When do Abortions Occur?
Among abortions performed in hospitals in 2016, 18.3% were performed on babies of an unknown gestational age. Among the rest, 39.3% were performed at or before 8 weeks gestation, 44% were performed between 9-12 weeks of gestation, and 3.3% were performed at 21 weeks or later.*
≤8 wks 9-12 wks 13-16 wks 17-20 wks ≥21 wks
39.3% 44.0% 8.8% 4.5% 3.3%
*Gestational weeks are measured from the first day of the woman's last menstruation and not from the day of conception. Though it does not provide an accurate fetal age (which is roughly 2 weeks less than the gestational age), it is the simplest way for an OB/GYN to age a pregnancy since the day of conception is often not known. Hence, if an abortion occurs at 8 weeks gestation, it is actually aborting a 6 week embryo. The images on our Prenatal Development and Abortion Pictures pages are more precisely captioned with fetal ages in accordance with standard teaching texts on prenatal development.
WHO HAS ABORTIONS?
In 2016, 12.6% of Canadian abortions were performed on women of unknown age. Among the rest, 2.4% were performed on women aged 17 or younger, 54.5% were performed on women aged 18-29, and 43% were performed on women aged 30 or above.
<17 years 18-24 years 25-29 years 30-34 years ≥35 years
2.4% 27.0% 27.5% 21.8% 21.2%
In 2016, approximately 47% of the abortions that took place in Canadian hospitals were performed on women who had never given birth. Approximately 65% were performed on women who had no prior abortions.
From
https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/canadian_abortion_statistics/ (https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/canadian_abortion_statistics/)
-
I have a relative who did not know she was pregnant until she started having contractions while she was at work. (The baby was fine, despite no prenatal care.) She was on a contraceptive that stops menstrual periods.
-
There are literally no people, even the most extreme, on the liberal side that would say pregnany is slavery. *Forced* pregnancy is slavery....
Which leads us down the rabbit hole of defining "forced". E.g., there are real differences between rape and incest at one extreme, and partial-birth abortion at the other.
My frustration is that we have never had anything close to a "middle ground" in this country. Of course there's even disagreement of what a "middle ground" would look like, but I'd say it would involve unrestricted access for women through 20 weeks, available in every city and most hospitals who can use the normal sources of medical funding to help pay for it, and women are not harassed, delayed or dissuaded by third parties. Provisions in this "middle ground" would also be in place for instances of rape, when it endangered the life of the mother and in the cases of severe genetic or physical abnormalities which would lead to a life with no meaningful hope of a functional individual. These decisions would be made by the woman and her health care provider, the later of course guided by the same standard of medical ethics which are already in place for every other health procedure they do.
Instead, over the past four decades we have had a landscape where abortion services have been restricted to specific clinics and in many locations there were no providers within an hour's journey. A multitude of rules have popped up which had no medical relevancy but seemed designed to delay or trigger an emotional response, rules which operated with the explicit hope that it would deter the patient. By restricting services to select locations, women frequently found it difficult to enter or exit without being harassed by third parties who sought to stop them from doing something they had (in theory) every right to do. By restricting the public funds to providers we directly refuted the idea behind Roe v Wade.
I'd also comment that this "middle ground" - which we've never had across the entire United States - still yields significant ground towards the anti-abortion ideal. It has always been difficult to receive late-term abortions, there's always the choice (and generally the default) to carry to term, and except in some exceedingly rare cases of non compos mentos the decision to abort has remained with the patient, when she has a choice.
-
Well, guess the EPA can't regulate emissions anymore. To +2 degrees celcius and beyond!
This is why I'm not having children. The planet is going to be a pretty awful place in 50 years and we have conservatives to thank for that.
IANAL but I always found the argument that the EPA could regulate CO2 emissions because of some laws that were passed in the 1970s that absolutely were not about climate change to be on legally shaky ground. But I also haven't read the ruling yet so I don't know what other dumb ass shit they did.
Not that I don't care about climate change. I'm basically a single issue climate change voter.
How long until the USA is ostracized by the international community for being a pariah?
I think it's naive to think this isn't already happening to some degree.
The US is a signatory to COP26 and has a commitment to the international community to meet its decarbonisation targets. If an unelected, undemocratic body (SC) can effectively overrule the US Government's ability to enforce its international obligations by asserting that that power doesn't rest with the Federal Government, but rather with the states, then that sort of position is going to get very short shrift, very quickly in the international community. Texas, Alabama, Florida and Mississippi are not signatories to COP26, but the US is.
How accepting do you think the US would be if Ontario, Scotland, Bavaria or Western Australia put their respective countries in breach of their international obligations?
-
I'm well aware that the posting population at this site skews left (perhaps "way left") of center. Don't need any "help" understanding the issues, nor what commonly used terms mean. ;)
What a fascinating observation. I think this depends on what you consider the 'total population' to be. Of course, if it's 'Americans' then your observation may be true. If it's 'citizens of the world', as many of us on the forum are, then it quite clearly is not. In that case, there is probably little skew if any. Which is simply due to the fact that even those described as being on the 'left' in the US are quite clearly a long way to the 'right' on a global scale.
https://politicalcompass.org/uselection2020 (https://politicalcompass.org/uselection2020)
-
What a fascinating observation. I think this depends on what you consider the 'total population' to be. Of course, if it's 'Americans' then your observation may be true.
Yes, given the thread topic that's pretty much all the population I consider relevant here.
-
I would be up for discussing this (and let me emphaisze that that's a big give, since I know if it were men there would never be any talk of needing to compromise bodily autonomy, no matter how many people, not fetuses, needed to die). <snip>
The snipped section seems pretty reasonable. Too bad (ok. I'm assuming...) you aren't a member of Congress. :)
-
An ER doctor (actually head of the ER at a major hospital) who I follow on Facebook (I know his mother) has been posting every Friday since COVID started about how things are going (percentage of patients with COVID, severity, etc.). He wrote this today:
It's been a week since the Roe v Wade decision. I apologize for not mentioning this last week as I needed some time to process the impact it would have on patients in the healthcare system and what we would see in the emergency department. I have always tried to keep politics out of these posts and will try to continue to do so here as well. Abortions have been going on for at least hundreds of years. Historians have documented abortions in America prior to the revolutionary war. I even came across an academic paper from 1979 published in Women’s Health that described abortion practices between 1600-1900 in America. Currently, there are about 500,000-600,000 abortions occurring annually in the US. These are done by professionals in healthcare facilities with generally very low complication rates. With the SCOTUS decision, about 58% of women of reproductive age will lose the right to abortion in their home state. Some women may have to travel hundreds of miles to another state to get an abortion. Other women will not be able to due to financial constraints, inability to get time off work, or not having adequate childcare. Make no mistake, outlawing abortion will have health consequences to individuals because abortions will continue to occur. They just won’t be done as safely.
Abortion is common. Studies show that approximately 25% of all women have had an abortion in their reproductive lifetime. Approximately 7% of US women have attempted a self-managed abortion (SMA), which could include taking self-sourced medications, using herbs, undergoing blunt abdominal trauma, or having instruments introduced into their intrauterine cavity. If you are an ER doc practicing in a state that outlaw's abortions, it is likely you will start to see patients who have complications of this attempted SMA. SMA’s will present to the ER like miscarriages, which is something we see on a daily basis. About a third of pregnant women have vaginal bleeding in their first trimester and about half of them will go on to have a miscarriage. Miscarriages are common and may not need any intervention by a physician, though often are treated with surgery and/or medications. A small percentage of miscarriages can result in infections.
As I followed some of the potential abortion bills over the past year or so, I was just amazed at how ignorant some of the politicians were when it came to women’s health. Several laws included outlawing treatments of ectopic pregnancies. Ectopics are pregnancies that occur outside of the uterus and are not viable. 1 to 2% of all pregnancies are ectopic, typically occurring in a woman's fallopian tubes. If untreated, these pregnancies will rupture, resulting in significant blood loss and ultimately death to the woman if untreated. Medicine has not evolved enough to remove the embryo from the tube and place it safely into the uterus. Ectopic pregnancies are either treated with medicines (Methotrexate) to dissolve the embryo or by surgery, which typically means removing the tube. Although this is currently not an issue around the DMV, I’ve seen several discussions on ER doc groups where ER docs had patients with ectopics and were consulting the hospital attorneys about how and when to intervene to stay within the law to save the life of someone with an ectopic pregnancy where the state outlaw's treatment. That is just crazy to me.
Interestingly enough, there’s discussion about whether women of reproductive age with rheumatoid arthritis and lupus should even be allowed to continue on their prescribed methotrexate in states that don’t allow abortion. Methotrexate is used to treat ectopics and would prevent a fetus from developing. Lupus and RA are chronic medical conditions that can be challenging to manage. Why would we stop a medicine that is effective? Of course, with the SCOTUS decision, there is also discussion about outlawing Plan B (the morning after pill), IUDs, and less likely, traditional birth control pills. In-vitro fertilization (IVF) would also appear to be on the table for discussion.
Domestic abuse often gets worse for women during pregnancy. The American College of OBGYN estimates that about 1 out of every 6 women who are abused had abuse start during pregnancy. And the leading cause of death for pregnant women isn’t pregnancy related, it’s homicide, frequently killed by a partner. Homicide is twice as likely to be listed as the cause of death than bleeding or placental disorders, which are the typical pregnancy related causes of death. For black women in the US, pregnant women are nearly three times more likely to die by homicide than non-pregnant women.
The doctor-patient relationship is amazing and it’s a privilege to have patients (all of whom are essentially strangers to us) share secrets with us. While most ER patients do not have anything in their history they would be embarrassed to have their mother hear, many patients share events with us that they would not tell anyone else about. This could include abuse, depression and thoughts of hurting themselves, drug and alcohol use, and anything having to do with sex and bowel movements. We are here to not past judgment but rather to help people. Abortion is healthcare and the shared decision-making process that occurs between a patient and physician should not be interfered with by the court system. The AMA has restated its support for shared decision making, adopting a resolution that "opposes any effort to undermine the basic medical principle the clinical assessments such as the viability of the pregnancy and the safety of the pregnant person, or determinations to be made only by healthcare professionals with her patients." Many other professional societies including the American College of OB/GYN and the American College of Emergency Physicians have released statements opposing the court’s decision because of the interference of the doctor-patient relationship.
-
What a fascinating observation. I think this depends on what you consider the 'total population' to be. Of course, if it's 'Americans' then your observation may be true.
Yes, given the thread topic that's pretty much all the population I consider relevant here.
Right. So the rest of us have no skin in the game when it comes to the US ignoring its international obligations around climate change? Further up the thread I described the EPA decision as "American exceptionalism at its worst". I suppose I should thank you for proving my point as effectively as you have...
-
What a fascinating observation. I think this depends on what you consider the 'total population' to be. Of course, if it's 'Americans' then your observation may be true.
Yes, given the thread topic that's pretty much all the population I consider relevant here.
Right. So the rest of us have no skin in the game when it comes to the US ignoring its international obligations around climate change? Further up the thread I described the EPA decision as "American exceptionalism at its worst". I suppose I should thank you for proving my point as effectively as you have...
The Roe v. Wade decision has been the primary subject, and you likely do have no skin in that game.
As with Roe v. Wade, you are welcome to your opinion on how the separation of powers in the US legal system should work, including how much power regulatory agencies should have vs. Congress when it comes to making law. You may not like the recent decision because you liked how the EPA was acting, but that's a different topic. On a somewhat related topic, both Democrats and Republicans have bemoaned the tendency for executive orders to bypass Congress's legislative authority - but mostly when the other party holds the executive office.
-
What a fascinating observation. I think this depends on what you consider the 'total population' to be. Of course, if it's 'Americans' then your observation may be true.
Yes, given the thread topic that's pretty much all the population I consider relevant here.
Right. So the rest of us have no skin in the game when it comes to the US ignoring its international obligations around climate change? Further up the thread I described the EPA decision as "American exceptionalism at its worst". I suppose I should thank you for proving my point as effectively as you have...
The Roe v. Wade decision has been the primary subject, and you likely do have no skin in that game.
As with Roe v. Wade, you are welcome to your opinion on how the separation of powers in the US legal system should work, including how much power regulatory agencies should have vs. Congress when it comes to making law. You may not like the recent decision because you liked how the EPA was acting, but that's a different topic. On a somewhat related topic, both Democrats and Republicans have bemoaned the tendency for executive orders to bypass Congress's legislative authority - but mostly when the other party holds the executive office.
And the Supreme Court playing such a large role in so many controversial decisions are a direct reflection of Congress failing to pass laws - or at least pass laws with clear meaning. Look at the ACA for example. How is a roughly 1,000-page long bill not going to face legal challenges? Especially when those 1,000 pages spawn tens of thousands of pages of administrative rules? Many recent Supreme court decisions have basically boiled down to "Congress didn't make a law that says this". Congress has abdicated tough decisions to either the judicial or executive branches. They make laws that basically tell executive agencies "Go write a few thousand pages of administrative rules so we don't have to put it into law". Or they hope the Supreme Court will do the heavy lifting for them on controversial subjects, i.e. Obergefell v. Hodges.
-
What a fascinating observation. I think this depends on what you consider the 'total population' to be. Of course, if it's 'Americans' then your observation may be true.
Yes, given the thread topic that's pretty much all the population I consider relevant here.
Right. So the rest of us have no skin in the game when it comes to the US ignoring its international obligations around climate change? Further up the thread I described the EPA decision as "American exceptionalism at its worst". I suppose I should thank you for proving my point as effectively as you have...
The Roe v. Wade decision has been the primary subject, and you likely do have no skin in that game.
As with Roe v. Wade, you are welcome to your opinion on how the separation of powers in the US legal system should work, including how much power regulatory agencies should have vs. Congress when it comes to making law. You may not like the recent decision because you liked how the EPA was acting, but that's a different topic. On a somewhat related topic, both Democrats and Republicans have bemoaned the tendency for executive orders to bypass Congress's legislative authority - but mostly when the other party holds the executive office.
And the Supreme Court playing such a large role in so many controversial decisions are a direct reflection of Congress failing to pass laws - or at least pass laws with clear meaning. Look at the ACA for example. How is a roughly 1,000-page long bill not going to face legal challenges? Especially when those 1,000 pages spawn tens of thousands of pages of administrative rules? Many recent Supreme court decisions have basically boiled down to "Congress didn't make a law that says this". Congress has abdicated tough decisions to either the judicial or executive branches. They make laws that basically tell executive agencies "Go write a few thousand pages of administrative rules so we don't have to put it into law". Or they hope the Supreme Court will do the heavy lifting for them on controversial subjects, i.e. Obergefell v. Hodges.
Congress isn't legislating for two reasons: it is designed to have a built-in blocking minority and it is designed (through gerrymandering) so that blocking minority becomes more and more extreme in its views - something which the Supreme Court is facilitating.
-
And the Supreme Court playing such a large role in so many controversial decisions are a direct reflection of Congress failing to pass laws - or at least pass laws with clear meaning. Look at the ACA for example. How is a roughly 1,000-page long bill not going to face legal challenges? Especially when those 1,000 pages spawn tens of thousands of pages of administrative rules? Many recent Supreme court decisions have basically boiled down to "Congress didn't make a law that says this". Congress has abdicated tough decisions to either the judicial or executive branches. They make laws that basically tell executive agencies "Go write a few thousand pages of administrative rules so we don't have to put it into law". Or they hope the Supreme Court will do the heavy lifting for them on controversial subjects, i.e. Obergefell v. Hodges.
I’m not sure I accept your premise that laws passed lack a clear meaning, or that the page-count of a bill is somehow correlated to it’s constitutionality.
-
Meanwhile, the real world consequences are starting to be seen:
As Ohio restricts abortions, 10-year-old girl travels to Indiana for procedure
On Monday three days after the Supreme Court issued its groundbreaking decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist, took a call from a colleague, a child abuse doctor in Ohio.
Hours after the Supreme Court action, the Buckeye state had outlawed any abortion after six weeks. Now this doctor had a 10-year-old patient in the office who was six weeks and three days pregnant.
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2022/07/01/ohio-girl-10-among-patients-going-indiana-abortion/7788415001/?fbclid=IwAR10tH3VbaVYNeew37Egfy4h7Mbe72V89zEVgrC3M0DWYdlSlqwRw38tRa4
-
Meanwhile, the real world consequences are starting to be seen:
As Ohio restricts abortions, 10-year-old girl travels to Indiana for procedure
On Monday three days after the Supreme Court issued its groundbreaking decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist, took a call from a colleague, a child abuse doctor in Ohio.
Hours after the Supreme Court action, the Buckeye state had outlawed any abortion after six weeks. Now this doctor had a 10-year-old patient in the office who was six weeks and three days pregnant.
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2022/07/01/ohio-girl-10-among-patients-going-indiana-abortion/7788415001/?fbclid=IwAR10tH3VbaVYNeew37Egfy4h7Mbe72V89zEVgrC3M0DWYdlSlqwRw38tRa4
Wow. How would the anti-choicers justify forcing a 10 year old to give birth? She deserved it?
It's a good thing Ohio doesn't have the silly citizen lawsuit or that Ohio child abuse doctor would be out $10k.
-
Meanwhile, the real world consequences are starting to be seen:
As Ohio restricts abortions, 10-year-old girl travels to Indiana for procedure
On Monday three days after the Supreme Court issued its groundbreaking decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist, took a call from a colleague, a child abuse doctor in Ohio.
Hours after the Supreme Court action, the Buckeye state had outlawed any abortion after six weeks. Now this doctor had a 10-year-old patient in the office who was six weeks and three days pregnant.
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2022/07/01/ohio-girl-10-among-patients-going-indiana-abortion/7788415001/?fbclid=IwAR10tH3VbaVYNeew37Egfy4h7Mbe72V89zEVgrC3M0DWYdlSlqwRw38tRa4
Wow. How would the anti-choicers justify forcing a 10 year old to give birth? She deserved it?
It's a good thing Ohio doesn't have the silly citizen lawsuit or that Ohio child abuse doctor would be out $10k.
They do not see a need to justify it at all.
They see it as a kind of opportunity to worship or letting god´s will prevail or whatnot. It is practicing their religion on others.
Of course, people who do not share their creed see only ritual torture with the possibility of a human sacrifice at the end, as a ten year old carrying a pregnancy to term is at significantly higher mortality risk than an adult.
-
Meanwhile, the real world consequences are starting to be seen:
As Ohio restricts abortions, 10-year-old girl travels to Indiana for procedure
On Monday three days after the Supreme Court issued its groundbreaking decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist, took a call from a colleague, a child abuse doctor in Ohio.
Hours after the Supreme Court action, the Buckeye state had outlawed any abortion after six weeks. Now this doctor had a 10-year-old patient in the office who was six weeks and three days pregnant.
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2022/07/01/ohio-girl-10-among-patients-going-indiana-abortion/7788415001/?fbclid=IwAR10tH3VbaVYNeew37Egfy4h7Mbe72V89zEVgrC3M0DWYdlSlqwRw38tRa4
Wow. How would the anti-choicers justify forcing a 10 year old to give birth? She deserved it?
It's a good thing Ohio doesn't have the silly citizen lawsuit or that Ohio child abuse doctor would be out $10k.
They do not see a need to justify it at all.
They see it as a kind of opportunity to worship or letting god´s will prevail or whatnot. It is practising their religion on others.
Of course, to people who do not share their creed see only ritual torture with the possibility of a human sacrifice at the end, as a ten year old carrying a pregnancy to term is at significantly higher mortaality risk than an adult.
(Ooops, bad math.)
There are ~500k girls under the age of 15 in Ohio.* Given 120k kids/grade, there are ~120k around 13-14 yo. The pregnancy rate for 13-14 year olds is 6.6/1000.**
That means at least 790 girls in Ohio below the age of 15 will have to realize that they're pregnant, find the courage to tell a trusted adult about it, and then get an abortion, all before 6 weeks.
That's a win for the evangelicals?
* https://ohiobythenumbers.com/
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_pregnancy_in_the_United_States#Birth_and_abortion_rates_of_girls_ages_15%E2%80%9319,_2010_[17]
-
Meanwhile, the real world consequences are starting to be seen:
As Ohio restricts abortions, 10-year-old girl travels to Indiana for procedure
On Monday three days after the Supreme Court issued its groundbreaking decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist, took a call from a colleague, a child abuse doctor in Ohio.
Hours after the Supreme Court action, the Buckeye state had outlawed any abortion after six weeks. Now this doctor had a 10-year-old patient in the office who was six weeks and three days pregnant.
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2022/07/01/ohio-girl-10-among-patients-going-indiana-abortion/7788415001/?fbclid=IwAR10tH3VbaVYNeew37Egfy4h7Mbe72V89zEVgrC3M0DWYdlSlqwRw38tRa4
Wow. How would the anti-choicers justify forcing a 10 year old to give birth? She deserved it?
It's a good thing Ohio doesn't have the silly citizen lawsuit or that Ohio child abuse doctor would be out $10k.
They do not see a need to justify it at all.
They see it as a kind of opportunity to worship or letting god´s will prevail or whatnot. It is practising their religion on others.
Of course, to people who do not share their creed see only ritual torture with the possibility of a human sacrifice at the end, as a ten year old carrying a pregnancy to term is at significantly higher mortaality risk than an adult.
(Ooops, bad math.)
There are ~500k girls under the age of 15 in Ohio.* Given 120k kids/grade, there are ~120k around 13-14 yo. The pregnancy rate for 13-14 year olds is 6.6/1000.**
That means at least 790 girls in Ohio below the age of 15 will have to realize that they're pregnant, find the courage to tell a trusted adult about it, and then get an abortion, all before 6 weeks.
That's a win for the evangelicals?
* https://ohiobythenumbers.com/
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_pregnancy_in_the_United_States#Birth_and_abortion_rates_of_girls_ages_15%E2%80%9319,_2010_[17]
It's really painful to see some people's adherence to Christianity hurting people in this manner.
-
Meanwhile, the real world consequences are starting to be seen:
As Ohio restricts abortions, 10-year-old girl travels to Indiana for procedure
On Monday three days after the Supreme Court issued its groundbreaking decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist, took a call from a colleague, a child abuse doctor in Ohio.
Hours after the Supreme Court action, the Buckeye state had outlawed any abortion after six weeks. Now this doctor had a 10-year-old patient in the office who was six weeks and three days pregnant.
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2022/07/01/ohio-girl-10-among-patients-going-indiana-abortion/7788415001/?fbclid=IwAR10tH3VbaVYNeew37Egfy4h7Mbe72V89zEVgrC3M0DWYdlSlqwRw38tRa4
Wow. How would the anti-choicers justify forcing a 10 year old to give birth? She deserved it?
It's a good thing Ohio doesn't have the silly citizen lawsuit or that Ohio child abuse doctor would be out $10k.
God's will. All life is important. With exception of the 10 year old and of course once the child is born, they aren't that important. Especially if they are gunned down in class. Then guns are more important. Probably God's will too.
The Christian Taliban are taking over. I live in Ohio. I am looking forward to the day I move out of this shit hole.
-
Meanwhile, the real world consequences are starting to be seen:
As Ohio restricts abortions, 10-year-old girl travels to Indiana for procedure
On Monday three days after the Supreme Court issued its groundbreaking decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist, took a call from a colleague, a child abuse doctor in Ohio.
Hours after the Supreme Court action, the Buckeye state had outlawed any abortion after six weeks. Now this doctor had a 10-year-old patient in the office who was six weeks and three days pregnant.
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2022/07/01/ohio-girl-10-among-patients-going-indiana-abortion/7788415001/?fbclid=IwAR10tH3VbaVYNeew37Egfy4h7Mbe72V89zEVgrC3M0DWYdlSlqwRw38tRa4
Wow. How would the anti-choicers justify forcing a 10 year old to give birth? She deserved it?
It's a good thing Ohio doesn't have the silly citizen lawsuit or that Ohio child abuse doctor would be out $10k.
God's will. All life is important. With exception of the 10 year old and of course once the child is born, they aren't that important. Especially if they are gunned down in class. Then guns are more important. Probably God's will too.
The Christian Taliban are taking over. I live in Ohio. I am looking forward to the day I move out of this shit hole.
Maybe they’ll move to the Caliphate Texas is trying to set up…eh who am I kidding? They’ll fight amongst themselves and devolve further. We’re going to move back to CA in a few years to escape their religious courts.
-
I wondered to what extent "partial-birth abortion" motivated those on the Right to ban abortion, when it sounds like a very extreme situation. So I looked to this NPR article, which mentions "dilation and extraction" is used for abortions between 20 to 24 weeks (2nd trimester), and accounts for 0.2% of abortions.
"'Partial-Birth Abortion': Separating Fact From Spin"
"And contrary to the claims of some abortion opponents, most such abortions do not take place in the third trimester of pregnancy, or after fetal "viability." Indeed, when some members of Congress tried to amend the bill to ban only those procedures that take place after viability, abortion opponents complained that would leave most of the procedures legal."
https://www.npr.org/2006/02/21/5168163/partial-birth-abortion-separating-fact-from-spin
"In general, infants that are born very early are not considered to be viable until after 24 weeks gestation"
"Babies who are born after 34 weeks gestation have the same long-term health outcomes as babies who are delivered at full term (40 weeks)"
https://healthcare.utah.edu/womenshealth/pregnancy-birth/preterm-birth/when-is-it-safe-to-deliver.php
Based on what I read, above, a baby halfway through prengancy is not a "birth". Someone brining up "partial-birth abortions" is actually talking about halfway through pregnancy - the second trimester is not birth.
-
@MustacheAndaHalf - I posted a link to that article a ways back on this thread and was scolded by someone who said he didn’t need to be educated.
-
Meanwhile, the real world consequences are starting to be seen:
As Ohio restricts abortions, 10-year-old girl travels to Indiana for procedure
On Monday three days after the Supreme Court issued its groundbreaking decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist, took a call from a colleague, a child abuse doctor in Ohio.
Hours after the Supreme Court action, the Buckeye state had outlawed any abortion after six weeks. Now this doctor had a 10-year-old patient in the office who was six weeks and three days pregnant.
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2022/07/01/ohio-girl-10-among-patients-going-indiana-abortion/7788415001/?fbclid=IwAR10tH3VbaVYNeew37Egfy4h7Mbe72V89zEVgrC3M0DWYdlSlqwRw38tRa4
Wow. How would the anti-choicers justify forcing a 10 year old to give birth? She deserved it?
It's a good thing Ohio doesn't have the silly citizen lawsuit or that Ohio child abuse doctor would be out $10k.
God's will. All life is important. With exception of the 10 year old and of course once the child is born, they aren't that important. Especially if they are gunned down in class. Then guns are more important. Probably God's will too.
The Christian Taliban are taking over. I live in Ohio. I am looking forward to the day I move out of this shit hole.
Maybe they’ll move to the Caliphate Texas is trying to set up…eh who am I kidding? They’ll fight amongst themselves and devolve further. We’re going to move back to CA in a few years to escape their religious courts.
Texas and Florida are my top two places to NOT move to. Not sure we'll stay in the states. Definitely contemplating moving north, as in north of the border.
-
@MustacheAndaHalf - I posted a link to that article a ways back on this thread and was scolded by someone who said he didn’t need to be educated.
Funny how education is to religious fanatics what garlic is to vampires!
-
@MustacheAndaHalf - I posted a link to that article a ways back on this thread and was scolded by someone who said he didn’t need to be educated.
At the time of my post I wasn't aware I posted the same link, but I can also appreciate that's how it appears. But I might as well take up the conversation from there.
ok, will you compromise and publicly oppose late term abortions that are not medically necessary?
"A late termination of pregnancy often refers to an induced ending of pregnancy after the 20th week of gestation"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy
Compared to the full term of 40 weeks, 20 weeks is halfway through the pregnancy. While "late term" suggests late in the pregnancy, that's not accurate - it is halfway through the pregnancy. Similarly, "partial-birth" is also a misleading term, since "birth" also does not occur halfway through pregnancy.
I sympathize with the need for American politics to bring the Left and Right more towards the center, but I don't sympathize with misleading terms. Maybe I'm overemphasizing the importance of agreed on definitions and reducing the emotion ladden words that are used, but that's my take on it.
-
I sympathize with the need for American politics to bring the Left and Right more towards the center, but I don't sympathize with misleading terms. Maybe I'm overemphasizing the importance of agreed on definitions and reducing the emotion ladden words that are used, but that's my take on it.
My frustration is that in the case of abortion, both the previous status quo (up until June's SCOTUS ruling) as well as the actual positions argued for by Dems still skew center-right.
And I agree that the above intensionally loaded and misleading terms. The overwhelming majority of so-called "partial birth abortions" occur before the fetus is viable, and occur because either the life to the mother is at serious risk or the fetus is so developmentally abnormal as to be unlikely to have an independent, meaningful life.
-
There are literally no people, even the most extreme, on the liberal side that would say pregnany is slavery. *Forced* pregnancy is slavery....
Which leads us down the rabbit hole of defining "forced". E.g., there are real differences between rape and incest at one extreme, and partial-birth abortion at the other.
My frustration is that we have never had anything close to a "middle ground" in this country. Of course there's even disagreement of what a "middle ground" would look like, but I'd say it would involve unrestricted access for women through 20 weeks, available in every city and most hospitals who can use the normal sources of medical funding to help pay for it, and women are not harassed, delayed or dissuaded by third parties. Provisions in this "middle ground" would also be in place for instances of rape, when it endangered the life of the mother and in the cases of severe genetic or physical abnormalities which would lead to a life with no meaningful hope of a functional individual. These decisions would be made by the woman and her health care provider, the later of course guided by the same standard of medical ethics which are already in place for every other health procedure they do.
Serious question, is Ireland a slave state that doesn't have a middle ground on abortion? Because they had a national referendum to allow abortion in their constitution but you can only get a no-questions-asked abortion until 12 weeks. But you actually have a right to it. Like a real right where the government pays for it. Not this Roe-v-Wade right where doctors have the right to sell you one.
-
There are literally no people, even the most extreme, on the liberal side that would say pregnany is slavery. *Forced* pregnancy is slavery....
Which leads us down the rabbit hole of defining "forced". E.g., there are real differences between rape and incest at one extreme, and partial-birth abortion at the other.
My frustration is that we have never had anything close to a "middle ground" in this country. Of course there's even disagreement of what a "middle ground" would look like, but I'd say it would involve unrestricted access for women through 20 weeks, available in every city and most hospitals who can use the normal sources of medical funding to help pay for it, and women are not harassed, delayed or dissuaded by third parties. Provisions in this "middle ground" would also be in place for instances of rape, when it endangered the life of the mother and in the cases of severe genetic or physical abnormalities which would lead to a life with no meaningful hope of a functional individual. These decisions would be made by the woman and her health care provider, the later of course guided by the same standard of medical ethics which are already in place for every other health procedure they do.
Serious question, is Ireland a slave state that doesn't have a middle ground on abortion? Because they had a national referendum to allow abortion in their constitution but you can only get a no-questions-asked abortion until 12 weeks. But you actually have a right to it. Like a real right where the government pays for it. Not this Roe-v-Wade right where doctors have the right to sell you one.
I'd look at the cutoff for no questions asked abortion as a function of the availability and affordability of abortion services. Twelve weeks is most likely the shortest window possible from a practical perspective and would only be acceptable if abortion services are truly easily accessible AND that accessibility is actually demonstrated by documenting that the window does not result in abortions denied.
In many regions of the US, even before the Dobbs decision, accessing abortion services is so difficult that a 12 weeks window would be just aspirational. Hence the need for no questions asked abortions to be offered later in the US than in some other countries. Anyone who cares about abortions to be performed as early as possible should support easy access to no questions asked abortion services.
-
There are literally no people, even the most extreme, on the liberal side that would say pregnany is slavery. *Forced* pregnancy is slavery....
Which leads us down the rabbit hole of defining "forced". E.g., there are real differences between rape and incest at one extreme, and partial-birth abortion at the other.
My frustration is that we have never had anything close to a "middle ground" in this country. Of course there's even disagreement of what a "middle ground" would look like, but I'd say it would involve unrestricted access for women through 20 weeks, available in every city and most hospitals who can use the normal sources of medical funding to help pay for it, and women are not harassed, delayed or dissuaded by third parties. Provisions in this "middle ground" would also be in place for instances of rape, when it endangered the life of the mother and in the cases of severe genetic or physical abnormalities which would lead to a life with no meaningful hope of a functional individual. These decisions would be made by the woman and her health care provider, the later of course guided by the same standard of medical ethics which are already in place for every other health procedure they do.
Serious question, is Ireland a slave state that doesn't have a middle ground on abortion? Because they had a national referendum to allow abortion in their constitution but you can only get a no-questions-asked abortion until 12 weeks. But you actually have a right to it. Like a real right where the government pays for it. Not this Roe-v-Wade right where doctors have the right to sell you one.
I'd look at the cutoff for no questions asked abortion as a function of the availability and affordability of abortion services. Twelve weeks is most likely the shortest window possible from a practical perspective and would only be acceptable if abortion services are truly easily accessible AND that accessibility is actually demonstrated by documenting that the window does not result in abortions denied.
In many regions of the US, even before the Dobbs decision, accessing abortion services is so difficult that a 12 weeks window would be just aspirational. Hence the need for no questions asked abortions to be offered later in the US than in some other countries. Anyone who cares about abortions to be performed as early as possible should support easy access to no questions asked abortion services.
Which is why I posted the Canadian numbers a few posts up. Most are early.
-
Meanwhile, the real world consequences are starting to be seen:
As Ohio restricts abortions, 10-year-old girl travels to Indiana for procedure
On Monday three days after the Supreme Court issued its groundbreaking decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist, took a call from a colleague, a child abuse doctor in Ohio.
Hours after the Supreme Court action, the Buckeye state had outlawed any abortion after six weeks. Now this doctor had a 10-year-old patient in the office who was six weeks and three days pregnant.
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2022/07/01/ohio-girl-10-among-patients-going-indiana-abortion/7788415001/?fbclid=IwAR10tH3VbaVYNeew37Egfy4h7Mbe72V89zEVgrC3M0DWYdlSlqwRw38tRa4
Wow. How would the anti-choicers justify forcing a 10 year old to give birth? She deserved it?
It's a good thing Ohio doesn't have the silly citizen lawsuit or that Ohio child abuse doctor would be out $10k.
They do not see a need to justify it at all.
They see it as a kind of opportunity to worship or letting god´s will prevail or whatnot. It is practising their religion on others.
Of course, to people who do not share their creed see only ritual torture with the possibility of a human sacrifice at the end, as a ten year old carrying a pregnancy to term is at significantly higher mortaality risk than an adult.
(Ooops, bad math.)
There are ~500k girls under the age of 15 in Ohio.* Given 120k kids/grade, there are ~120k around 13-14 yo. The pregnancy rate for 13-14 year olds is 6.6/1000.**
That means at least 790 girls in Ohio below the age of 15 will have to realize that they're pregnant, find the courage to tell a trusted adult about it, and then get an abortion, all before 6 weeks.
That's a win for the evangelicals?
* https://ohiobythenumbers.com/
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_pregnancy_in_the_United_States#Birth_and_abortion_rates_of_girls_ages_15%E2%80%9319,_2010_[17]
I'll describe myself as someone who came into the issue generally in favor of allowing women access to whatever health care they need.
This story about the ten-year-old has hit me really hard. Moved me even further into the pro-access camp (some call it "pro-choice"). The fact that a case like this appeared during the week that Ohio's trigger law took effect? In a state with eleven million residents, that suggests that these ten year old girls are getting assaulted and forcibly impregnated...quite often. Too often.
My daughter--who is ten--was born in Ohio. We've left the state since.
-
I sympathize with the need for American politics to bring the Left and Right more towards the center, but I don't sympathize with misleading terms. Maybe I'm overemphasizing the importance of agreed on definitions and reducing the emotion ladden words that are used, but that's my take on it.
My frustration is that in the case of abortion, both the previous status quo (up until June's SCOTUS ruling) as well as the actual positions argued for by Dems still skew center-right.
And I agree that the above intensionally loaded and misleading terms. The overwhelming majority of so-called "partial birth abortions" occur before the fetus is viable, and occur because either the life to the mother is at serious risk or the fetus is so developmentally abnormal as to be unlikely to have an independent, meaningful life.
While I don't like the inaccurate terms, I get the idea that some forms of abortion are more offensive to conservatives. Maybe a compromise should be no abortions after 20 weeks, with provisions for rape & incest debated. Eliminating abortions in weeks 20-24 stops 3% of abortions, which is something for both sides to dislike.
In Europe, France uses 16 weeks and Germany 12 weeks. Even with a 20 week allowance for abortion, the law would be more lenient than in Europe. The gap between Germany (12 weeks) and this compromise (20 weeks) would certainly be enough time to deal with America's less efficient & more expensive health care system.
Conservatives use various terms to represent their disgust at abortions after 20 weeks. The so-called "partial birth" (which is not at 40 weeks, aka "birth") abortion means 20-24 weeks. These abortions do involve different procedures than abortions performed before 20 weeks, so there is a real difference. Getting rid of these procedures could reduce the disgust conservatives feel over abortion, by eliminating the procedures they have named specifically.
So that would be my halfway idea: give something both sides can dislike, by allowing abortion up to 20 weeks. I have the support of zero members of Congress on this, which probably speaks to my chances.
-
I sympathize with the need for American politics to bring the Left and Right more towards the center, but I don't sympathize with misleading terms. Maybe I'm overemphasizing the importance of agreed on definitions and reducing the emotion ladden words that are used, but that's my take on it.
My frustration is that in the case of abortion, both the previous status quo (up until June's SCOTUS ruling) as well as the actual positions argued for by Dems still skew center-right.
And I agree that the above intensionally loaded and misleading terms. The overwhelming majority of so-called "partial birth abortions" occur before the fetus is viable, and occur because either the life to the mother is at serious risk or the fetus is so developmentally abnormal as to be unlikely to have an independent, meaningful life.
While I don't like the inaccurate terms, I get the idea that some forms of abortion are more offensive to conservatives. Maybe a compromise should be no abortions after 20 weeks, with provisions for rape & incest debated. Eliminating abortions in weeks 20-24 stops 3% of abortions, which is something for both sides to dislike.
In Europe, France uses 16 weeks and Germany 12 weeks. Even with a 20 week allowance for abortion, the law would be more lenient than in Europe. The gap between Germany (12 weeks) and this compromise (20 weeks) would certainly be enough time to deal with America's less efficient & more expensive health care system.
Conservatives use various terms to represent their disgust at abortions after 20 weeks. The so-called "partial birth" (which is not at 40 weeks, aka "birth") abortion means 20-24 weeks. These abortions do involve different procedures than abortions performed before 20 weeks, so there is a real difference. Getting rid of these procedures could reduce the disgust conservatives feel over abortion, by eliminating the procedures they have named specifically.
So that would be my halfway idea: give something both sides can dislike, by allowing abortion up to 20 weeks. I have the support of zero members of Congress on this, which probably speaks to my chances.
Conservatives would take it if it'd increase restrictions on the blue states, but would not take it if it would relax restrictions anywhere. In either case they would continue to push for a nationwide ban.
-
Or...conservatives can just flex the power they've won at the state level, now that they've flexed the power that they've won nationally through years of minority-Presidents selecting Supreme Court Justices?
That power is substantial enough that they movement doesn't feel much need for moderation right now.
-
...
Conservatives use various terms to represent their disgust at abortions after 20 weeks. The so-called "partial birth" (which is not at 40 weeks, aka "birth") abortion means 20-24 weeks. These abortions do involve different procedures than abortions performed before 20 weeks, so there is a real difference. Getting rid of these procedures could reduce the disgust conservatives feel over abortion, by eliminating the procedures they have named specifically.
...
Except that banning abortions between 20 and 24 weeks only looks reasonable when one does not take into account under which circumstances these abortions typically are performed.
Only sadistic bigots would be ok with withholding treatment (abortion) in almost all such cases. And this is also the Achilles heel of the anti-abortionist movement: once confronted with the real consequences of abortion bans, support for bans tends to wane among normal people - they just can´t stomach it (and that is what makes them normal).
-
...
Conservatives use various terms to represent their disgust at abortions after 20 weeks. The so-called "partial birth" (which is not at 40 weeks, aka "birth") abortion means 20-24 weeks. These abortions do involve different procedures than abortions performed before 20 weeks, so there is a real difference. Getting rid of these procedures could reduce the disgust conservatives feel over abortion, by eliminating the procedures they have named specifically.
...
Except that banning abortions between 20 and 24 weeks only looks reasonable when one does not take into account under which circumstances these abortions typically are performed.
Only sadistic bigots would be ok with withholding treatment (abortion) in almost all such cases. And this is also the Achilles heel of the anti-abortionist movement: once confronted with the real consequences of abortion bans, support for bans tends to wane among normal people - they just can´t stomach it (and that is what makes them normal).
Yep. The issue is that 20+ weeks are already rare - about 1% of cases. They are happening either 1) due to medical issue or 2) inability to access termination sooner/unawareness of pregnancy (e.g. a child/youth is pregnant). Providing access solves 2, and most Americans agree that termination for 1 (or that 10 yo child) is ok. So you're unlikely to get conservatives to cosign onto this idea because it wouldn't change much for them, and unlikely to get liberals to sign on because they firmly believe that in the person's right to terminate for these reasons.
"WHEN DO ABORTIONS OCCUR?
In 2019, 79% of all U.S. abortions occurred prior to the 10th week of gestation; 93% occurred prior to 14 weeks’ gestation (CDC).
Percentage of 2019 Reported Abortions by Weeks of Gestation* (CDC):
≤6 wks 7-9 wks 10-13 wks 14-15 wks 16-17 wks 18-20 wks ≥21 wks
42.9% 36.4% 13.4% 2.9% 1.7% 1.6% 1.0%"
https://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/
"So why are some abortion procedures occurring after week 20? Often, the reason is medical. About 2% of all pregnancies suffer from a major birth defect, and often, no medical treatment can save the fetus.4 And for many pregnant women, it is only in weeks 16-22 that they would even have a hint that something may be fatally wrong with their pregnancy."
https://www.thirdway.org/one-pager/what-you-should-know-about-abortion-after-20-weeks
-
Lots of federal $$ are going to the Catholic Church via Medicare and Medicaid, funding a lot of substandard care - time to consider squeezing them a bit:
The Catholic church is dictating reproductive health care — even in blue states
This isn't just about abortion. This is about impact on the health and safety of pregnant patients
By MARY ELIZABETH WILLIAMS
"Your own local hospital may be taking its cues from the Vatican, and you may not know it. As a 2020 Community Catalyst report on the growth of Catholic health systems entitled "Bigger and Bigger" explains, "Historically-Catholic hospitals that were purchased by for-profit systems may still be following the Catholic ERDs [Ethical and Religious Directives] as a condition of the sale. Non-Catholic non-profit hospitals that have merged with Catholic facilities are often required to adopt all or some of the ERDs. Public hospitals that are being managed by Catholic health systems may have agreed to eliminate any services that conflict with the ERDs.""
https://www.salon.com/2022/07/04/the-catholic-church-is-dictating-reproductive-health-care--even-in-blue-states/
-
I think there should be NO restrictions on abortion. Let women and their medical providers decide. Anything else is a very slippery slope, as we have seen.
-
I think there should be NO restrictions on abortion. Let women and their medical providers decide. Anything else is a very slippery slope, as we have seen.
Same. Pro-lifers paint abortion advocates as bloodthirsty monsters waiting to carve up a viable baby for funsies, and that therefore abortion needs regulation to prevent that. But the reality is pregnancy sucks. It is literally the most painful experience that most people are actually going to go through--worse than breaking bones. Nobody wants to go through third trimester, get all the stretch marks, the changes to continency, the huge hormonal shifts (which are NOT pleasant!) and then say "lol whoops want to abort after all, jk". Those babies are desperately wanted, and something awful has to happen to change that calculus. No one wants to admit that that 1% of all abortions that happen that late are because the mother is going to bleed out otherwise, or the fetus has no brain, or the fetus died and the mom is a living coffin.
Abortion restrictions make the worst times in women's lives even harder, and even criminalize natural miscarriages (but can you 'prove' you didn't try to induce a miscarriage? Lawyer up!)
I used to think I might want kids. But the government knows better than I do what I can handle, apparently. They want to force me to carry a kid with birth defects that might sentence me to a lifetime of caregiving. They want to sentence me to carry a fetus even if it will kill me, until there is irreparable damage. Then they will say it meets the bar of the life of the mother and let me abort (but not in all states.) But I get to live with irreversible damage since the state has decided I don't get to determine what risk level is acceptable to me to continue with the pregnancy. Or maybe I will just die while the hospital's legal team debates how much liability they are open too if they actually try to save my life.
Needless to say, kids are no longer on the table for me. The government has made it clear that kids are just too risky to my health.
-
I sympathize with the need for American politics to bring the Left and Right more towards the center, but I don't sympathize with misleading terms. Maybe I'm overemphasizing the importance of agreed on definitions and reducing the emotion ladden words that are used, but that's my take on it.
My frustration is that in the case of abortion, both the previous status quo (up until June's SCOTUS ruling) as well as the actual positions argued for by Dems still skew center-right.
And I agree that the above intensionally loaded and misleading terms. The overwhelming majority of so-called "partial birth abortions" occur before the fetus is viable, and occur because either the life to the mother is at serious risk or the fetus is so developmentally abnormal as to be unlikely to have an independent, meaningful life.
While I don't like the inaccurate terms, I get the idea that some forms of abortion are more offensive to conservatives. Maybe a compromise should be no abortions after 20 weeks, with provisions for rape & incest debated. Eliminating abortions in weeks 20-24 stops 3% of abortions, which is something for both sides to dislike.
In Europe, France uses 16 weeks and Germany 12 weeks. Even with a 20 week allowance for abortion, the law would be more lenient than in Europe. The gap between Germany (12 weeks) and this compromise (20 weeks) would certainly be enough time to deal with America's less efficient & more expensive health care system.
Conservatives use various terms to represent their disgust at abortions after 20 weeks. The so-called "partial birth" (which is not at 40 weeks, aka "birth") abortion means 20-24 weeks. These abortions do involve different procedures than abortions performed before 20 weeks, so there is a real difference. Getting rid of these procedures could reduce the disgust conservatives feel over abortion, by eliminating the procedures they have named specifically.
So that would be my halfway idea: give something both sides can dislike, by allowing abortion up to 20 weeks. I have the support of zero members of Congress on this, which probably speaks to my chances.
I see two problems with this
First, this was supposed to be the status quo over the last 40+ years following Roe v Wade, yet the anti -abortion camp couldn’t let access up to 20 weeks stand. In roughly half the states further restrictions severely limited the providers, added non-medical deterrents (eg delays and photos of the fetus) and strangling the funding.
The second has been outlined better by others, but virtually no one gets past 20 weeks and then decides to have an abortion without some serious health reasons that are almost always life or death.
-
I think there should be NO restrictions on abortion. Let women and their medical providers decide. Anything else is a very slippery slope, as we have seen.
It really should be just this easy/straightforward, since it seems so obvious.
I just don’t have the mental powers to understand, really understand, the opposing view. Sure, the extreme corners I can sort of get, but the 99.9999% operating space? No idea what those folks believe in and how they think they should be able to force that belief on another.
-
I think there should be NO restrictions on abortion. Let women and their medical providers decide. Anything else is a very slippery slope, as we have seen.
It really should be just this easy/straightforward, since it seems so obvious.
I just don’t have the mental powers to understand, really understand, the opposing view. Sure, the extreme corners I can sort of get, but the 99.9999% operating space? No idea what those folks believe in and how they think they should be able to force that belief on another.
https://people.com/politics/rep-lauren-boebert-denounces-separation-of-church-state/
That pretty much sums it up, I think..
-
I think there should be NO restrictions on abortion. Let women and their medical providers decide. Anything else is a very slippery slope, as we have seen.
It really should be just this easy/straightforward, since it seems so obvious.
I just don’t have the mental powers to understand, really understand, the opposing view. Sure, the extreme corners I can sort of get, but the 99.9999% operating space? No idea what those folks believe in and how they think they should be able to force that belief on another.
https://people.com/politics/rep-lauren-boebert-denounces-separation-of-church-state/
That pretty much sums it up, I think..
She does not seem to have given attention to the thought that it might not be her own church getting the thumbs up. But maybe that´s what all the guns are for.
-
Imma push back on that.
Boebert's church is one of the favored ones.
-
Imma push back on that.
Boebert's church is one of the favored ones.
She might think that her little gathering of heretics is a church but there are others who definitely do not think so.
-
From CDC website (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm):
Among those that were eligible (≤9 weeks’ gestation), 53.7% of abortions were early medical abortions...CDC’s category of ≤9 weeks’ gestation includes abortions through 9 weeks and 6 days. Medications (typically serial prostaglandins, sometimes administered after mifepristone) may also be used to induce an abortion at >9 weeks’ gestation.
Anyone know, why would any woman opt to run the gauntlet, past all the protesters and their signs, to physically go into a Planned Parenthood, or whatever, clinic, when they could just have a Zoom appointment with an abortion provider and receive some pills in the mail? Why wouldn't 100% of women seeking abortions ≤9 weeks choose medical rather than surgical abortions? Also, CDC says, pills "may also be used to induce an abortion at >9 weeks' gestation," but doesn't elaborate about under what circumstances.
Seems like, moving forward, a way we could help women living in states where abortion is banned/severely restricted would be to provide them with free pregnancy tests by mail. Women who get pregnant and don't want to be should be able to easily get pils that can be used to end the unwanted pregnancy through the USPS, as early as possible.
-
From CDC website (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm): Among those that were eligible (≤9 weeks’ gestation), 53.7% of abortions were early medical abortions...CDC’s category of ≤9 weeks’ gestation includes abortions through 9 weeks and 6 days. Medications (typically serial prostaglandins, sometimes administered after mifepristone) may also be used to induce an abortion at >9 weeks’ gestation.
Anyone know, why would any woman opt to run the gauntlet, past all the protesters and their signs, to physically go into a Planned Parenthood, or whatever, clinic, when they could just have a Zoom appointment with an abortion provider and receive some pills in the mail? Why wouldn't 100% of women seeking abortions ≤9 weeks choose medical rather than surgical abortions? Also, CDC says, pills "may also be used to induce an abortion at >9 weeks' gestation," but doesn't elaborate about under what circumstances.
Seems like, moving forward, a way we could help women living in states where abortion is banned/severely restricted would be to provide them with free pregnancy tests by mail. Women who get pregnant and don't want to be should be able to easily get pils that can be used to end the unwanted pregnancy through the USPS, as early as possible.
Some pharmacists refuse to issue pills that induce abortions so it is not necessarily a safe option to go into your local pharmacy with a prescription. And don't assume that everyone who needs an abortion either has internet access or has internet access that is not supervised or checked by someone who could be hostile to learning about sexual activity or the desire for an abortion.
Maybe you mean well with your question but it betrays significant ignorance of many women's lives.
-
From CDC website (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm): Among those that were eligible (≤9 weeks’ gestation), 53.7% of abortions were early medical abortions...CDC’s category of ≤9 weeks’ gestation includes abortions through 9 weeks and 6 days. Medications (typically serial prostaglandins, sometimes administered after mifepristone) may also be used to induce an abortion at >9 weeks’ gestation.
Anyone know, why would any woman opt to run the gauntlet, past all the protesters and their signs, to physically go into a Planned Parenthood, or whatever, clinic, when they could just have a Zoom appointment with an abortion provider and receive some pills in the mail? Why wouldn't 100% of women seeking abortions ≤9 weeks choose medical rather than surgical abortions? Also, CDC says, pills "may also be used to induce an abortion at >9 weeks' gestation," but doesn't elaborate about under what circumstances.
Seems like, moving forward, a way we could help women living in states where abortion is banned/severely restricted would be to provide them with free pregnancy tests by mail. Women who get pregnant and don't want to be should be able to easily get pils that can be used to end the unwanted pregnancy through the USPS, as early as possible.
Some pharmacists refuse to issue pills that induce abortions so it is not necessarily a safe option to go into your local pharmacy with a prescription. And don't assume that everyone who needs an abortion either has internet access or has internet access that is not supervised or checked by someone who could be hostile to learning about sexual activity or the desire for an abortion.
Maybe you mean well with your question but it betrays significant ignorance of many women's lives.
Abortion via pill impacts different women differently. In some cases it can lead to much more significant side effects (pain, cramping, bleeding, etc.) than surgery.
-
From CDC website (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm): Among those that were eligible (≤9 weeks’ gestation), 53.7% of abortions were early medical abortions...CDC’s category of ≤9 weeks’ gestation includes abortions through 9 weeks and 6 days. Medications (typically serial prostaglandins, sometimes administered after mifepristone) may also be used to induce an abortion at >9 weeks’ gestation.
Anyone know, why would any woman opt to run the gauntlet, past all the protesters and their signs, to physically go into a Planned Parenthood, or whatever, clinic, when they could just have a Zoom appointment with an abortion provider and receive some pills in the mail? Why wouldn't 100% of women seeking abortions ≤9 weeks choose medical rather than surgical abortions? Also, CDC says, pills "may also be used to induce an abortion at >9 weeks' gestation," but doesn't elaborate about under what circumstances.
Seems like, moving forward, a way we could help women living in states where abortion is banned/severely restricted would be to provide them with free pregnancy tests by mail. Women who get pregnant and don't want to be should be able to easily get pils that can be used to end the unwanted pregnancy through the USPS, as early as possible.
Some pharmacists refuse to issue pills that induce abortions so it is not necessarily a safe option to go into your local pharmacy with a prescription. And don't assume that everyone who needs an abortion either has internet access or has internet access that is not supervised or checked by someone who could be hostile to learning about sexual activity or the desire for an abortion.
Maybe you mean well with your question but it betrays significant ignorance of many women's lives.
Abortion via pill impacts different women differently. In some cases it can lead to much more significant side effects (pain, cramping, bleeding, etc.) than surgery.
Wonder how a woman would know ahead of time that she was susceptible to 'more significant side effects' by taking a pill, rather than having surgery? There are no surgeries I've ever heard of that don't also come with the possibility of side effects. Obviously, women living in states where abortion is illegal won't be able to get pills to end their pregnancy from a local pharmacist, thus, my suggestion that we provide them with pills by mail. It's not a 100% solution, but might help many/most women who find themselves pregnant, when they don't want to be. Driving hundreds of miles to another state in a crappy, old car, prone to breaking down, to obtain a surgical abortion, is also not without significant risks.
Just trying to think of pragmatic solutions to lessen the harm.
-
From CDC website (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm): Among those that were eligible (≤9 weeks’ gestation), 53.7% of abortions were early medical abortions...CDC’s category of ≤9 weeks’ gestation includes abortions through 9 weeks and 6 days. Medications (typically serial prostaglandins, sometimes administered after mifepristone) may also be used to induce an abortion at >9 weeks’ gestation.
Anyone know, why would any woman opt to run the gauntlet, past all the protesters and their signs, to physically go into a Planned Parenthood, or whatever, clinic, when they could just have a Zoom appointment with an abortion provider and receive some pills in the mail? Why wouldn't 100% of women seeking abortions ≤9 weeks choose medical rather than surgical abortions? Also, CDC says, pills "may also be used to induce an abortion at >9 weeks' gestation," but doesn't elaborate about under what circumstances.
Seems like, moving forward, a way we could help women living in states where abortion is banned/severely restricted would be to provide them with free pregnancy tests by mail. Women who get pregnant and don't want to be should be able to easily get pils that can be used to end the unwanted pregnancy through the USPS, as early as possible.
Some pharmacists refuse to issue pills that induce abortions so it is not necessarily a safe option to go into your local pharmacy with a prescription. And don't assume that everyone who needs an abortion either has internet access or has internet access that is not supervised or checked by someone who could be hostile to learning about sexual activity or the desire for an abortion.
Maybe you mean well with your question but it betrays significant ignorance of many women's lives.
Abortion via pill impacts different women differently. In some cases it can lead to much more significant side effects (pain, cramping, bleeding, etc.) than surgery.
Wonder how a woman would know ahead of time that she was susceptible to 'more significant side effects' by taking a pill, rather than having surgery? There are no surgeries I've ever heard of that don't also come with the possibility of side effects. Obviously, women living in states where abortion is illegal won't be able to get pills to end their pregnancy from a local pharmacist, thus, my suggestion that we provide them with pills by mail. It's not a 100% solution, but might help many/most women who find themselves pregnant, when they don't want to be. Driving hundreds of miles to another state in a crappy, old car, prone to breaking down, to obtain a surgical abortion, is also not without significant risks.
Just trying to think of pragmatic solutions to lessen the harm.
Well, Shane, she might realise she is susceptible to more significant side effects by reading the lists of side effects and contraindications for the most commonly used abortion medications and relate them to her experience of her own body.
-
The providers I've worked with in the US only prescribe MABs (medication abortion) up to 10 weeks, but I understand that in Europe perhaps, they'll go up to 12, and I've read some but don't remember a lot about the considerations beyond that EGA (estimated gestational age). One reason I think US providers usually only go to 10 weeks is because of uncertainty around timing - they are erring on the side of conservatism in case someone is farther along than they think.
As for the choice between MAB and surgical, a consideration the people I worked with often expressed was the speed of a surgical abortion vs. the length of time of the MAB. It's not like you are completely disabled for multiple days with MAB, but it is a 2-3 day or more long process, whereas a surgical abortion at that EGA is an appointment you are in and out of quickly.
While the pain, cramping and bleeding can be different for every person, and I would characterize them more as the effects, not side effects, since they are actually the mechanism of action of the miso to expel the remains, those effects were definitely deterrents for some people I spoke with considering the choice. They may not have a safe place to take the pills and recover for a few days, whether that be because they are homeless or because they can't reveal it to the people they live with and won't have a good explanation for their activity during those days. If they can get to a clinic, there's less to explain. And maybe it's easier to brave a phalanx of assholes calling you a murderer than come up with a plausible-sounding excuse for your judgmental parents or potentially abusive partner.
These are just the briefest of considerations along the way. It's important to emphasize how incredibly safe MAB is, but it's also important to understand it can be uncomfortable (or more) and have a lot of logistical complications depending on the person's unique situation, and not downplay that.
-
The providers I've worked with in the US only prescribe MABs (medication abortion) up to 10 weeks, but I understand that in Europe perhaps, they'll go up to 12, and I've read some but don't remember a lot about the considerations beyond that EGA (estimated gestational age). One reason I think US providers usually only go to 10 weeks is because of uncertainty around timing - they are erring on the side of conservatism in case someone is farther along than they think.
As for the choice between MAB and surgical, a consideration the people I worked with often expressed was the speed of a surgical abortion vs. the length of time of the MAB. It's not like you are completely disabled for multiple days with MAB, but it is a 2-3 day or more long process, whereas a surgical abortion at that EGA is an appointment you are in and out of quickly.
While the pain, cramping and bleeding can be different for every person, and I would characterize them more as the effects, not side effects, since they are actually the mechanism of action of the miso to expel the remains, those effects were definitely deterrents for some people I spoke with considering the choice. They may not have a safe place to take the pills and recover for a few days, whether that be because they are homeless or because they can't reveal it to the people they live with and won't have a good explanation for their activity during those days. If they can get to a clinic, there's less to explain. And maybe it's easier to brave a phalanx of assholes calling you a murderer than come up with a plausible-sounding excuse for your judgmental parents or potentially abusive partner.
These are just the briefest of considerations along the way. It's important to emphasize how incredibly safe MAB is, but it's also important to understand it can be uncomfortable (or more) and have a lot of logistical complications depending on the person's unique situation, and not downplay that.
Thanks for your explanation, sui generis. It makes more sense to me now, why many women opt for surgical procedures, rather than going with MAB.
-
From CDC website (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm): Among those that were eligible (≤9 weeks’ gestation), 53.7% of abortions were early medical abortions...CDC’s category of ≤9 weeks’ gestation includes abortions through 9 weeks and 6 days. Medications (typically serial prostaglandins, sometimes administered after mifepristone) may also be used to induce an abortion at >9 weeks’ gestation.
Anyone know, why would any woman opt to run the gauntlet, past all the protesters and their signs, to physically go into a Planned Parenthood, or whatever, clinic, when they could just have a Zoom appointment with an abortion provider and receive some pills in the mail? Why wouldn't 100% of women seeking abortions ≤9 weeks choose medical rather than surgical abortions? Also, CDC says, pills "may also be used to induce an abortion at >9 weeks' gestation," but doesn't elaborate about under what circumstances.
Seems like, moving forward, a way we could help women living in states where abortion is banned/severely restricted would be to provide them with free pregnancy tests by mail. Women who get pregnant and don't want to be should be able to easily get pils that can be used to end the unwanted pregnancy through the USPS, as early as possible.
Some pharmacists refuse to issue pills that induce abortions so it is not necessarily a safe option to go into your local pharmacy with a prescription. And don't assume that everyone who needs an abortion either has internet access or has internet access that is not supervised or checked by someone who could be hostile to learning about sexual activity or the desire for an abortion.
Maybe you mean well with your question but it betrays significant ignorance of many women's lives.
I can confirm this: had to use misoprostol to manage a miscarriage and was unable to pick it up where I worked because it was a catholic hospital. Luckily my employer also had a non-Catholic pharmacy option down the road. I wasn't even having an abortion because my fetus was already dead, so there was no ideological issue in my case, they just didn't carry it at all.
I can also confirm that the experience was quicker and less painful with the misoprostol than it was the time before when I did "watchful waiting ". (Had prolonged bleeding and had to take ergotamine, which the Catholic hospital also didn't have). There was still a lot of cramping and blood, and I don't see how anyone could keep it secret from others in the household, hence the popularity of surgical options.
-
Some pharmacists refuse to issue pills that induce abortions so it is not necessarily a safe option to go into your local pharmacy with a prescription. And don't assume that everyone who needs an abortion either has internet access or has internet access that is not supervised or checked by someone who could be hostile to learning about sexual activity or the desire for an abortion.
Maybe you mean well with your question but it betrays significant ignorance of many women's lives.
I can confirm this: had to use misoprostol to manage a miscarriage and was unable to pick it up where I worked because it was a catholic hospital. Luckily my employer also had a non-Catholic pharmacy option down the road. I wasn't even having an abortion because my fetus was already dead, so there was no ideological issue in my case, they just didn't carry it at all.
I can also confirm that the experience was quicker and less painful with the misoprostol than it was the time before when I did "watchful waiting ". (Had prolonged bleeding and had to take ergotamine, which the Catholic hospital also didn't have). There was still a lot of cramping and blood, and I don't see how anyone could keep it secret from others in the household, hence the popularity of surgical options.
Oh yeah, I got a prescription for Misoprostol to help open my cervix up so they could insert an IUD. Unfortunately, even with the medication, my cervix was too tight for even the measurement probe to get through, let alone the IUD. Worst pain of my life, two different doctors trying to shove it in. I imagine it would have hurt even worse without the medication. But at least my pharmacist handed it over without a fight. And it's still legal here, it's one of the medications that anti-abortion people are trying to ban. Because in their minds, if it is used for abortion, screw anyone who needs it for other reasons.
But birth control is just soooo easy to access. Nevermind that the hormones can wreck you, especially if you are prone to migraines they can actually kill you. Nevermind that an IUD insertion is super painful (if you can even get it in....) Nevermind that the implant makes some people gain weight and in some unlucky folks, makes you suicidal. (It was me. I was in the unlucky folks.)
Thank goodness my husband is getting the snip. And no doctor is going to ask my permission for him to control his fertility, unlike if I tried to go for sterilization.
-
Thank goodness my husband is getting the snip. And no doctor is going to ask my permission for him to control his fertility, unlike if I tried to go for sterilization.
It's less common, but it does sometimes happen. Had a friend whose doctor was concerned about doing a vasectomy when his wife was pregnant with kid 4 ("but what if something happens to the pregnancy?!"). Kids 1 and 4 were from failed birth control, so yeah, he wasn't too worried about it.
Anyone know, why would any woman opt to run the gauntlet, past all the protesters and their signs, to physically go into a Planned Parenthood, or whatever, clinic, when they could just have a Zoom appointment with an abortion provider and receive some pills in the mail?
In addition to the good points above, consider also people may not realize how much of a gauntlet there is. And protestors vary greatly between different locations. I served as a Planned Parenthood escort for a bit, but didn't feel the protestors were too bad my locale. I felt I was of more service switching to helping with the judicial bypass process instead.
-
Thank goodness my husband is getting the snip. And no doctor is going to ask my permission for him to control his fertility, unlike if I tried to go for sterilization.
It's less common, but it does sometimes happen. Had a friend whose doctor was concerned about doing a vasectomy when his wife was pregnant with kid 4 ("but what if something happens to the pregnancy?!"). Kids 1 and 4 were from failed birth control, so yeah, he wasn't too worried about it.
Ugh I remember doing a clinical rotation almost years ago with a doc who wouldn't do tubals unless the woman was over 25 and had already born 3 children. At least he left it up to the woman and not her partner, I didn't know that telling the partner was even legal under hippaa.
I actually really like my iud, although the insertion was rather painful. Most effective birth control you can get short of sterilization, and I get fewer side effects than I did with regular pills (I know this is not the same for everyone). Some republican states might come after those next, with the result being even more unwanted pregnancies.
-
In addition to the good points above, consider also people may not realize how much of a gauntlet there is. And protestors vary greatly between different locations. I served as a Planned Parenthood escort for a bit, but didn't feel the protestors were too bad my locale. I felt I was of more service switching to helping with the judicial bypass process instead.
The other day, walking through the Gayborhood in Philly, a whole bunch of anti-abortion LGBTQ folks were protesting outside Planned Parenthood. A young woman had, apparently, just given them a piece of her mind. Don't know for sure what she said, but clearly heard one of the protesters scold her, "Now, you watch your language, young lady!" It just seemed so surreal to see a group of people I think of as vulnerable standing outside an abortion clinic, waiting to harass even more(?) vulnerable people seeking to end unwanted pregnancies. Thought about saying something to show solidarity with the young woman, but it happened so fast, she was gone before I could think of anything appropriate to say.
-
Oh yeah, I got a prescription for Misoprostol ...
... But at least my pharmacist handed it over without a fight. And it's still legal here, it's one of the medications that anti-abortion people are trying to ban. Because in their minds, if it is used for abortion, screw anyone who needs it for other reasons.
Yep - methotrexate being one of the big ones.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/05/abortion-texas-pharmacies-refusing-prescriptions-misoprostol-methotrexate.html
-
Thank goodness my husband is getting the snip. And no doctor is going to ask my permission for him to control his fertility, unlike if I tried to go for sterilization.
It's less common, but it does sometimes happen. Had a friend whose doctor was concerned about doing a vasectomy when his wife was pregnant with kid 4 ("but what if something happens to the pregnancy?!"). Kids 1 and 4 were from failed birth control, so yeah, he wasn't too worried about it.
Ugh I remember doing a clinical rotation almost years ago with a doc who wouldn't do tubals unless the woman was over 25 and had already born 3 children. At least he left it up to the woman and not her partner, I didn't know that was even legal under hippaa.
It was a vasectomy, not tying tubes, so they were talking to the person undergoing the procedure (the man). No HIPAA issues!
-
The “Abortion Pill” Is Used for So Much More Than Abortions
The fall of Roe will affect gynecological care for procedures that have nothing the do with pregnancy.
BY ANDRÉA BECKER AND RACHEL E. GROSS
"The divide between “abortion care” and “reproductive health” is one that is made along moral fault lines, not scientific ones. It is impossible to separate out abortions from gynecological health care in general: Just as you can’t “target” your abs with diet and exercise, you can’t simply remove these tools from medicine without expecting dire and wide-ranging repercussions. Abortion bans continue medicine’s tendency to look at the female body as purely reproductive, while making the consequences of this myopic mislabeling more visible and extreme. Anyone with a cervix, uterus, and ovaries—and not just those who can or want to get pregnant—is likely to suffer the consequences."
https://slate.com/technology/2022/07/roe-wade-abortion-health-care-crisis-misoprostol-mifepristone-d-and-c.html
-
In addition to the good points above, consider also people may not realize how much of a gauntlet there is. And protestors vary greatly between different locations. I served as a Planned Parenthood escort for a bit, but didn't feel the protestors were too bad my locale. I felt I was of more service switching to helping with the judicial bypass process instead.
The other day, walking through the Gayborhood in Philly, a whole bunch of anti-abortion LGBTQ folks were protesting outside Planned Parenthood. A young woman had, apparently, just given them a piece of her mind. Don't know for sure what she said, but clearly heard one of the protesters scold her, "Now, you watch your language, young lady!" It just seemed so surreal to see a group of people I think of as vulnerable standing outside an abortion clinic, waiting to harass even more(?) vulnerable people seeking to end unwanted pregnancies. Thought about saying something to show solidarity with the young woman, but it happened so fast, she was gone before I could think of anything appropriate to say.
Ironically I was volunteering in Philly. Though I can't remember the specific location of it now, it's possible it was the same one. It was more tame than you describe when I did it though, 10+ years ago. Mostly our job was to distract the people walking into the clinic so they would focus on us and not what any protestor may be saying or trying to hand them. You needed to discuss neutral topics (weather fine, politics or why they may be entering the clinic bad) and be prepared to babble, carrying on a one sided conversation if necessary. I hope it helped, but I was never sure.
-
This American Life did an episode on the overturning of Roe this last weekend. One section was about pill smuggling, which I found very interesting, and it's voiced by the amazing Carol Kane which only makes it more fantastic to listen to: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/774/the-pink-house-at-the-center-of-the-world/act-five-7 (9 minutes)
-
I was pretty surprised by the outcome of this vote:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2022/aug/03/primary-elections-trump-kansas-abortion-biden-nato-pelosi
It wasn't even close, and it was on the ballot in a primary election with unusually high turnout. If your position on Roe is unpopular even in Kansas, you may be an extremist.
-
I was pretty surprised by the outcome of this vote:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2022/aug/03/primary-elections-trump-kansas-abortion-biden-nato-pelosi
It wasn't even close, and it was on the ballot in a primary election with unusually high turnout. If your position on Roe is unpopular even in Kansas, you may be an extremist.
That's exciting to see people fight and win against Republican control of their lives.
-
I don't think anything about the outcome of this vote prevents a heavily gerry-mandered Kansas legislature from imposing all kinds of restrictions on the time/place/cost of the procedure, though? And these burdens will affect women in neighboring Missouri, which was among the states with Pre-Dobbs trigger laws.
-
Wow, they made the ballot as easy to understand as possible too . . .
Consitutional Amendment
Vote Yes or No
Explanatory statement
The Value Them Both Amendment would affirm there is no Kansas constitutional right to abortion or to require the government funding of abortion, and would reserve to the people of Kansas, through their elected state legislators, the right to pass laws to regulate abortion, including, but not limited to, in circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or when necessary to save the life of the mother.
A vote for the Value Them Both Amendment would affirm there is no Kansas constitutional right to abortion or to require the government funding of abortion, and would reserve to the people of Kansas, through their elected state legislators, the right to pass laws to regulate abortion.
A vote against the Value Them Both Amendment would make no changes to the constitution of the state of Kansas, and could restrict the people, through their elected state legislators, from regulating abortion by leaving in place the recently recognized right to abortion.
Shall the following be adopted?
§ 22. Regulation of abortion. Because Kansans value both women and children, the constitution of the state of Kansas does not require government funding of abortion and does not create or secure a right to abortion. To the extent permitted by the constitution of the United States, the people, through their elected state representatives and state senators, may pass laws regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, laws that account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother
Yes
No
A yes vote means no to abortion. A no vote means yes to abortion.
-
Wow, they made the ballot as easy to understand as possible too . . .
Consitutional Amendment
Vote Yes or No
Explanatory statement
The Value Them Both Amendment would affirm there is no Kansas constitutional right to abortion or to require the government funding of abortion, and would reserve to the people of Kansas, through their elected state legislators, the right to pass laws to regulate abortion, including, but not limited to, in circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or when necessary to save the life of the mother.
A vote for the Value Them Both Amendment would affirm there is no Kansas constitutional right to abortion or to require the government funding of abortion, and would reserve to the people of Kansas, through their elected state legislators, the right to pass laws to regulate abortion.
A vote against the Value Them Both Amendment would make no changes to the constitution of the state of Kansas, and could restrict the people, through their elected state legislators, from regulating abortion by leaving in place the recently recognized right to abortion.
Shall the following be adopted?
§ 22. Regulation of abortion. Because Kansans value both women and children, the constitution of the state of Kansas does not require government funding of abortion and does not create or secure a right to abortion. To the extent permitted by the constitution of the United States, the people, through their elected state representatives and state senators, may pass laws regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, laws that account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother
Yes
No
A yes vote means no to abortion. A no vote means yes to abortion.
Further reading: https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/august-2-2022
Today, voters in Kansas overwhelmingly rejected an amendment to their state constitution that would have stripped it of protections for abortion rights. With 86% of the vote in, 62% of voters supported abortion protections; 37% wanted them gone. That spread is astonishing. Kansas voters had backed Trump in 2020; Republicans had arranged for the referendum to fall on the day of a primary, which traditionally attracts higher percentages of hard-line Republicans; and they had written the question so that a “yes” vote would remove abortion protections and a “no” would leave them in place. Then, today, a political action committee sent out texts that lied about which vote was which.
-
It's amazing and wonderful and hopefully a harbinger of election results in November. But, I have to note that Kansas is now in the place the entire US was just a few months ago. With a constitution that says some stuff that a court interpreted to mean women get to be considered humans and have rights to control their bodies just like men. And, like the right wing did with the US Supreme Court, they will do with the Kansas Supreme Court, I assume. I don't think it will take them decades, either, to get the right number of extremist justices on that court to overturn that precedent and make sure women are put back in their place.
-
Wow, they made the ballot as easy to understand as possible too . . .
Consitutional Amendment...
A yes vote means no to abortion. A no vote means yes to abortion.
...and "vote no to amend the constitution, vote yes to leave it the same" wouldn't be confusing?
-
Wow, they made the ballot as easy to understand as possible too . . .
Consitutional Amendment...
A yes vote means no to abortion. A no vote means yes to abortion.
...and "vote no to amend the constitution, vote yes to leave it the same" wouldn't be confusing?
It's not the yes/no part that's confusing. It's the whole text taken in context (which is why I posted the it in it's entirety). Here's how I would have written it:
Women should have a right to abortion
- Yes
- No
or alternately,
State legislature should be granted the ability to deny women abortion:
- Yes
- No
But my goal is to make the question understood. The way that the ballot was written it seemed very clearly designed to cause confusion.
-
Isn't it possible that the confusion works both ways, though? That there are many people who would like to yank away the right to abortion--and I must acknowledge that this includes many women--who might misread the question as well?
-
In raw numbers, 534K voted against outlawing abortion in a mid-term primary. In that same mid-term primary, there were 451K votes for republican candidates and 276K votes for democratic candidates (=727K votes). There were 909K total votes on the abortion amendment.
So 1) democrats weren't the only ones who axed this amendment and 2) some folks showed up ONLY to vote on abortion and couldn't be bothered to weigh in on a candidate.
To put it in perspective, Biden only received 570K votes in 2020 in a presidential election (as compared to this No vote on an anti-abortion amendment of 534K in a mid-term primary).
I get that it's not like, a huge win for human rights, but the people in Kansas really held the line yesterday. This was a huge turnout.
-
I'm from Kansas and happily went and voted yesterday. In fact, I took my 10 year old with me and we had an awesome discussion about voting, understanding the ballot, and how politics are campaigned. After we read through the Explanation of the Amendment and he said, What does that mean? And I looked at him and said, "Don't worry, it confuses me too!" Then he went on to say, but it says Value them both, isn't that good? We had a wonderful conversation about why The amendment was named that way and they it was trying to suggest that if your against it that you don't value life. He just said it was confusing, but he was super interested in the process and wants to go next time I vote. I feel like I taught my son more yesterday than the past few years! That's a core memory right there!
Note: Also super proud of my fellow Kansans showing up to the polls yesterday!
-
Isn't it possible that the confusion works both ways, though? That there are many people who would like to yank away the right to abortion--and I must acknowledge that this includes many women--who might misread the question as well?
Sure. I'd be equally upset if Democrats put forth a shitty ballot question on an important matter like this. As mentioned, I believe that questions like this should be written in the simplest and easiest to understand form possible. A ballot that isn't understood is useless.
In this case, Republicans are at fault.
-
Pretty good explanation of how this right wing activist supreme court is gutting the voting rights act by reinterpreting decades of precedent:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/supreme-court-kill-voting-rights-act/ (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/supreme-court-kill-voting-rights-act/)
Fuck stare decisis. The constitution is whatever six members of the Supreme Court say it is.
-
They will also change how the fed govt can regulate wetlands.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/10/03/supreme-court-clean-water-act/
Who needs clean water? Not 'murica! They will drink whatever filth the corporations dump into the waterways because 'murica is free!
-
My relative's hot conservative topic right now is ESG - "environmental social and governance" from "Heritage Action for America!"
TL:DR - another crisis to milk the conservative voter of more money but also to push back on anything environmental. I guess CRT has run its course?
-
I cannot help but think we're going to hear a lot more about CRT from the Michigan Governor's race. Probably Georgia also.
-
My relative's hot conservative topic right now is ESG - "environmental social and governance" from "Heritage Action for America!"
TL:DR - another crisis to milk the conservative voter of more money but also to push back on anything environmental. I guess CRT has run its course?
Yes, ESG has already been raised in the AZ state treasurer's debate this month. The Republican candidate accused her Democratic challenger of wanting "ESG" in terms of where the state puts its investment funds. I hadn't even heard of ESG until then.
I can't keep up with the crazy, but it's infuriating that moderates and progressives have to continually play defense against the latest made-up unhinged accusations. This stuff always manages to make the headlines and deflect, yet again, from the real issues that need addressing.
-
Some of these things aren't made up, though. I'm constantly receiving text messages about DeSantis and Abbott bussing immigrants from my conservative friends. The immigration system we have genuinely needs reform.
-
Some of these things aren't made up, though. I'm constantly receiving text messages about DeSantis and Abbott bussing immigrants from my conservative friends. The immigration system we have genuinely needs reform.
Yep, it's needed reform for decades. Neither Biden nor Trump nor Obama nor Bush have come up with a good solution. To paraphrase Reagan during a campaign speech, friendly nations shouldn't have 9-foot fences between them. That was the watered down version, too; his original comment was more bluntly pro-immigration.
As for the crazy attacks, I refer you to the Luntz's GOPAC memo. The plan is to "Go Negative Early"; "Don't Try to Educate"; "Never Back Off" using negative words like pathetic, radical, lies, and destroy. Unfortunately, these attacks work. Being the adult in the room saying "Please cite your source" makes you a loser in the eyes of a decent sized minority of voters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GOPAC
-
I thought I read that at some parts of the debate between O'Rourke and Abbott for the Texas governorship, the time for response was 15 seconds.
15 seconds.
No wonder we can't even begin to discuss serious topics in a meaningful way.
Although I guess we're going to find out if that works for the Democrats this year for Arizona elections - one pundit said the response to any Republican attack is "Abortion, abortion, abortion." (see, 15 seconds ...)
The reversion to the pre-Civil war law here in AZ means abortion is completely illegal except in some instances for the mother's health. Very, very unpopular and we'll see if that single issue will sink the Republican candidates.
-
Thank goodness my husband is getting the snip. And no doctor is going to ask my permission for him to control his fertility, unlike if I tried to go for sterilization.
Sorry to necro an old post. I'm not in the USA, but my wife had to provide permission when I got the snip. Doctors here regard fertility measures as a joint decision when you are in a long-term relationship. Seemed appropriate to me!
-
Thank goodness my husband is getting the snip. And no doctor is going to ask my permission for him to control his fertility, unlike if I tried to go for sterilization.
Sorry to necro an old post. I'm not in the USA, but my wife had to provide permission when I got the snip. Doctors here regard fertility measures as a joint decision when you are in a long-term relationship. Seemed appropriate to me!
My doctor did not want to give me a referral the first time I asked about it. I asked again 2-3 years later and he asked if my girlfriend wanted kids. Not exactly "permission" but it's not always as "oh well they don't ask men these questions" as some would imply.
-
Fallout from the recent SC overturn of decades of precedent regarding gun regulation is continuing to pop up in the lower courts.
Because of the SC ruling, it's now considered unconstitutional to prevent people from filing serial numbers off their guns:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/10/supreme-court-ghost-guns-serial-number-clarence-thomas.html (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/10/supreme-court-ghost-guns-serial-number-clarence-thomas.html)
Because of the SC ruling, it's now considered unconstitutional to prevent people under indictment for a violent offense from buying firearms:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1165328/gov.uscourts.txwd.1165328.82.0.pdf (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1165328/gov.uscourts.txwd.1165328.82.0.pdf)
-
Jill Stein supporters are suddenly learning about the Supreme Court.