Republican response to an incident of civil disobedience at the SCOTUS

[MustacheAndaHalf]

"The leak is an issue here. It is not, despite Republicans' best efforts to convince you otherwise, the issue."
...
From others one hears that Republicans are trying to distract from the content of the draft.

If you're claiming the leak is "the issue", the CNN article contradicts you by calling it "an issue".

Professor Jonathan Haidt had liberals try to answer moral questions as they think a conservative would answer, and they failed at it.  On the flip side, conservatives were able to answer moral questions as a liberal would.  There's YouTube videos and a book, "The Coddling of the American Mind" that goes into more detail.

I think that's happening here, where conservatives rank law & order higher on their values than liberals would.

We saw how the same Republicans treated a violent attack on the Capitol, so maybe, just maybe, the liberals are more successful in predicting how “conservatives” really act than conservatives are in actually behaving like they say they would.

Let's agree a mob of Trump supporters went from listening to Trump, to marching on the capital and attacking it.  What I didn't see is 70 million conservatives all attack the capital.  Your "successful" prediction relies on treating tens of millions of people the same as thousands of people convicted for attacking the U.S. capital.

There's a separte discussion to be had about Jan 6th and Republicans in Congress, but my point is how you're seeing violent criminal acts and drawing an equivalence with all conservatives.

Straw man.

"We saw how the same Republicans treated a violent attack on the Capitol"

That doesn't say that all Republicans are violent, or were involved in the attack on the capitol.  It does condemn the near universal acceptance, apologist language, and general downplaying of the violence/severity of the attack that has come from Republicans in power though.  Seems fair.

Also relevant are the murders, attempted murders, kidnappings, arson, bombings, bomb threats and tens of thousands of acts of harassment that Republican conservatives, in the guise of anti-abortionists, have committed against abortion providers over the decades since Roe, which Republicans as a whole have done and said fuck all about.

Oh, and then Susan Collins, Senator for Maine, calls the police because someone chalked a polite request on a sidewalk where she could see it.

Fuck the lot of them.  (Not literally of course, Lysistrata had the right idea.)

Senator Collins votes with Biden 73% of the time - more than any other Republican Senator.  But you just lumped her with murderers who attacked abortion clinics over past decades.  Congress may have extremists... but in both senses, they might also be our representatives.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-congress-votes/

[PeteD01]

How the ‘pro-life’ movement killed Roe v Wade

"Movement leaders now must wrestle with competing visions of what it means to be “pro-life” in an era without Roe, as Republican legislators emboldened by the potential end of constitutional protections for abortion care look to criminalise patients while gutting social safety nets, according to Ms Ziegler.

“Do they mean IUDs, birth control pills? What are they going to do about people who self-manage abortions? What are they going to do about people who travel out of state?” Ms Ziegler said.

“I think that may be bad for the brand and the pro-life movement [if it] increasingly becomes the new mass incarceration movement,” she told The Independent. “The stakes of that conversation are getting higher, because before it was kind of academic, where you could have the governor have one vision of what it means to oppose abortion, and you could have the legislature have another vision, and nobody really got anything, because it would be struck down as unconstitutional. But now, whoever wins actually gets to implement the policy.”"


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/roe-v-wade-overturned-pro-life-b2075234.html

[GuitarStv]

So, it seems like several states are enacting legislation to make it illegal for a resident to get an abortion in another state.  Is that even legal under US law?  Does one state have legal control over the actions of their citizens when they've left to go somewhere else?

[Undecided]

So, it seems like several states are enacting legislation to make it illegal for a resident to get an abortion in another state.  Is that even legal under US law?  Does one state have legal control over the actions of their citizens when they've left to go somewhere else?

It's a fun question; I think the crime will be "leaving the state" for the purpose of obtaining an abortion, not actually getting an abortion in another state. This particular type of proposal also relies on Republicans doubling down on the emptiness of the 9th amendment and getting comfortable with the idea that there's no (strong) right to travel.

[bacchi]

So, it seems like several states are enacting legislation to make it illegal for a resident to get an abortion in another state.  Is that even legal under US law?  Does one state have legal control over the actions of their citizens when they've left to go somewhere else?

It's a fun question; I think the crime will be "leaving the state" for the purpose of obtaining an abortion, not actually getting an abortion in another state. This particular type of proposal also relies on Republicans doubling down on the emptiness of the 9th amendment and getting comfortable with the idea that there's no (strong) right to travel.

The right to "free ingress and regress" is in the Articles of Confederation but not in the US Constitution. From a purely textualist viewpoint, there is no right to travel.

[Undecided]

So, it seems like several states are enacting legislation to make it illegal for a resident to get an abortion in another state.  Is that even legal under US law?  Does one state have legal control over the actions of their citizens when they've left to go somewhere else?

It's a fun question; I think the crime will be "leaving the state" for the purpose of obtaining an abortion, not actually getting an abortion in another state. This particular type of proposal also relies on Republicans doubling down on the emptiness of the 9th amendment and getting comfortable with the idea that there's no (strong) right to travel.

The right to "free ingress and regress" is in the Articles of Confederation but not in the US Constitution. From a purely textualist viewpoint, there is no right to travel.

Actually, no; from a purely textualist viewpoint, at most you can say that there may or may not be such a right. That's a direct effect of the text of the 9th amendment.

[bacchi]

So, it seems like several states are enacting legislation to make it illegal for a resident to get an abortion in another state.  Is that even legal under US law?  Does one state have legal control over the actions of their citizens when they've left to go somewhere else?

It's a fun question; I think the crime will be "leaving the state" for the purpose of obtaining an abortion, not actually getting an abortion in another state. This particular type of proposal also relies on Republicans doubling down on the emptiness of the 9th amendment and getting comfortable with the idea that there's no (strong) right to travel.

The right to "free ingress and regress" is in the Articles of Confederation but not in the US Constitution. From a purely textualist viewpoint, there is no right to travel.

Actually, no; from a purely textualist viewpoint, at most you can say that there may or may not be such a right. That's a direct effect of the text of the 9th amendment.

Agreed. Thanks for the correction. It's up to the state, just like abortion (and contraception?), which is pretty damn scary.

[GuitarStv]

So . . . if you left the state to get groceries or something, but just randomly decided to get an abortion while you were there - that would be totally fine?

[Undecided]

So, it seems like several states are enacting legislation to make it illegal for a resident to get an abortion in another state.  Is that even legal under US law?  Does one state have legal control over the actions of their citizens when they've left to go somewhere else?

It's a fun question; I think the crime will be "leaving the state" for the purpose of obtaining an abortion, not actually getting an abortion in another state. This particular type of proposal also relies on Republicans doubling down on the emptiness of the 9th amendment and getting comfortable with the idea that there's no (strong) right to travel.

The right to "free ingress and regress" is in the Articles of Confederation but not in the US Constitution. From a purely textualist viewpoint, there is no right to travel.

Actually, no; from a purely textualist viewpoint, at most you can say that there may or may not be such a right. That's a direct effect of the text of the 9th amendment.

Agreed. Thanks for the correction. It's up to the state, just like abortion (and contraception?), which is pretty damn scary.

Ah, but no! Like the "right to privacy" (where the issue has led to a somewhat firmer view), if it's a right, then the states can't (freely) limit it. Unlike the relatively narrow right to an abortion (which is probably, really, an application of the right to privacy, but whatever...), the broader major unenumerated rights---travel and privacy---seem to me to be mixed up very thoroughly in how most self-styled conservative Americans seem to see America. Will they concede that Americans travel only at the consent of their states of residence?

[Undecided]

So . . . if you left the state to get groceries or something, but just randomly decided to get an abortion while you were there - that would be totally fine?

Let's see how they write the laws! Writing the law school exam, I think the valedictorian of a Missouri high school will get pregnant in her freshman (sic) year at Liberal East Coast U. and have an abortion there, and then Missouri will claim that the unborn fetus is not only a murder victim, but a Missouri-resident murder victim....

[bacchi]

So, it seems like several states are enacting legislation to make it illegal for a resident to get an abortion in another state.  Is that even legal under US law?  Does one state have legal control over the actions of their citizens when they've left to go somewhere else?

It's a fun question; I think the crime will be "leaving the state" for the purpose of obtaining an abortion, not actually getting an abortion in another state. This particular type of proposal also relies on Republicans doubling down on the emptiness of the 9th amendment and getting comfortable with the idea that there's no (strong) right to travel.

The right to "free ingress and regress" is in the Articles of Confederation but not in the US Constitution. From a purely textualist viewpoint, there is no right to travel.

Actually, no; from a purely textualist viewpoint, at most you can say that there may or may not be such a right. That's a direct effect of the text of the 9th amendment.

Agreed. Thanks for the correction. It's up to the state, just like abortion (and contraception?), which is pretty damn scary.

Ah, but no! Like the "right to privacy" (where the issue has led to a somewhat firmer view), if it's a right, then the states can't (freely) limit it. Unlike the relatively narrow right to an abortion (which is probably, really, an application of the right to privacy, but whatever...), the broader major unenumerated rights---travel and privacy---seem to me to be mixed up very thoroughly in how most self-styled conservative Americans seem to see America. Will they concede that Americans travel only at the consent of their states of residence?

I have confidence that there will be very narrow laws and rulings on this issue.

Given Texas' recent arrest of a woman who had an abortion (miscarriage?), there may be questioning of obviously pregnant women near the border. "Excuse me, ma'am, why are you heading this way? You do know that killing a Mississippi baby, anywhere in the US, is a crime, right?"

[Undecided]

So, it seems like several states are enacting legislation to make it illegal for a resident to get an abortion in another state.  Is that even legal under US law?  Does one state have legal control over the actions of their citizens when they've left to go somewhere else?

It's a fun question; I think the crime will be "leaving the state" for the purpose of obtaining an abortion, not actually getting an abortion in another state. This particular type of proposal also relies on Republicans doubling down on the emptiness of the 9th amendment and getting comfortable with the idea that there's no (strong) right to travel.

The right to "free ingress and regress" is in the Articles of Confederation but not in the US Constitution. From a purely textualist viewpoint, there is no right to travel.

Actually, no; from a purely textualist viewpoint, at most you can say that there may or may not be such a right. That's a direct effect of the text of the 9th amendment.

Agreed. Thanks for the correction. It's up to the state, just like abortion (and contraception?), which is pretty damn scary.

Ah, but no! Like the "right to privacy" (where the issue has led to a somewhat firmer view), if it's a right, then the states can't (freely) limit it. Unlike the relatively narrow right to an abortion (which is probably, really, an application of the right to privacy, but whatever...), the broader major unenumerated rights---travel and privacy---seem to me to be mixed up very thoroughly in how most self-styled conservative Americans seem to see America. Will they concede that Americans travel only at the consent of their states of residence?

I have confidence that there will be very narrow laws and rulings on this issue.

Given Texas' recent arrest of a woman who had an abortion (miscarriage?), there may be questioning of obviously pregnant women near the border. "Excuse me, ma'am, why are you heading this way? You do know that killing a Mississippi baby, anywhere in the US, is a crime, right?"

As someone who gets taxed for having been born in the US, I wouldn't really be that surprised by that kind of claim.

[PeteD01]

More on civil and uncivil disobedience as a response to invasion of privacy:


In an uncivil age, calls for “civility” are about squashing effective protest
Aja Romano

"There’s something ironic about the notion of entering into these neighborhoods being seen as invasive when what people are protesting is the invasion of bodily autonomy, of untouchable private property taking precedence over people’s bodies.

For that reason, it’s a well-chosen kind of protest. It’s also highlighting the power and the ramifications of judges’ decisions here."

https://www.vox.com/identities/23067325/civil-protest-roe-v-wade-activism-candice-delmas-interview

[former player]

"The leak is an issue here. It is not, despite Republicans' best efforts to convince you otherwise, the issue."
...
From others one hears that Republicans are trying to distract from the content of the draft.

If you're claiming the leak is "the issue", the CNN article contradicts you by calling it "an issue".

Professor Jonathan Haidt had liberals try to answer moral questions as they think a conservative would answer, and they failed at it.  On the flip side, conservatives were able to answer moral questions as a liberal would.  There's YouTube videos and a book, "The Coddling of the American Mind" that goes into more detail.

I think that's happening here, where conservatives rank law & order higher on their values than liberals would.

We saw how the same Republicans treated a violent attack on the Capitol, so maybe, just maybe, the liberals are more successful in predicting how “conservatives” really act than conservatives are in actually behaving like they say they would.

Let's agree a mob of Trump supporters went from listening to Trump, to marching on the capital and attacking it.  What I didn't see is 70 million conservatives all attack the capital.  Your "successful" prediction relies on treating tens of millions of people the same as thousands of people convicted for attacking the U.S. capital.

There's a separte discussion to be had about Jan 6th and Republicans in Congress, but my point is how you're seeing violent criminal acts and drawing an equivalence with all conservatives.

Straw man.

"We saw how the same Republicans treated a violent attack on the Capitol"

That doesn't say that all Republicans are violent, or were involved in the attack on the capitol.  It does condemn the near universal acceptance, apologist language, and general downplaying of the violence/severity of the attack that has come from Republicans in power though.  Seems fair.

Also relevant are the murders, attempted murders, kidnappings, arson, bombings, bomb threats and tens of thousands of acts of harassment that Republican conservatives, in the guise of anti-abortionists, have committed against abortion providers over the decades since Roe, which Republicans as a whole have done and said fuck all about.

Oh, and then Susan Collins, Senator for Maine, calls the police because someone chalked a polite request on a sidewalk where she could see it.

Fuck the lot of them.  (Not literally of course, Lysistrata had the right idea.)

Senator Collins votes with Biden 73% of the time - more than any other Republican Senator.  But you just lumped her with murderers who attacked abortion clinics over past decades.  Congress may have extremists... but in both senses, they might also be our representatives.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-congress-votes/

Actually, what I intended to do was contrast the failure of Republicans to censure violent and extremist anti-abortionists with their eagerness to censure even the mildest of peaceful and non-damaging expressions of the pro-choice side.  A comparison which Senator Collins has brought upon herself by complaining to the police about an entirely polite and law-abiding chalk notice on a sidewalk.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

"The leak is an issue here. It is not, despite Republicans' best efforts to convince you otherwise, the issue."
...
From others one hears that Republicans are trying to distract from the content of the draft.

If you're claiming the leak is "the issue", the CNN article contradicts you by calling it "an issue".

Professor Jonathan Haidt had liberals try to answer moral questions as they think a conservative would answer, and they failed at it.  On the flip side, conservatives were able to answer moral questions as a liberal would.  There's YouTube videos and a book, "The Coddling of the American Mind" that goes into more detail.

I think that's happening here, where conservatives rank law & order higher on their values than liberals would.

We saw how the same Republicans treated a violent attack on the Capitol, so maybe, just maybe, the liberals are more successful in predicting how “conservatives” really act than conservatives are in actually behaving like they say they would.

Let's agree a mob of Trump supporters went from listening to Trump, to marching on the capital and attacking it.  What I didn't see is 70 million conservatives all attack the capital.  Your "successful" prediction relies on treating tens of millions of people the same as thousands of people convicted for attacking the U.S. capital.

There's a separte discussion to be had about Jan 6th and Republicans in Congress, but my point is how you're seeing violent criminal acts and drawing an equivalence with all conservatives.

Straw man.

"We saw how the same Republicans treated a violent attack on the Capitol"

That doesn't say that all Republicans are violent, or were involved in the attack on the capitol.  It does condemn the near universal acceptance, apologist language, and general downplaying of the violence/severity of the attack that has come from Republicans in power though.  Seems fair.

Also relevant are the murders, attempted murders, kidnappings, arson, bombings, bomb threats and tens of thousands of acts of harassment that Republican conservatives, in the guise of anti-abortionists, have committed against abortion providers over the decades since Roe, which Republicans as a whole have done and said fuck all about.

Oh, and then Susan Collins, Senator for Maine, calls the police because someone chalked a polite request on a sidewalk where she could see it.

Fuck the lot of them.  (Not literally of course, Lysistrata had the right idea.)

Senator Collins votes with Biden 73% of the time - more than any other Republican Senator.  But you just lumped her with murderers who attacked abortion clinics over past decades.  Congress may have extremists... but in both senses, they might also be our representatives.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-congress-votes/

Actually, what I intended to do was contrast the failure of Republicans to censure violent and extremist anti-abortionists with their eagerness to censure even the mildest of peaceful and non-damaging expressions of the pro-choice side.  A comparison which Senator Collins has brought upon herself by complaining to the police about an entirely polite and law-abiding chalk notice on a sidewalk.

Senator Collins might have been concerned about the person who tracked her down and showed up at her home, leaving evidence of the visit in chalk.  Relevant to other events, attempting that influence in chalk at a judge's house could be criminal.

Law professor Eugene Volokh wrote in Reason that Carlson is correct, drawing attention to the 1965 Supreme Court case Cox v. Louisiana, which upheld a similar ban. The majority opinion in that case insisted that "mob law is the very antithesis of due process" and that picketing outside courtrooms and judges' homes with the intent to influence decisions "infringes a substantial state interest in protecting the judicial process."

https://theweek.com/instant-opinion/1013380/is-it-legal-to-protest-outside-a-justices-home

[PeteD01]

^^^^^

The whole point of civil disobedience is that the act in question is illegal and the transgression is intentional.

[PeteD01]

And lest we forget what´s at stake, here is a dose of reality:

Annals of Medicine
What the “Life of the Mother” Might Mean in a Post-Roe America

"All of the ob-gyn practitioners I spoke to are haunted by post-Roe nightmares to come, and these are not limited to life-or-death scenarios. “People really focus just on imminent death,” Moayedi told me. “What we don’t always capture is morbidity—the actual sustainable harm that people also experience from pregnancy complications.” A miscarriage-related infection known as a septic embolus can restrict blood flow to the extremities and cause necrosis; vasopressors, which are medications used to stabilize blood pressure during sepsis, can also choke off blood flow in this way. Moayedi told me about patients she has treated who have had to have limbs amputated, “because physicians refused to intervene in a timely fashion in their miscarriages.”"


https://www.newyorker.com/science/annals-of-medicine/what-the-life-of-the-mother-might-mean-in-a-post-roe-america

[former player]

"The leak is an issue here. It is not, despite Republicans' best efforts to convince you otherwise, the issue."
...
From others one hears that Republicans are trying to distract from the content of the draft.

If you're claiming the leak is "the issue", the CNN article contradicts you by calling it "an issue".

Professor Jonathan Haidt had liberals try to answer moral questions as they think a conservative would answer, and they failed at it.  On the flip side, conservatives were able to answer moral questions as a liberal would.  There's YouTube videos and a book, "The Coddling of the American Mind" that goes into more detail.

I think that's happening here, where conservatives rank law & order higher on their values than liberals would.

We saw how the same Republicans treated a violent attack on the Capitol, so maybe, just maybe, the liberals are more successful in predicting how “conservatives” really act than conservatives are in actually behaving like they say they would.

Let's agree a mob of Trump supporters went from listening to Trump, to marching on the capital and attacking it.  What I didn't see is 70 million conservatives all attack the capital.  Your "successful" prediction relies on treating tens of millions of people the same as thousands of people convicted for attacking the U.S. capital.

There's a separte discussion to be had about Jan 6th and Republicans in Congress, but my point is how you're seeing violent criminal acts and drawing an equivalence with all conservatives.

Straw man.

"We saw how the same Republicans treated a violent attack on the Capitol"

That doesn't say that all Republicans are violent, or were involved in the attack on the capitol.  It does condemn the near universal acceptance, apologist language, and general downplaying of the violence/severity of the attack that has come from Republicans in power though.  Seems fair.

Also relevant are the murders, attempted murders, kidnappings, arson, bombings, bomb threats and tens of thousands of acts of harassment that Republican conservatives, in the guise of anti-abortionists, have committed against abortion providers over the decades since Roe, which Republicans as a whole have done and said fuck all about.

Oh, and then Susan Collins, Senator for Maine, calls the police because someone chalked a polite request on a sidewalk where she could see it.

Fuck the lot of them.  (Not literally of course, Lysistrata had the right idea.)

Senator Collins votes with Biden 73% of the time - more than any other Republican Senator.  But you just lumped her with murderers who attacked abortion clinics over past decades.  Congress may have extremists... but in both senses, they might also be our representatives.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-congress-votes/

Actually, what I intended to do was contrast the failure of Republicans to censure violent and extremist anti-abortionists with their eagerness to censure even the mildest of peaceful and non-damaging expressions of the pro-choice side.  A comparison which Senator Collins has brought upon herself by complaining to the police about an entirely polite and law-abiding chalk notice on a sidewalk.

Senator Collins might have been concerned about the person who tracked her down and showed up at her home, leaving evidence of the visit in chalk.  Relevant to other events, attempting that influence in chalk at a judge's house could be criminal.

Law professor Eugene Volokh wrote in Reason that Carlson is correct, drawing attention to the 1965 Supreme Court case Cox v. Louisiana, which upheld a similar ban. The majority opinion in that case insisted that "mob law is the very antithesis of due process" and that picketing outside courtrooms and judges' homes with the intent to influence decisions "infringes a substantial state interest in protecting the judicial process."

https://theweek.com/instant-opinion/1013380/is-it-legal-to-protest-outside-a-justices-home

1.  Concerned exactly about what?  What else did she think that someone who wrote a polite message in chalk was going to do?  It's free speech and there was nothing threatening or concerning about it.  Senator Collins is a publicly elected official, one of the highest in the land, and doesn't as far as I know have any right for people not to know where she lives, does she?  After all, she's apparently content that anti-abortionists know where people who work at abortion clinics live and go and demonstrate outside their homes.   And it's her own actions in drawing police and media attention to the chalk message that have made disclosure more likely to be widespread - the Barbra Streisand effect. 

2.  The chalk wasn't at a judge's home, so that point is irrelevant to the one I was making.

[bacchi]

1.  Concerned exactly about what?  What else did she think that someone who wrote a polite message in chalk was going to do?  It's free speech and there was nothing threatening or concerning about it.  Senator Collins is a publicly elected official, one of the highest in the land, and doesn't as far as I know have any right for people not to know where she lives, does she?  After all, she's apparently content that anti-abortionists know where people who work at abortion clinics live and go and demonstrate outside their homes.   And it's her own actions in drawing police and media attention to the chalk message that have made disclosure more likely to be widespread - the Barbra Streisand effect. 

For Susan Collins, who thinks that a strongly worded email is being very aggressive, a chalk message in public is beyond the pale.


(Reference: https://youtu.be/Cy8w8-hjMjM?t=191)

[PeteD01]

The supposedly extremely "liberal" corporate media can´t wait to cheer on the next round of authoritarian repression targeting free speech of all things:

McCarthy-Era Law Aimed At Pro-Choice Protesters

"Conservative operatives want Washington reporters focused on inane questions like who leaked the court’s draft opinion, and they want journalists and Democrats to criticize protesters who are outraged by the court’s overriding lack of respect for people’s bodily autonomy. It is part of a larger right-wing movement in recent years to cancel, criminalize, and literally crush dissent throughout the country, even as the conservative political noise machine continues to blare Braveheart-esque screams of “freedom!” against so-called “cancel culture.”

Corporate news outlets are taking the bait, fretting about the leak and calling for arrests over peaceful demonstrations. Like usual, they are focused on narrow flashpoints of anger and upheaval that will likely prove temporary, rather than the far more sweeping and ominous impact of the court’s looming ruling to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and allow states to force people to carry their pregnancies to term."

https://www.levernews.com/mccarthy-era-law-aimed-at-pro-choice-protesters/

[PeteD01]

Looks like a majority of women is largely ignorant about important aspects of reproductive health and also about laws targeting them.
Particularly concerning is the widespread attitude that it is a matter of course to have the public interfere in women´s healthcare as this signifies the tacit agreement with regulating women´s behavior and, consequentially, authoritarian repression directed at those that misbehave.
Lots of work to do:

What Americans Really Think About Abortion

"I found writing this essay difficult. While scrolling through poll after poll, I resented that I had to care about public opinion on something as private as a medical decision. The doctor’s office is crowded enough without inviting in the opinions of 300 million Americans. I can’t imagine weighing in on someone’s decision to donate an organ, or to stop treatment for a difficult disease. My irritation only compounded as the survey data revealed a public that feels a sense of ownership over my choices. I imagine the median voter staring disapprovingly at me with a clipboard, trying to determine if I deserve full decision-making authority over my body. Nobody should get to volunteer my body, my time, and my life to the state, no matter how unpopular my choices.

For now, few believe that they should have the ability to impose their opinions about abortion via state violence. Pew has found that 47 percent of American adults say women should face penalties for getting an abortion “in a situation where it is illegal.” When pressed, however, only 14 percent of respondents think that jail time is an appropriate punishment, another 16 percent support community service, and 17 percent remain unsure."

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/public-opinion-abortion-rights-overturn-roe/629840/

[PeteD01]

Preparing for the repeal of Roe vs Wade:

Navigating Loss of Abortion Services — A Large Academic Medical Center Prepares for the Overturn of Roe v. Wade

Lisa H. Harris, M.D., Ph.D.
New England Journal of Medicine, May 11, 2022

"Health systems that view abortion exclusively as a political or partisan issue, perhaps one they’d like to avoid, will soon bear witness to the reality that abortion care, or lack thereof, is a health care and health equity issue. Avoiding the issue will not be possible, short of abandoning care and equity missions altogether. Thoughtful preparation is needed now."


https://tinyurl.com/226bhyh8

[PeteD01]

The people´s abortion rally.
Today at noon at the Duval County courthouse, Jacksonville Fl

https://happeningnext.com/event/the-peoples-abortion-rally-eid3a08q9jl6l

[PeteD01]

Clarence Thomas got this right:

Clarence Thomas says abortion leak has changed Supreme Court

“When you lose that trust, especially in the institution that I'm in, it changes the institution fundamentally. You begin to look over your shoulder. It's like kind of an infidelity that you can explain it, but you can't undo it,” he said while speaking at a conference Friday evening in Dallas.


https://www.news4jax.com/news/politics/2022/05/14/clarence-thomas-says-abortion-leak-has-changed-supreme-court/

[bacchi]

Clarence Thomas got this right:

Clarence Thomas says abortion leak has changed Supreme Court

“When you lose that trust, especially in the institution that I'm in, it changes the institution fundamentally. You begin to look over your shoulder. It's like kind of an infidelity that you can explain it, but you can't undo it,” he said while speaking at a conference Friday evening in Dallas.


https://www.news4jax.com/news/politics/2022/05/14/clarence-thomas-says-abortion-leak-has-changed-supreme-court/

(From the mouth of someone whose spouse actively tried to overturn the 2020 election...)

The SC is due for a change. Nearly every other high court has age or term limits. The US has High Priests who rule until they're long past their relevance.

[PeteD01]

Local TV footage from the abortion rights rally in Jacksonville Fl today.
I liked the yellow placard with the message to SCOTUS:

https://www.news4jax.com/news/local/2022/05/14/hundreds-rally-outside-duval-county-courthouse-in-support-of-abortion-rights/
   

[former player]

I liked this one -

https://twitter.com/anisharmanning/status/1525604308380680193

[MustacheAndaHalf]

(From the mouth of someone whose spouse actively tried to overturn the 2020 election...)

The SC is due for a change. Nearly every other high court has age or term limits. The US has High Priests who rule until they're long past their relevance.

Ginni Thomas sent dozens of text messages to President Trump's chief of staff Mark Meadows urging him to overturn the election, according to several news sources.  It makes sense for Supreme Court Justicle Thomas to recuse himself from any matters beffore the Supreme Court concerning the events of Jan 6, considering his wife's public stance.

My impression of Justice Thomas is of someone who almost never speaks when the Supreme Court is in session.  So I'd still like to hear what he has to say on other matters, especially the impression that the Supreme Court's trust has been violated.  I just don't know if most people can walk and chew gum anymore - the news is mostly "us" or "them", yet most people are actually between those extremes.

Not sure if it's worth another topic, but I'd favor 13 or 17 year term limits for Supreme Court Justices.  Presidents are limited to 8 years, but their Vice President might be consulted in selecting a Justice.  So if a President serves 8 years and their Vice President serves 4-8 years, I would want a term limit longer than that: 13 or 17 years.  That helps ensure it's not the same person involved in the decision, while also making the term long enough to be significant.  There's an annoying trend to pick Justices as young as possible, which means those with more experience are passed over owing to their age.

[rocketpj]

Ah, but no! Like the "right to privacy" (where the issue has led to a somewhat firmer view), if it's a right, then the states can't (freely) limit it. Unlike the relatively narrow right to an abortion (which is probably, really, an application of the right to privacy, but whatever...), the broader major unenumerated rights---travel and privacy---seem to me to be mixed up very thoroughly in how most self-styled conservative Americans seem to see America. Will they concede that Americans travel only at the consent of their states of residence?

The big impression I get is that most so-called conservatives have no problem with limited the rights of people they don't see as true 'americans'.  Now they are making it clear that the 'non-real American' list includes women, as well as the usual non-white persons of any gender.

[RetiredAt63]

Ah, but no! Like the "right to privacy" (where the issue has led to a somewhat firmer view), if it's a right, then the states can't (freely) limit it. Unlike the relatively narrow right to an abortion (which is probably, really, an application of the right to privacy, but whatever...), the broader major unenumerated rights---travel and privacy---seem to me to be mixed up very thoroughly in how most self-styled conservative Americans seem to see America. Will they concede that Americans travel only at the consent of their states of residence?

The big impression I get is that most so-called conservatives have no problem with limited the rights of people they don't see as true 'americans'.  Now they are making it clear that the 'non-real American' list includes women, as well as the usual non-white persons of any gender.

Well if they go by the original constitution women were not full citizens, no vote.  /s

[PeteD01]

Here is some historical background regarding abortion in the US and how the last abortion ban worked out:
 

What Alito Gets Wrong About the History of Abortion in America

Abortion in early pregnancy was not only commonplace but widely regarded as morally acceptable.

"A small number of white women continued to be able to obtain rare, legal “therapeutic” abortions in hospitals, as did those who had the good fortune to be part of a medical family. But most women, across race, class and religion, had to go to underground providers, some of whom were excellent and safe while others were inept. Thousands went to hospital emergency rooms every year bleeding, injured and sometimes feverish and infected. Some of them died, approximately four times as many Black and Latina women as white women. Chicago’s Cook County Hospital had an entire ward dedicated to septic abortion cases. That ward closed after 1973.
The United States has already experienced a century of criminalized abortion: The results of those 19th-century laws cited by Alito produced a public health disaster that killed Black, brown and low-income women in disproportionate numbers, raised maternal mortality and injured millions of women. If abortion is criminalized once again in the 21st century, history tells us what we can expect — whether or not the Supreme Court chooses to take that history into consideration."


https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/06/02/alitos-anti-roe-argument-wrong-00036174?fbclid=IwAR0HwgK7Noa1SGfYCZ9iffsdoE0ocX-ToKSD4-Gh05G3qs7r6VVMi3e9zyI



There is a curious thing I´ve noticed: People are not generally aware that the impending abortion bans are primarily a catholic thing - most think it is a Republican/conservative vs Democrat/liberal issue.
Some actually got pretty incensed when I explained it in sectarian terms and pointed out the role of radicalized catholic clergy and how extremist catholic judges are working on overturning Roe vs Wade using extraordinary flimsy legalistic argumentation and pseudoscientific reasoning; all to the effect that abortion access is eliminated as much as possible thus allowing punishment and sacrifice of  women with complications of pregnancy to be reintroduced.
Looks to me like that many people find it rather offensive that women of other faiths might be coerced by force of law to participate in such perversions and might even be sacrificed on the altar of catholic fetus worship.

‘Theocratic’ US abortion bans will violate religious liberty, faith leaders say

"The first amendment has two components to protecting religious rights: first, the state can’t substantially burden the free exercise of religion, and second, the establishment clause prohibits the government from endorsing some forms of religion and condemning others, or embracing faith-based perspectives on public policy.
For example, if states adopt laws on fetal personhood, which would recognize fertilized eggs as people, those laws could violate the establishment clause, because such a view hews closely to Catholicism but not to other religious beliefs on ensoulment and personhood."


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/02/abortion-bans-violate-religious-liberty?fbclid=IwAR1SxDVI9a8pgulKmyw7XTgthkZRf5q4IMp9Ov2cxRAZ_59P59cQGFdfokg