Roe v Wade is on deck

[pood]

CWhile the bill does not have the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican filibuster in the 50-50 Senate, according to USAToday, it marks Democrats' first legislative attempt to protect the right to abortion by law.

Something they could have done with solid Democratic majorities under Carter, Clinton and Obama, but didn’t.

 

[Jarhyn]

It shows how effective the right wing smear machine is that even sohy buys into the "cancel culture" bullshit. That whole last paragraph could have come out of any right wing radio show.

And that's just fucking depressing.

It's not me that believe in it, but I know that the Republicans have used it to lure people into their party. I think there are more important issues to concentrate on, if we don't want a country run by extremists on the far right.

But no. Cancel culture isn't bullshit. Too many people have become so fragile that they can't laugh at themselves. It has nothing to do with being indoctrinated by the far right. I have no problem with any group of people, but it makes no sense to talk more about social issues than about the things that help all groups of people. I want children to learn about systemic racism and gay rights etc., but that shouldn't be the primary purpose of a campaign. It just gives the right more ammunition to attack Dems.

A few years ago, Caitlyn Jenner was roasted and mocked during a comedy special. She was there and she was able to laugh at herself. A few years later, Dave Chappell gets "cancelled" for making a few trans jokes. I watched the controversial performance. There wasn't anything to it. Chappell has been a controversial comedian who makes jokes about most every group since he first became popular. If you don't like his comedy, don't watch him, but for fuck's sake, what he said wan't worth all the criticism he got. I'm a petite blond female, and I can laugh at dumb blond jokes because I don't take them seriously. Sure there are limits, but the things that are getting liberals up in arms over these days are insane, imo. So yeah. There is cancel culture. It's not bullshit. It's an over reaction. It's good that George Carlin is dead because I'm sure the fragile little libs on the far left would be cancelling him too. That's the kind of shit I'm talking about. So, if you wanna cancel me for having this opinion, that's on you.

Don't worry about me. I will never vote Republican and I only discuss this shit with my closest Democratic friends, who also feel that these issues are losing elections for the Dems. I don't agree with everything the Dems propose, but they are far better than the alternative. Right now, I'd like to see the party concentrate on climate change, improving education for our youth, basic civil rights, and reasonable social programs, instead of going overboard with this shit. Btw, the Republicans also do the cancel culture stuff and what they do is far worse than what the Dems do. The Dems need to do to them what they do to the Dems. It's very sad that it's come to this, but if we want to win elections, unfortunately, we need to play the game.

I'm off topic, so I'll bow out now.

So, there's an interesting issue here in that the Democrats, and liberal folks in general, will always feel as they have an obligation to defend folks who find themselves unethically thrown under a bus as a political enemy of some faction seeking some Boogeyman.

The GQP will always target the largest group they can get away with, and paint them quite brightly as a threat in some way no matter what the reality is.

They will seek to do this to as many groups as they can get away with, and we are far from the bottom of the barrel for convenient "political hostages" which will, in many ways, be increasingly more painful to defend, and increasingly stupid, self-defeating communities used for that defense.

Once society recognizes trans people are OK, there's a number of probable "next victims" floating freely in obscurity within western culture. Even once large-scale support is achieved, as we have seen, the memory of the fight and the oh-so-terrible imposition of recognizing that people have the right to make symmetric informed consent is more than enough to drag in some of the elderly "solidified" prejudice, at least the ones their public health policies haven't killed off yet.

I have full faith and confidence that things will pivot to an even harder defense if we cannot pass federal laws protecting people from laws criminalizing victimless and personal autonomy behaviors in general.

And even so, there will be yet another fight when the boundaries of personhood are pressed when our computers rub up against that limit.

Suddenly, at some point, an unthinking human ball of cells will have more rights than a thinking, self-actualized being with wants, hopes, needs, and an understanding of the universe that rivals any human beings. If that isn't a recipe for disaster I don't know what is.

The Holy Grail, for the GQP, is finally finding someone who the left can't or won't defend for having committed no crime. They want a law that they can use to criminalize someone's mere existence so they can target it first at convenient targets, and then later expand to other things that they argue against the mere existence of.

 

[TomC]

well yes, that's because the democrats are a political party engaged in governance for a huge country,

Are they?
Hillary Clinton got more votes.
Donald Trump appointed three SCOTUS judges.

Who do you think is doing the governing here?
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

Earlier this week the office of a Wisconsin anti abortion organization was firebombed.

I have received a statement from the group claiming responsibility. They call themselves "Jane's Revenge" (a reference to the Jane Collective).

More follows.

The statement was sent to me through an anonymous intermediary I trust. It is hosted on a Tor site (link to follow). The statement is titled "first communique" and opens with the words, "This is not a declaration of war".

They go on to state that this Molotov attack was "only a warning". Positioning themselves in response to lethal attacks on healthcare providers by anti-choice activists, they promise to adopt "increasingly extreme tactics" to maintain control over their own bodies.

They are issuing a 30 day ultimatum for all anti choice organizations and fake clinics (crisis pregnancy centers) to disband. They claim to have the ability to reach multiple states and repeat that the attack in Wisconsin was just a "warning"

They conclude by noting they are made up of several organizations: "We are in your city. We are in every city. Your repression only strengthens our accompliceship and resolve."

 

[prideandfall]

well yes, that's because the democrats are a political party engaged in governance for a huge country,

Are they?
Hillary Clinton got more votes.
Donald Trump appointed three SCOTUS judges.

Who do you think is doing the governing here?
Tom

as i said, the democrats are a political party engaged in the governance of a country.
the republicans are a political party engaged in the exertion of political power over the populace of a country.

there's an argument to be made about whether or not jockeying for power within the established system counts as 'governance', though my opinion is that it does not.
and while there's certainly an argument to be made about whether engaging in that jockeying for power within the established system can or should count as governance in a scenario wherein the opposition party is using political tactics to actively stymie governance, and in this case i agree that it does, that is not something the democrats currently engage in.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think our side's refusal to say we're pro-abortion is only hurting us in the battle for hearts and minds, and that's the battle we who are pro-decriminalization of abortion need to win. There may well have been some strategic benefit to avoiding such language back when it was possible to say you're personally against abortion but you think the government should stay out of people's bedrooms, and still win a Republican primary; but those days are long past.

Abortion is a plan B. (I've also seen it referred to as a plan C since the morning after pill is the plan B for condom breaks and the like) Plan Bs are generally not things you want to do, they are failure recovery. Thus it does not make sense to say you're pro-abortion.

 

[blastula]

Manchin to oppose Democratic bill guaranteeing abortion access | The Hill

Democrats made changes to the bill from earlier this year to try to assuage members of their caucus. In a win for that effort, holdout Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) announced this week that he supported the substance of the revised bill.

They removed a nonbinding findings section that, among other provisions, referred to restrictions on abortion as perpetuating “white supremacy” and called them “a tool of gender oppression.”

Good, that section is exactly the kind of CRT and radical gender overreach that is damaging democrats electorally.

That shit is ideology not facts.

The revised bill would still prevent governments from limiting a health care provider’s ability to prescribe certain drugs or from providing immediate abortion services if a delay would risk a patient’s health, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The bill also prevents governments from being able to require that a patient make “medically unnecessary in-person visits” before an abortion, and would also prevent the government from requiring patients to disclose why they are seeking an abortion.

The bill also broadly would prevent governments from enacting any law that would create similar limits or that “singles out the provision of abortion services, health care providers who provide abortion services, or facilities in which abortion services are provided” and “impedes access to abortion services.”

That extra stuff is probably why Collins, et al are voting no.

Doesn't matter really cuz they would not get 60 anyway, but it is better to just have separate bills if you want to get something.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Manchin to oppose Democratic bill guaranteeing abortion access | The Hill

Democrats made changes to the bill from earlier this year to try to assuage members of their caucus. In a win for that effort, holdout Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) announced this week that he supported the substance of the revised bill.

They removed a nonbinding findings section that, among other provisions, referred to restrictions on abortion as perpetuating “white supremacy” and called them “a tool of gender oppression.”

Good, that section is exactly the kind of CRT and radical gender overreach that is damaging democrats electorally.

That shit is ideology not facts.

I see this in two ways. The initial way was "What in the bloody heck is this doing in legislation?!"

Then I pondered about down the road and this law being challenged in court... and then the term "legislative intent" came to mind. Now yes, indicating "white supremacy" sounds over the top / off-topic, but "gender oppression" wouldn't be if it is intended to convey legislative intent directly to SCOTUS, as this would go directly to the Supreme Court.

The revised bill would still prevent governments from limiting a health care provider’s ability to prescribe certain drugs or from providing immediate abortion services if a delay would risk a patient’s health, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The bill also prevents governments from being able to require that a patient make “medically unnecessary in-person visits” before an abortion, and would also prevent the government from requiring patients to disclose why they are seeking an abortion.

The bill also broadly would prevent governments from enacting any law that would create similar limits or that “singles out the provision of abortion services, health care providers who provide abortion services, or facilities in which abortion services are provided” and “impedes access to abortion services.”

That extra stuff is probably why Collins, et al are voting no.

Doesn't matter really cuz they would not get 60 anyway, but it is better to just have separate bills if you want to get something.

Separate bills to each lack 60 votes? Sounds like a waste of time. Collins isn't supporting it because she wants doctors to be protected from providing abortions. Because people can apparently force doctors to do things.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Republican Governors demand an end to protests (gifted) in front of SCOTUS homes.

Demonstrators have gathered over the past week at the homes of several conservative justices, spurred by the leak of a draft opinion suggesting that the high court is preparing to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision guaranteeing access to abortion nationwide.

Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin and Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan wrote to Garland on Wednesday, just days after some conservatives faulted Youngkin for not having protesters outside the Alexandria, Va., home of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. arrested under a state statute prohibiting demonstrations at private residences.

It seems uncertain whether this should be taken to indicate that the two GOP Governors believe that abortion related harassment of people should be limited to women seeking abortions being harassed by protestors demonizing them in front of abortion clinics.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Cori Bush calls out President Biden... because he doesn't say abortion enough.

Democratic Rep. Cori Bush called out President Joe Biden for his reluctance to publicly say the word "abortion" during his time in office.

"I do think that he should say it more," the Missouri congresswoman said in an interview with HuffPost that was published on Wednesday.

"People are looking to what the president does," said Bush, who previously revealed that she got an abortion as a teen after being raped.

She added: "A lot of times that holds more weight than what people are hearing come out of Congress. Because folks may not always know their Congress member's name. ... But everybody knows who their president is."

As noted previously, the elections between 2000 and 2016 led to this Supreme Court... not President Biden. Biden didn't support Alito. He didn't even support Roberts, who I thought was SCOTUSable.

I'm growing tired of some of the few ignorant left-wingers in Congress.

 

[TomC]

Republican Governors demand an end to protests (gifted) in front of SCOTUS homes.

Demonstrators have gathered over the past week at the homes of several conservative justices, spurred by the leak of a draft opinion suggesting that the high court is preparing to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision guaranteeing access to abortion nationwide.

Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin and Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan wrote to Garland on Wednesday, just days after some conservatives faulted Youngkin for not having protesters outside the Alexandria, Va., home of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. arrested under a state statute prohibiting demonstrations at private residences.

It seems uncertain whether this should be taken to indicate that the two GOP Governors believe that abortion related harassment of people should be limited to women seeking abortions being harassed by protestors demonizing them in front of abortion clinics.

Heh.
Glad I'm not in Youngkin's shoes.
"Mr. Governor, do you believe in Freedom of Speech and peaceful protests?"
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

Bomb has made an attempt to offer the weakest, most easily overturned interstate commerce arguments imaginable to "defend" that the interstate commerce clause may be appropriately turned towards interstate travel for abortions so as to protect women.

That's a gross misrepresentation.

In other threads Bomb has asked me outright whether I had ulterior motives behind asking for what is right,

Quote me.

under what I can only figure is the assumption that everyone (including Bomb) obscures what they really want and the things they ask for are merely a step towards some hidden goal and do so in bad faith.

What you can only figure is between you and your religious blinders. The rest of us do not assume whatever imbecilic things you choose to impute to us.

Therefore it makes sense to me that Bomb is likely not arguing honestly, and Obvious Plant is Obvious.

You are making false damaging accusations with reckless disregard for the truth. Crawl back under your rock.

 

[Jarhyn]

"Impedes access"? Did they WANT the thing to fail?

Bomb has made an attempt to offer the weakest, most easily overturned interstate commerce arguments imaginable to "defend" that the interstate commerce clause may be appropriately turned towards interstate travel for abortions so as to protect women.

That's a gross misrepresentation.

In other threads Bomb has asked me outright whether I had ulterior motives behind asking for what is right,

Quote me.

under what I can only figure is the assumption that everyone (including Bomb) obscures what they really want and the things they ask for are merely a step towards some hidden goal and do so in bad faith.

What you can only figure is between you and your religious blinders. The rest of us do not assume whatever imbecilic things you choose to impute to us.

Therefore it makes sense to me that Bomb is likely not arguing honestly, and Obvious Plant is Obvious.

You are making false damaging accusations with reckless disregard for the truth. Crawl back under your rock.

I think it's not up to you how other people interpret your actions.

You are the guy asking folks to call themselves "pro-abortion" and that should prove my point better than anything, all on its own.

 

[ZiprHead]

I heard this morning there's been a sharp uptick of voter registrations by women. Reminds me of a quote by a Japanese admiral about awakening and sleeping giants.

 

[TomC]

I think it's not up to you how other people interpret your actions.

Here's how I interpreted your post/action.

A big batch of unsupported insults directed at an IIDB member.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

I heard this morning there's been a sharp uptick of voter registrations by women. Reminds me of a quote by a Japanese admiral about awakening and sleeping giants.

Yah, I hope that's a portent of things to come. But I'm not optimistic.
I think the GQP calculus is correct:
'Murkins will forget all about it by November, amid the wailing GQP cries of "DEMOCRAT SOCIALIST INFLATION!!" and "STOLEN ELECTION!!".

 

[IIDB Staff]

Please stick to commenting on the argument and not the person. Thank you.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I heard this morning there's been a sharp uptick of voter registrations by women. Reminds me of a quote by a Japanese admiral about awakening and sleeping giants.

I'll await the outcome of the 2022 mid-terms before concluding that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I heard this morning there's been a sharp uptick of voter registrations by women. Reminds me of a quote by a Japanese admiral about awakening and sleeping giants.

Yah, I hope that's a portent of things to come. But I'm not optimistic.
I think the GQP calculus is correct:
'Murkins will forget all about it by November, amid the wailing GQP cries of "DEMOCRAT SOCIALIST INFLATION!!" and "STOLEN ELECTION!!".

Except that if they reverse Roe as per the Alito draft, it is the Wild West in the US regarding birth control, abortion access, and access to abortion across the border. This doesn't end at this case, this case is just the beginning. And the immediate impact will be felt almost immediately as legislation is already passed in several states to trigger on this ruling. Women aren't going to forget in a couple months that abortion was made illegal... because it'll still be illegal!

And with no right to abortion, immediate challenges to abortion restrictions no longer led to a pause in the new laws. So women will immediately suffer from the consequences of this in many states. The consequences of what are to be determined if they do ban the abortion pill and then general pill birth control.. condoms?

But how that translates in November is hard to tell, especially seeing we don't even have a ruling yet.

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm not seeing anyone commenting on the fact the this ruling not only removes the right to abortion but the right to privacy itself. Do you conservatives agree the American citizen doesn't have a right to privacy?