The War On Abortion And Women's Rights

[GreyhoundFan]

[dramallama]

Just now, GreyhoundFan said:

If it's a baby at conception child support should start at conception.

[SPHASH]

But is she concerned?

 

[fraurosena]

3 minutes ago, SPHASH said:

But is she concerned?

 

It's easy to have an opinion on something you can't influence now. But she happily voted them onto the SC, and that falls squarely at her, and her Republican misogynist colleagues, feet.  She can act all innocent about it, but if a foreigner like me knew what Gorsuch and Kavanagh were put in place for, the she sure as hell knew too.

TLDR: STFU Susan.

[Alisamer]

 

9 hours ago, dramallama said:

The cruelty is the point.  As long as, in their minds, the "right people" are the ones getting hurt, they're pleased as punch.  After all, their wives/daughters/mistresses will still be able to access abortion when they need one, with a quick flight out of the country and back.

Bingo. The wealthy have never had to worry about whether abortion was "legal" or not. If they don't want to find a well-paid private doctor willing to code a "missed miscarriage requiring a D&C" they can just hop on a plane, get an abortion, and have a vacation at the same time. The wealthy and powerful just aren't affected by the same laws the rest of us are.

4 hours ago, WiseGirl said:

Fuck, fuck, fuck Thomas should have been kicked off, and frat boy and Amy don't belong on the court. Fucking hell.  I'm so angry. I fear for this country. I'm ready for my state to become part of the United States of Canada.

I think next up will be birth control and same sex marriage. They might, maybe, wait to go after interracial marriages until Clarence Thomas is about to leave the court, considering that he is married to a white woman. 

3 hours ago, dramallama said:

Reminder that gerrymandering to ensure R majorities for decades and the anti-democratic Electoral College are things deserving more blame than individual voters here.  If I could have voted for Clinton literally 400,000 times in 2016 it wouldn't have changed the outcome at all because of the state I live in and the Electoral College.  The Congressional districts in MANY states are also drawn in such a way as to maximize Republican seats and make it virtually impossible to vote otherwise, as well as state seat districts drawn to guarantee Republican super-majorities at all times.  America is not a democracy and people who feel like "my vote doesn't even matter" are not entirely wrong.  And that doesn't even get into voter suppression efforts.

So much this. Republican presidents don't win the popular vote. The actual people generally lean democrat, despite the loud crazies on the other side. But they've managed in most states to draw out districts so gerrymandered that republicans simply cannot lose in many cases. I was looking at the redistricting for North Carolina and noticed this: "Republicans fully control the congressional redistricting process. New maps are drawn and enacted by the Republican state legislature." They were forced to use a less partisan map at the moment, but you can look back at some other maps on that site. Basically the Republicans in North Carolina try to draw things out so there are only two districts that lean blue. No matter how nonsensical the divisions look. 

Of course, those two districts are Charlotte/Mecklenburg and Raleigh/Durham, essentially. Where the majority of the state's population lives, where the majority of colleges and universities are, where the majority of tech and research work is done, etc. The more rural, less well educated, more white areas have much more representation than the actual people who live in the state. A vote in a rural red area counts more than one in a highly populated blue area.

10 minutes ago, lumpentheologie said:

They are going after the right to privacy itself. That means no more right to birth control, no more right to same-sex marriage, no more right to have any particular kind of sex (or sex at all), no more right to teach your children a language other than English at home, basically no right to keep the government from controlling your home and body and the most private of decisions. Everything fundies want. 

Unless something changes this is the beginning of totalitarian dystopia, American Taliban style. The right has never cared about freedom and limited government. That was just doublespeak until they could get what they really wanted: essentially fascist theocracy. 

It's ironic but not surprising that the "small government", "pro freedom" party is the one pushing the government to limit personal freedoms as much as possible. Make it illegal to control your own body and love who you love, but hands off our guns! 

I keep thinking they'll go after birth control, and maybe eventually republican men will be affected by this enough to say "hey, wait a minute!"

The rich ones won't care, of course. But the poor rural white guy living in a trailer with two kids whose wife suddenly won't sleep with him for fear of getting pregnant with another kid they can't feed? The male small business owner whose mistress suddenly comes up pregnant and threatens to go public if he doesn't pay child support? The conservative but not fundie preachers whose teen daughters suddenly turn up pregnant, despite swearing they are virgins?

At some point all but the fundies will have to say "hey, wait a minute..."

 

[fraurosena]

Joe Manchin is a wolf in sheep's clothing. A Republican dressed as a Dem. And that's the nicest thing I can say about him without expletives.

 

[NotQuiteMotY]

2 hours ago, lumpentheologie said:

Well. This is what we get when we have Democrats who respect institutional tradition more than women and refuse to pack the court. 

Problems with just blaming the Democrats: time to do so for this case once they were in the majority, Manchin who's practically a Republican for votes like this, and the midterm backlash. The Democrats have had a problem with messaging and putting up a united front for years, which is part of the problem, but overall I prefer to blame the party that prefers to cheat, steal, manipulate, and outright lie their way into forcing their misogynistic preferences onto everyone else.

Edited May 3, 2022 by NotQuiteMotY
Missed a word.

[nausicaa]

6 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Joe Manchin is a wolf in sheep's clothing. A Republican dressed as a Dem. And that's the nicest thing I can say about him without expletives.

 

The problem is Manchin is the most liberal person we're going to get from West Virginia. If he gets primaried, his Republican replacement will be a full on Trumper. 

Anyone else following Ben Shapiro's meltdown on Twitter? He is assuming the leak came from a liberal staffer trying to undermine the SC by fomenting opposition to this before it's official (there are even specific names being tossed around, which is wildly irresponsible imo). Which is an interesting take, because I've seen several liberal pundits saying this could be from a conservative staffer trying to make this decision seem settled and push this through.

My only hope at this point is that several judges shift their decisions after contemplating things in the intervening months, as supposedly happened in the original Roe v. Wade decision. Not saying it's likely. It's just all I have to rest my head on. 

 

I'm surprised people think interracial marriage is next. I think it's birth control and overturning Griswold and all the privacy protections expanded to adult sexuality. 

[dramallama]

24 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Joe Manchin is a wolf in sheep's clothing. A Republican dressed as a Dem. And that's the nicest thing I can say about him without expletives.

 

As much as I hate Manchin, I think without the filibuster we'd be much more likely to see any codifying of Roe done now overturned and a federal abortion ban passed the next time Republicans have a House + Senate majority, as it stands now it will take 60 votes for them to pass a nationwide ban which is a high bar to clear. I'm sort of of the mind that the filibuster has a purpose, obviously Republicans have been abusing it, but if we're keeping it it needs to be like the old days where you had to physically stand on the Senate floor and occupy it by reading the phone book or whatever, not this procedural bullshit they do now.

9 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

My only hope at this point is that several judges shift their decisions after contemplating things in the intervening months, as supposedly happened in the original Roe v. Wade decision. Not saying it's likely. It's just all I have to rest my head on. 

 

I'm surprised people think interracial marriage is next. I think it's birth control and overturning Griswold and all the privacy protections expanded to adult sexuality. 

I hope that's possible but I just can't see any of the 5 who voted for this changing their minds, they're all extremists and many were put there for exactly this reason. 

Also agreed re: Griswold, I think birth control and same sex marriage and Lawrence v Texas will all be the next targets.  All of the big national anti-abortion groups who have been pushing for this believe that most forms of birth control cause abortion so I can absolutely see IUDs, the pill, emergency contraception, the arm implant etc included in any abortion ban that passes.  They're wrong, of course, those things don't cause abortions - but that won't stop them.

Edited May 3, 2022 by dramallama

[nausicaa]

Other thought: if this goes through and abortion gets pushed back to the state level, can you imagine the social and economic chasm dividing red states from blue states in twenty years?

Abortion bans will further encourage brain drain of educated women from red states. Add in the economic effects of more children on welfare, abused children, an overburdened foster care system and public schools on red states like Mississippi and West Virginia already struggling in these areas. And the resulting resentment from these red states toward blue states, as well as increased racism and racial divisions within their states, will be disastrous. 

[Bethella]

I’ve already signed the petition to put the issue on Michigan’s ballot in November. The current trigger law (from 1931) bans all abortions, no exceptions. Whitmer has her court challenge but this is an amendment to the state constitution which would enshrine reproductive freedom permanently. 
 

I know I’m not the only Michigan resident, if anyone else wants to sign. https://www.mobilize.us/mireprofreedom/

[lumpentheologie]

30 minutes ago, NotQuiteMotY said:

The Democrats have had a problem with messaging and putting up a united front for years, which is part of the problem, but overall I prefer to blame the party that prefers to cheat, steal, manipulate, and outright lie their way into forcing their misogynistic preferences onto everyone else.

I mean the Republicans are so openly evil that I consider it kind of useless to blame them at this point. They're like a force of nature. Nothing we say or do is going to change their behavior.

IMO, Republicans are wolves, and we are the sheep. The Democrats have tried to position themselves as shepherds to protect us from Republican predation, and when the sheep get eaten, it's the shepherd you take to task, not the wolves.

One of the problems with Democrats is they keep blaming the Republicans for being wolves and expecting that to change something, even though they have shown themselves to be wolves since at least 2010. 

(Just to be clear, I'm talking about politicians here, not your average voter.)

Edited May 3, 2022 by lumpentheologie

[dramallama]

5 minutes ago, Bethella said:

I’ve already signed the petition to put the issue on Michigan’s ballot in November. The current trigger law (from 1931) bans all abortions, no exceptions. Whitmer has her court challenge but this is an amendment to the state constitution which would enshrine reproductive freedom permanently. 
 

I know I’m not the only Michigan resident, if anyone else wants to sign. https://www.mobilize.us/mireprofreedom/

If that passes I may move up there, I'm in Ohio now and the nutjobs who run this state are already working on a total-ban trigger law and saying how rape victims should be blessed by the opportunity to bear their assaulters' children.

Edited May 3, 2022 by dramallama
bare/bear

[Alisamer]

47 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

I'm surprised people think interracial marriage is next. I think it's birth control and overturning Griswold and all the privacy protections expanded to adult sexuality. 

I think gay rights will be next. Birth control is just a bit of a stretch just yet, better to start with an "other" who Republican voters as a monolith are already suspicious and fearful of. Everyone knows someone who uses birth control, it's a lot more privacy-invading than other options.

I don't think interracial marriage will be next... just because of Clarence Thomas. (Also Mitch McConnell is in an interracial marriage as well.)

I do, however, think it's likely that some flashy lawyer will take on Loving very soon - as a way of making a point. Not intending to have it overthrown, but to point out the ridiculousness of trying to reverse these important decisions all while clearly the members of the court are birth control users (except maybe the handmaid), and one of the justices is in an interracial relationship, and the right continues to claim they are for "small government". 

[libgirl2]

2 minutes ago, Alisamer said:

I think gay rights will be next. Birth control is just a bit of a stretch just yet, better to start with an "other" who Republican voters as a monolith are already suspicious and fearful of. Everyone knows someone who uses birth control, it's a lot more privacy-invading than other options.

I don't think interracial marriage will be next... just because of Clarence Thomas. (Also Mitch McConnell is in an interracial marriage as well.)

I do, however, think it's likely that some flashy lawyer will take on Loving very soon - as a way of making a point. Not intending to have it overthrown, but to point out the ridiculousness of trying to reverse these important decisions all while clearly the members of the court are birth control users (except maybe the handmaid), and one of the justices is in an interracial relationship, and the right continues to claim they are for "small government". 

I am not so sure about BC. Things like the pill are big money for pharma companies and they do not want to lose that. And money speaks. I think it will be gay marriage/rights. 

People, get out and vote your asses off at every election you can. I don't care if it is for your county comptroller or whatever. VOTE! 

[Audrey2]

I would definitely say gay marriage will be next. I can see them starting to chip away at Griswold just like they've been doing for abortion the last 40 years. First by insisting it's just for married women who need their husbands consent then by making the process to get contraception more difficult and finally by raising the bar who can get contraception in a marriage, maybe saying that you have to have two children before you can get contraception or something like that. I can also see a chipping away at interracial marriage.

I do wonder if at least one state will take the issue of marriage as a state's right issue and start legislating and suing for that from that perspective. In other words they either wouldn't recognize marriages from other states all and would force couples to remarry in their state (okay it sounds a little crazy but then we thought that Roe v Wade going away would be crazy as well) or would choose to only recognize CIS marriages that were either for two people married the first time or someone who has been widowed along with someone else- in other words no interracial marriages and pushing the end envelope even further for those who want theocracy, no remarriages by divorced persons. There are so many who are doing everything they can to turn the United States into a Christian theocracy.

[SassyPants]

1 hour ago, nausicaa said:

Other thought: if this goes through and abortion gets pushed back to the state level, can you imagine the social and economic chasm dividing red states from blue states in twenty years?

Abortion bans will further encourage brain drain of educated women from red states. Add in the economic effects of more children on welfare, abused children, an overburdened foster care system and public schools on red states like Mississippi and West Virginia already struggling in these areas. And the resulting resentment from these red states toward blue states, as well as increased racism and racial divisions within their states, will be disastrous. 

That’s what I don’t understand. Where is the fiscal conservatism and protection of life in this approach? Why would red states want more people who can not put into the coffers? How and where will they hide all of those who are adversely affected? Won’t their religious constituents get tired of traversing the places the unfortunates dwell in order to get to their jobs, restaurants and fancy mega churches?

 

ETA- OR GOD FORBID, THEY HAVE TO PUT MORE $$$$$$$$$$$$ into the coffers to support the whole shebang!

Edited May 3, 2022 by SassyPants

[libgirl2]

4 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

That’s what I don’t understand. Where is the fiscal conservatism and protection of life in this approach? Why would red states want more people who can not put into the coffers? How and where will they hide all of those who are adversely affected? Won’t their religious constituents get tired of traversing the places the unfortunates dwell in order to get to their jobs, restaurants and fancy mega churches?

they don't care, more souls to save for God! 

[GreyhoundFan]

[dramallama]

Vasectomies are able to be successfully reversed about 50% of the time, and that goes down the more time passes since surgery.  The reversal surgery is also more invasive and expensive than the vasectomy, and unlikely to be covered by most insurance.  Sorry to "UM ACTUALLY" all over you and I know he's saying it to make a point but please nobody get sterilized unless you're sure, assume it's permanent. 🤣

Edited May 3, 2022 by dramallama

[SassyPants]

17 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

That’s what I don’t understand. Where is the fiscal conservatism and protection of life in this approach? Why would red states want more people who can not put into the coffers? How and where will they hide all of those who are adversely affected? Won’t their religious constituents get tired of traversing the places the unfortunates dwell in order to get to their jobs, restaurants and fancy mega churches?

 

ETA- OR GOD FORBID, THEY HAVE TO PUT MORE $$$$$$$$$$$$ into the coffers to support the whole shebang!

They’ll care if you hit them in their pocket books! Are there going to accept the conditions that will exist if they don’t pay for it? Accept that businesses and upwardly mobile people will refuse to move to that sort of environment?

[TuringMachine]

In semi related news, someone just climbed the Salesforce tower in some sort of anti abortion protest?

[libgirl2]

3 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

They’ll care if you hit them in their pocket books! Are there going to accept the conditions that will exist if they don’t pay for it? Accept that businesses and upwardly mobile people will refuse to move to that sort of environment?

They will just vote against any type of social services and vote for the people who are against them. Its not their fault, and here I am quoting a disgusting comment I saw, that women can't keep their "legs closed". 

[NotQuiteMotY]

35 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

That’s what I don’t understand. Where is the fiscal conservatism and protection of life in this approach? Why would red states want more people who can not put into the coffers? How and where will they hide all of those who are adversely affected? Won’t their religious constituents get tired of traversing the places the unfortunates dwell in order to get to their jobs, restaurants and fancy mega churches?

 

ETA- OR GOD FORBID, THEY HAVE TO PUT MORE $$$$$$$$$$$$ into the coffers to support the whole shebang!

Cynically, I'd say least some of them have investments in private prisons and that's where their fiscal interest comes in.

But that's the thing. It's not about fiscal conservatism and protection of life. It's about punishing women and/or establishing a theocracy, with a degree of long-term power grab by increasing their area's population.

[dramallama]

https://openargs.com/emergency-episode-roe-to-be-overturned/

Really good podcast in which a lawyer explains everything fucked up about this decision from a legal standpoint and precisely how it takes aim at birth control, same sex marriage, interracial marriage, and more. 

Edited May 3, 2022 by dramallama