I don’t think two months or so makes much difference in the impact a major event has on voters’ emotions, but it’s a significant amount of time when organizing a protest movement.
I think it’s already changing, considering the protests in front of the Supreme Court and the blaring headlines all over. The “enthusiasm gap” I think was partly due to complacency due to misplaced faith in the weight of stare decisis and the supposed stability of settled law, and a misplaced faith in the supposed wisdom and compassion of the Supreme Court, which now stands revealed as a blatantly activist tool of the far right.
I concur. The Dems have become so hopelessly inept at campaigning that they’ll likely fail to use this to their advantage. I wouldn’t even be surprised if they find a way to shoot themselves in the foot over it.
I think there are many, many years of failures by the Democrats to allow it to get to this point and that it’s pointless to point at “voters who didn’t vote Clinton in 2016”, for example, as being the reason. You could point at Ginsburg refusing to retire. Or at the years of losses at the state and local level as the Democrats focused more and more on federal offices. Or the continual acquiescence to the Hyde amendment in practically every piece of legislation. Or a refusal to codify any the in the last five decades. But I’m not sure that this is the right place for that discussion.
Similarly, I find it somewhat darkly funny that in the last two days everything I’ve seen online, in the media, and so on is back to using the word “women”. Terms like birthing person, chest feeder, people who menstruate, and so on haven’t popped up once. I haven’t seen a piece on what the danger this decision is to pregnant men (and it is a danger to them). Suddenly all the non-binary, transgender, and other language is gone from the discourse. This isn’t meant to be a claim of hypocrisy, but just a comment on how it seems to me that all of the sudden the language used has changed. Again, probably not really quite the right thread for this discussion either.
I don’t know what you read, but those terms haven’t popped up ever in the media I read. I’m only aware of the “controversy” because of things I read here.
Mostly it shows up in the “very online” sorts of online places, though sometimes it shows up in print media either in an opinion piece (for or against) or an “explainer” type of piece or interview. And again, I’m not trying to call anyone out for hypocrisy. I’m just, as I said, somewhat darkly amused that suddenly all the gender neutral language appears to be gone with the possible loss of Roe.
Florida is one of the states likely to ban it on at least one of the lists. I don’t know what UAB AL is, but if that’s Alabama, I expect it to be banned there as well.
FWIW I don’t believe Mike Braun is advocating banning interracial marriage with his comments, nor do I actually think any State, even the reddest, would do so if Loving was overturned. But I do think there are more conservatives, especially the ones who largely think the Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Act (1964), Brown v Board, et al. were “mistakes” and not grounded in constitutional law (which I patently disagree with–they are all entirely justified by the 14th Amendment.) I think those conservatives would indeed want to see Loving struck down just because they view it as an interference with State’s rights, but that doesn’t actually mean they would rush to impose anti-miscegenation. I don’t even know that the ones advocating for Loving being overturned have outright said that, and I am a little skeptical they would, that just isn’t something that appears to be a motivation by even most fringe Republicans.
FWIW the very fact Goldwater style Republicans could argue that much of the civil rights jurisprudence and legislations of the 1960s was “invalid” is largely because the Supreme Court has never been apolitical, and has mostly been used to impose cruel restrictions on minority groups when it has dealt with them. I was always a vehement opponent of the Supreme Court, its structure, its far too vast powers of judicial review etc–both during my 50 years as a Republican and now. In the years after the post-Civil War constitutional amendments passed, a solid 75 years of reactionary conservative Supreme Court justices did every possible thing they could to limit the scope of those amendments and their power. Following along with their logic, it may have been entirely consistent to argue things like the Civil Rights Act or VRA were invalid–but going back to the *real original intent, of the incredibly Radical Republican reformers who pushed those amendments through, the 1950s and 1960s Civil Rights legislation and jurisprudence is exactly what they intended, that is the true originalism of the 14th Amendment, that has been intentionally suppressed and distorted by generations of reactionary justices who were opposed primarily to blacks being able to assume any form of legal, political, social or economic equality.
Very true, but the dollar potential is very great. Downtown Birmingham is essentially the UAB Hospital, big enough to handle the traffic. Orlando is a tourism center, again big enough for traffic.
In an Alabama dry county you can always have liquor at your country club. Why would procedures at private hospitals be different?
depends on how it is used, I guess. I don’t find language like “Reversing Roe will have a big impact on pregnant people” some kind of new woke speak. You might have heard the same language 50 years ago. True, it might have been “pregnant women” but they two sound the same to my ears.
Because Alabama law allows for private clubs to sell liquor in dry counties, but it won’t allow for private hospitals to perform abortions. We already know the laws Alabama would impose:
The text of the bill (which was not put into effect due to Roe), is right there–they make no provisions for “private hospitals.” I find the entire premise of your question pretty specious to be honest. The idea that because liquor laws in private clubs operate a certain way, there is any relationship with abortion laws, is nonsensical and not how the law works.
I’m guessing there’s some fine distinction between “selling” alcohol and “serving” alcohol that the structure of a Country Club satisfies. Surely it’s still illegal to, say, shoot somebody at a Country Club.
If (when, probably) performing an abortion becomes illegal per Alabama law, I very much doubt it will matter whether the hospital is public or private.
It’s one thing for the states being able to “decide” this, but quite another for zombie laws, for which no living person ever voted, to come back info effect after decades of inactivity. This is going to get real, real ugly.
Of course my conjecture is idle speculation, but that is the way the law works. In Kansas dry counties you could even order liquor on restaurant menus. If you did, you had to join a private club and then buy the beverage and they would keep it in reserve to be served only to you.
Similarly it would be possible for an Orlando Out of State Women’s Clinic to provide procedures to non-resident members. This might even be a compound attached to the airport like the duty free shops.
My point is that where enough money is involved the law is no barrier.