The most obvious example was Trump, who I am certain has no personal opposition to abortion. (he probably is against interracial marriage however)
I’m sure he doesn’t actually care about other peoples’ marriages, but he would be happy to speak up for such a ban. Let’s not give him credit for actually putting any thought into his opinions.
I think he’s quite racist, so I don’t think being against interracial marriage takes a lot of thought on his part. Just gut instinct.
/end tangent
I can’t look inside Mike Braun’s skull and I don’t know the man, but I again tell you that I know actual real human beings who really do want to outlaw interracial marriage. And worse. And they do call themselves Republicans and love Trump and while right now they’re fringe I really do fear their sort gaining power, whether nationally or even on a local level.
I’m old enough to remember pre-Roe days. The laws being passed in places like Texas today are worse than the ones they had back then. Back then, everyone knew of women who’d do things like take a bus from the Midwest to New York to get the deed done, but no one was prosecuted for crossing state lines. The new laws being passed are more stringent.
I was one. I’ve typically been center right, though not consistently (for example, I have always been sympathetic to undocumented immigrants). For too long a time I held onto the belief that the GOP, while definitely with a looney fringe, was sane and most consistent with my principles.
Now the looney fringe is the party. I’m 61 years old, and until 2016, I had never voted for a Democratic presidential candidate. I’ve also become markedly more progressive in the interim. Nothing could make me vote for a Republican, not at any level.
Anyway, there are a few of us.
While I don’t disagree that there probably won’t be any states moving to ban interracial marriage, simply citing a public opinion poll as your argument misses the point.
Once certain people are in power, and - perhaps more importantly - are unafraid of losing their power, they will make whatever laws they want, public opinion be damned.
That’s what totalitarianism looks like, and if you think it can’t happen here you haven’t been paying attention.
While I don’t think any states will be going after interracial marriage anytime soon, I fully expect Texas to target gay marriage, and possibly even sodomy.
Anyone remember this from last year?
Apparently Texas still has laws on the books defining marriage as between one man and one woman, forbidding the recognition of civil unions and criminalizing homosexual sex. And some lawmakers apparently think the Supreme Court can’t overrule state laws.
I wonder if they’ll set up a challenge to Obergefell? If the SC strikes it down, Texas wouldn’t even have to pass new laws. The old ones are still on the books.
/reopening tangent despite better judgement
Actually I think opposition to interracial marriage would require a bit more thought than Trump would put in. The opposition to interracial marriage really stems from a white supremacist desire to maintain the purity of the race. Trump doesn’t have a broad philosophical racism, he just thinks black people are inferior. If he met a white man married to a black women he wouldn’t see it as immoral, he would just think that the man was a sucker who made a bad deal.
Exhibit A: JD Vance.
I think that we need to start reconsidering the religion dogma that has arisen recently in constitutional jurisprudence.
Say, a progressive preacher counsels women who are informed by God that they should terminate their pregnancy. After religious conference, this is determined to be a sincere belief - god is telling these women to end their pregnancy; it was a test of their faith when they became pregnant at a time when they were not ready.
At that point, isn’t it an exercise of religious freedom to get a doctor to terminate their pregnancy? I’m hearing that it can be done via pills (sent through the mail) these days.
To openly allow abortions? Certainly not. To look away from “D&C” procedures done on rich white women by private doctors? Maybe.
I think I already told this story, but my mother got pregnant with her fourth child when abortion was illegal. Her gynecologist told her she was pregnant, and immediately followed with “but don’t worry, we can take care of that.”. She was so shocked that she switched to a pro-life obstetrician, but I’m thinking that abortions-under-another-name weren’t all that rare pre-Roe, at least for the well-heeled.
Basing your judicial opinions on the beliefs of a white 17th-century judge who wasn’t even a citizen of this country, and likely would have detested it had he known of its existence (he died in 1676), is peak Critical Race Theory in action.
The Right: “The Left is SOOOOOOO Elitist!”
… also…
The Right: “According to page 364 of 17th-century justice Matthew Hale’s (a person I learned about in Yale Law) masterful treatise on English Common Law, the poorz can’t have abortions in 22nd-century America.”
I was in the Balkans and Iraq when their civil wars started. In both places, people said that there was no real difference in the people and that trying to turn people against each other wouldn’t work. The first thing the instigators did was target the mixed neighborhoods and the mixed marriages. They want to force people to choose. One of my Iraqi colleagues was Shia married to a Sunni; they abducted him, tortured him to death with a power drill and dumped his body in front of his house. His wife had to flee to her parents home in a Sunni neighborhood, she had to choose to be with her own people, or die. Same thing in the Balkans, same thing coming here.
Make no mistake, the GOP are fascists and they are overtly hostile to a multi-cultural society and openly racist. They are coming for the gays next, because they are an easier target, but they won’t stop there because they need an enemy to justify their behavior.
There’s a way around that but I’m under the impression that offering advice on how to hack paywalls is an offense of SDMB rules.
I mean @Crane if I understand correctly is positing some scenario where a red state “makes a ton of money” by advertising the only “legal” red state abortion hospital in Redlandia. No, I do not think that will happen, and isn’t quite analogous to the very commonly ignored abortion clinics that did operate prior to Roe as long as they kept sufficiently quiet about it. Also like all the State government elected officials involved in such a scheme would immediately be targeted for activism by the red base, the pro-life movement and all of its political power within the GOP would come down on them like a ton of bricks for literally “selling” access to abortion for profit, right after the pro-life movement had won its great moral crusade.
I’d be happy to do a thorough yet concise summary, but I get the impression no one cares.
Oh, then i think he’s wrong. I don’t believe there will be any advertised abortion clinics operation in states where that’s illegal. And i think that California and New York will keep the available fees to no more than airfare + the fee in those states.
I do think there will be some quiet D&C’s for “diagnostic” purposes, or due to “menstrual irregularities”, but they will be done in places that mostly do other stuff and they will absolutely not be advertised.
At least, that’s my best guess.
The line to suck Satan’s Cock?
Aren’t they working on that too right now?
That wouldn’t be a first.