I’m sure she hopes so, but is there any actual facts behind her opinion?
Like, I don’t know, as that’s behind a paywall, and you didn’t quote anything relevant, just plopped it down.
This ties into my point from hundreds of posts ago–if this issue is important for Democrats it needs to be something they campaign hard on. Issues don’t have political power “by default”, the pro-life issue didn’t have power “by default” a very sustained, very powerful political movement gave it power. If abortion rights are important for Democrats, they have to act accordingly.
On the flipside, my opinion as someone who lacks the commitment to abortion rights of many on the left, is that if the Dems show through actions or inactions that abortion rights aren’t that important to them–start running more pro-life candidates again, there is literally no reason to run pro-choice candidates in districts where pro-life Democrats have been viable in the past if the party doesn’t actually care about the issue.
Edit: I do think we are supposed to avoid drifting into abortion politics in a more general sense–this thread is supposed to be about the Alito decision.
Yes, and so?
No, they say it is legal.
Legal does not mean moral or ethical.
Do we not consider ourselves more ethical than the Westboro Baptist Church?
Clearly the Supreme Court has a legal right to overthrow Roe. But it is not moral or ethical.
So, not everything that is legal is right.
Of course what the antiabortionists seem to forget is that if the Government has the right to ban abortion, it then also has the right to force abortion.
Tell that to the right-wing douchenozzles screaming that the protests are illegal harassment and intimidation and need to be dispersed.
Rules for thee but not for me seems a conservative mantra.
Their chickens have come home to roost.
From a moral perspective I think it’s fine to hold a protest in front of someone’s house as long as you don’t trespass, but I think if it’s a residential neighborhood with lots of unrelated people living there and you stay there all night and make it so people who literally have 0 to do with Samuel Alito unable to sleep and then have to work the next day on zero rest that it’s a dick move.
I’m curious about the repercussions of the sperm donor being potentially held responsible for child support for 18 yrs, and that (given modern DNA testing) a mother who gives a child up for adoption has a limited expectation of privacy from the adopted child.
Makes the idea of sex a HECKUVA lot riskier. I’m guessing the conservative right will say, “Serves you right. Shoulda just said NO!”
Who said anything about “rules”?
I am talking moral and ethical responsibility.
Or are we no better than the Westboro Baptist Church?
Protesting outside of someone’s house over a political action they took in their privileged political job they hold because you disagree with it, is not remotely on par ethically with protesting at a dead soldier’s funeral because you believe that the soldier was a “fag” based on your crazy ideology that most people outside of your religion with 25 people in it are gays.
In my experience, at least online, the common conservative response is “Learn to keep your legs closed”. They get very focused on the female participant in sex, but not so much the male.
You can be moral and ethical in that gulag the Republicans are preparing. Me, I’m all for bringing a flamethrower to this here knife fight.
My impression as well. But required child support is a very real possibility.
Eh, I have a friend on the local school board, and she gets people camped out in front of her house on a regular basis over CRT nonsense.
I really don’t feel sorry for SCOTUS justices that want to take away rights from the people. They, of all people, should appreciate people just exercising their constitutional rights.
Pro-lifer: You don’t need to worry about whether abortion is legal if you simply don’t have sex.
Me: OK then, so you support keeping abortion legal in the case of rape.
Pro-lifer: Derp derp derp.
Come on, that’s a pretty glaring false dichotomy. There is a lot of middle ground, morally and ethically speaking, between (a) refusing to protest peacefully outside the private residences of political figures on the grounds that it’s too intrusive, and (b) behaving like the Westboro Baptist Church.
Homes have neighbors. The neighbors do not deserve to be harassed.
And, really there isn’t. Either we have the moral high ground or we don’t.
All peaceful protests unavoidably inconvenience neighbors and bystanders who don’t deserve to be inconvenienced. That’s not a sufficient criterion for declaring particular legal protest locations to be ethically off-limits.
Nonsense. Peaceful protestors, even outside SCOTUS justices’ houses, have a hell of a long way to go before they’re ceding any moral high ground to the likes of the Westboro Baptist Church.
Thank you.
To be fair, they have an answer to that now.
You have been given an opportunity!
Federal law prohibits protests outside the home of justices, judges, jurors, etc.
18 U.S.C. § 1507 - U.S. Code Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 1507 | FindLaw
“Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”