The former would be struck down by the same justices that just overturned Roe. The latter would lead to mass chaos, with an ever enlarging court every time the presidency switches party and the risk of a coup during Republican administrations to de facto keep Republicans in power regardless of election results.
If I were someone like Biden or a congressional leader of the Dems right now I wouldn’t be pushing for court packing because I think it would result in a legislative failure and a huge amount of political capital and favor wasted, but the damage to the court is morally justifiable in exchange for buying some years of abortion rights and likely (based on the opinions of the current SCOTUS) rights for LGBT people.
Show me a concurrence by Sotomayor or Kagan that says the Supreme Court has a duty to confiscate guns.
This doesn’t directly answer your question, but because it uses data from 2014 I think it’s relevant and fascinating. I’ve barely even skimmed it:
My first impression is that the distances traveled are less than I might have expected, and this is despite the Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) laws promulgated or proposed by this time.
I suspect that the TRAP laws would have begun to have a serious impact on those driving distances were some of them not struck down by the SC, something Guttmacher alludes to in that fact sheet.
Do I have to get the cite showing Republicans wanting to ban contraceptives . . . again?
2 1/2 years, after which we would be almost guaranteed a Republican authoritarian regime that would last for decades. The only question would be whether we have a generalissimo Trump or generalissimo Desantis.
No, not at all.
Maybe 5 years, even.
I’m wondering how this could be true. Hasn’t the feminist movement been built up over decades?
Not saying you are wrong. Googling, I’m reading that Planned Parenthood has 600 locations vs. 2,500 crisis pregnancy centers. But I’m not sure how good a metric that is.
Where the pro-choice movement may be behind is volunteering. Thinking of ways the Roe reversal may backfire, it could inspire more volunteers to drive women to out of state abortion providers. A lot of progressives don’t like this idea, but maybe the shock of today will change that.
I think that’s far from a guarantee. It’s not easy to get a trifecta in Washington.
So Thomas and Alito are fairly old, and (besides you) I haven’t seen a ton of people bring up that this may not be as long-term a court majority as thought.
Although a lot would hinge on who gets to replace these guys obviously.
Right. It will start with Plan B and IUDs, very quickly.
IVF will be targeted as well. This will be interesting because 1) it’s a big industry that has at least some power and influence and 2) it’s a service that relatively rich and powerful people turn to with a fair amount of urgency. So I imagine there will be some dissent within the ranks. And unlike abortion, even the affluent don’t want to travell put of state for IVF. It takes too long.
They wouldn’t need a trifecta. They would only need 50 senators and a Republican POTUS. If Biden packs the SCOTUS so that it’s something like 7-6 or 9-6 in favor of the Democrats, Republicans would be outraged. Trump or Desantis would almost certainly win in 2024. And their first order of business would be to re-pack the court to that it will be 13–7 or 15-9 or whatever. And then they’d pull off the coup that they almost did on 1/6/2021, and that would be all she wrote for several decades.
AFAIK it requires legislation to set the size of the court.
I agree that there would be a massive political cost for the first party to pack it, which one could argue would mean that it wouldn’t be worth it in this climate even if successful and obviously wouldn’t be worth it given the near certainty that the Democrats couldn’t get court-packing legislation through the senate currently.
I can’t. And there is no concurrence by Thomas that says the Supreme Court has a duty to confiscate diaphragms.
Yes, I know, Thomas would allow it, if states actually pass such laws. But they won’t, because even GOP primary voters are against that. Such a law might get one or two votes in the Texas legislature but the idea is quite unpopular among Republicans.
Yup, first the non-barrier methods, then the Protestants will find common ground with the evil Papist ring kissing Mary worshipers and then all artificial contraception will be declared intrinsically evil since they usurp God’s will that the daughters of Eve be punished for their Original Sin.
At some point, I heard the aphorism, “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.”
Overturning Roe v. Wade was also unpopular among Republicans; about 50% were against it. Not enough to make them stay home and vote for the other guy, though.
Is it? I think they will come for IUDs. There is a persistent belief among pro-life people that IUDs lead to “an abortion every month” amd there’s also a perception that they are a little slutty. Like, getting something put up your vagina is just a little . . .fast. The whole Dalkon Shield debacle really left this impression that IUDs were bad things bad girls did.
But the reality is that modern IUDs are a miracle. Chemical BC sucks. It can be dangerous, it has terrible side effects for many, and it’s less reliable than an IUD. But the way is clear now not to listen to what women want for their bodies and force them to rely on worse methods.
Plan B, also, is presented as “an abortion pill”, but the real subtext is that it is seen as a slut pill. Can’t let those girls get away with consequence free sex! So that will be gone, too.
A lot of CONSERVATIVES don’t like this idea, hence the laws that make helping a woman leave the state to get an abortion a crime.
I want to say two words to you. Just two words.
Are you listening?
Anal lube.
There’s a great future in anal lube. Think about it.
Will you think about it?
