Matt Walsh contends that social security will crash precisely Because all those aborted babies would’ve been paying into it to keep it solvent.
Two things about that, IMHO. By Alito’s own logic, rights can be deemed to exist even if not explicitly enumerated, provided they are found in “the history and traditions” of the United States. It’s a bullshit argument that is intended only to justify a predetermined ideological conclusion (legal abortion isn’t entrenched in history, but slavery is – what is one to make of that except that societal values change as we become more enlightened?). The reality is that the right to personal liberty and security runs deeply throughout the philosophy of the Bill of Rights, which surely implies a fundamental right to bodily autonomy including reproductive rights, as embraced by actual civilized countries in modern interpretations of the fundamental rights of their citizens.
But it’s even more than that. The concepts of precedent and stare decisis are extremely important to the stability of the nation’s institutions, sociopolitical systems, and respect for the Court, something that Alito himself grudgingly acknowledges. Yet he overturns 50 years of precedent in Roe v Wade on grounds so flimsy that only he and the four extremist wingnuts and religious nutjobs go along with it, a ruling so shocking in its audacity that the rest of the civilized world can only gasp in amazement.
Vote.
Vote.
Vote.
Or alternatively, give up and welcome the coming One State American Taliban.
Or, alternatively, enact violence against the state.
Not that I advocate such, but I’ve never felt like I can completely judge those who think so. This is mostly because those I’ve encountered tend to be racial or sexual minorities, people who can reasonably feel like the current American capitalist system has given them nothing and taken significant amounts from them, and see no hope of change. If they don’t have that investment in the system, and have nothing to lose, it’s harder for me to say, no, they’re doing the wrong thing. It’s the same kind of forces we sometimes see on the right, except with, you know, actually justifiable historical and contemporary causes.
I’m not comfortable with it, in the consciousness that I could get caught in the crossfire, and I have my doubts it’d result in anything good, but again, I can see why there’d be people who feel they have no stake in the status quo. I’ve often thought the same thing when people bitch about the homeless using the bathroom in the streets and stuff like that.
More than that: volunteer, volunteer, volunteer. And donate, donate, donate.
To Fetterman, Warnock, Kelly, Whitmer, the Wisconsin Dems, NC Dems, the DNC, the DCCC, the SDCC, Emily’s List, and any other toss-up Senate or House or governor’s race.
A vote is great, but we need lots and lots of votes, and those don’t come without volunteer hours and dollars.
Spain and France are a Western ally, and only allows most abortions up to 14 weeks, and that is common among many EU nations. Poland basically allows only for medical reasons.
I do not think there is any other realistic option. The good news is that this may make some of the swing senate elections move blue.
[quote=“Crafter_Man, post:1185, topic:963862”]
The problem with federal laws and regulations is that you have virtually no power to change them. Don’t like a federal law? Tough - you have no choice. [/quote]
It is clear that the states did have a choice. Many of them passed laws that pretty much practically outlawed abortions.
Yes. The Dems have won the demographics war. Sure, in some states the GOP have put into place voter restrictions, but they are not insurmountable and in some cases they are shown to hurt the GOP more. So, if we don’t fall for any of the following 1. Allowing some Sanders like guy to run a Dem campaign based upon attacking Biden. 2 Fall for the two big kremlin lies = “your vote doesn’t count” or “Both parties are just as bad”. 3. Constantly bitch about how bad Biden is doing (a number of posters here do this, but also claim to be Dems.) 4. Give way to despair over how the 2022 and 2024 election might happen.
But instead VOTE DAMMIT, the dems with gain a couple senate and house seats. Not lose- gain.
That will not solve anything. It hasn’t worked since 1776.
Yes!
Jeebus Christ – the American Taliban reigns triumphant …
If you know anyone who can afford the bus fare and time off to travel across the country, Connecticut is looking attractive for abortion tourism:
Governor Lamont signed it immediately.
Bolding mine.
The implication of this law is chilling. Imagine traveling 300 miles to an out-of-state clinic only to be turned away because your home state would sue that clinic into bankruptcy if they give you an abortion.
Or worse, they extradite the doctor and charge them with murder.
It’s not quite that simple.
The Senate operates on a legislative clock, and certain Senate actions require a certain amount of time to be before the body before the next action can be taken.
Senate actions can be proposed under unanimous consent, whereby approval of a bill, resolution or proclamation simply occurs as long as no one objects. You may remember a bill about permanent daylight saving time passing the Senate via unanimous consent previously this year.
Lots of stuff passes the Senate by unanimous consent - post office naming, resolutions honoring some local notable, dubbing the third Thursday in April National Chocolate Chip Cookie day, the passing of former Senators and the like. Hundreds, maybe thousands, of these get passed every legislative session.
But once something is denied unanimous consent, it requires some legislative maneuvering - “debates” are given a minimum amount of time along with cloture votes and voting periods on the legislation itself. All of this will take time on the legislative clock, as will things like executive and judicial branch appointments. And there is a limited amount of time on that clock during the session, and if you try to extend it by doing things like holding members over scheduled holidays, you’re likely to find fewer things passing by unanimous consent, thus taking more time on the legislative clock. For example, a normally noncontroversial ambassador to, say, Mali, might have their appointment held up because a Senator is ticked off at leadership for not being able to get home for his daughter’s wedding.
So Schumer has a limited amount of time to schedule things to get through the Senate, and a lot of it has to go to various “must-pass” things like the various appropriations bills. Schumer can’t just bring up stuff to try when he knows its going to fail, as long as he needs to actually get stuff done, because the time taken on the failure bill might eat into the time that could be taken to pass another priority.
So simply saying to Schumer “you never try” is a bit unfair, given that he’s actually trying to get a larger legislative agenda passed that’s bigger than a single issue. Schumer’s not above forcing the Republican Senators into an unpopular vote or two, but he has a lot of fish to fry.
A cynic might note that McConnell has an advantage, given that he usually doesn’t care much about actually passing legislation and can clutter up the legislative calendar with various votes on wedge issues. As is usually the case, it it easier to destroy than to create.
Wow. Anyone else feel blindsided by this coordinated Republican attack on contraception?
I do remember Rick Santorum, in his 2012 presidential run, calling for contraception to be banned. But otherwise, I have never before come across this stance (or any argument for it) in the public arena. (And now Clarence Thomas is suggesting it’s the logical next step…)
What would “banning contraceptives” even look like? No more condoms? What about condoms as protection from STDs? Or would the ban only apply to contraceptives used by women-- bc pills, iuds, diaphragms, etc.? Would tube-tying be banned? Vasectomies?
The sky’s the limit!
I’m assuming something along the lines of once sperm enters the vagina, any interference is illegal. So no pill, IUD, or diaphragm. But condoms would be fine, as would vasectomies. Further, I’m imagining a ban on tube tying. The only option given to women might be a full hysterectomy.
If I were an evil rightwing nutjob that seems like the way I’d go. Men keep all their options, women lose all theirs. Allowing condoms would also dodge the disease prevention issue with condom bans.
But every time we imagine a worst case scenario, actual Republican policy says hold my beer. So probably they’d ban it all, including condoms.
Sure, but let me remind you; the weird legal loophole that was Roe v. Wade was in place since 1973 — 49 years of “not now”
If this issue is so important for them as they are now claiming— would it be unreasonable they would have tried every 10 years? Every time they had something approaching a majority?
Their protest now sounds a lot like grandstanding when they never did anything to take this power away from the SC.
The protesters at the SC are at the wrong address
Seen on Twitter:
“It’s been a pretty shitty 48 hours but “they messed with the wrong generation” is everywhere on TikTok and Instagram and I’ve never been prouder of Gen Z.”
As I understand it, the US Supreme Court makes decisions based on law, not morals. There’s argument that this decision is legally correct but that doesn’t make it less repugnant.
I hope that people in every state make freedom of choice an election issue. No matter the circumstances of getting pregnant, every woman has the right to decide whether to proceed with the pregnancy or terminate it.
As I said,
Restricting individual rights in many states could fit into a Republican strategy for permanent minority rule:
Excuse my ignorance, but don’t some women also take ‘The Pill’ for other reasons? As a drug to balance hormones or something?
Yes. Two of my daughters and several of my sisters-in-law take it to regulate their naturally irregular cycles. This is an issue because if your body skips a month, or even two, your period can be extremely heavy and painful the next time it shows up, whenever that might be. The unpredictability can also cause problems - i.e. you might not even know if you were pregnant, if you happen to be sexually active. This type of problem is not that uncommon. Birth control pills and implants are cheap, easy and effective ways to handle it.