US Politics: Roe, Roe, Roe you’re gone? (Hope not)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

@Zorral

[quote]

Gerrymandering.  It's chipping away at everything to do with women's ability to be equal members of society in every way by going right to the core of it -- forcing women to be pregnant most of their lives.[/quote]
 

As @DMC pointed out states with Democratically controlled State legialatures cannot be gerrymandered by Republicans.  

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Nice title, Scot. Personally I would've gone with Roe, Roe, Roe v Wade going down the drain. Merrily, merrily, merrily...

[sologdin]

it'll be a test of thomas frank's thesis in what's the matter with kansas? regarding how the rightwing needs abortion as a live issue to rile its voters and, cognizant of this need, will never take any conclusive action to outlaw it, lest it lose the political war by winning the only cultural battle about which most of its voters care.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

14 minutes ago, sologdin said:

it'll be a test of thomas frank's thesis in what's the matter with kansas? regarding how the rightwing needs abortion as a live issue to rile its voters and, cognizant of this need, will never take any conclusive action to outlaw it, lest it lose the political war by winning the only cultural battle about which most of its voters care.

What will they say if they can’t reverse Roe with a 6 member majority on the SCOTUS?

[HoodedCrow]

Samual Alito has only two children. He should adopt a quiverfull, too:)

[Zorral]

44 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

@Zorral

[quote]

 

Gerrymandering.  It's chipping away at everything to do with women's ability to be equal members of society in every way by going right to the core of it -- forcing women to be pregnant most of their lives.[/quote]
 

As @DMC pointed out states with Democratically controlled State legialatures cannot be gerrymandered by Republicans.  

How many states have Dem controlled state legislatures?  How quickly can that change when every candidate is primaried over and over by anti-abortion candidates, or those who just say that is their goal?  You really think that can't happen?  Well, you know, so many people have stated, over and over and over, that the SC would never reverse Roe vs. Wade, because, well, you know, settled law. feh.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

27 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What will they say if they can’t reverse Roe with a 6 member majority on the SCOTUS?

“When is it time to start using the guns?”

43 minutes ago, sologdin said:

it'll be a test of thomas frank's thesis in what's the matter with kansas? regarding how the rightwing needs abortion as a live issue to rile its voters and, cognizant of this need, will never take any conclusive action to outlaw it, lest it lose the political war by winning the only cultural battle about which most of its voters care.

I believed this in the past, but it may not be so anymore. Race, and the fear of whites becoming a minority, should work for the right for a long time to come. 

[ThinkerX]

my (unpopular) stance

The anti-abortion movement is a significant force in far-right politics. Victory - making abortion illegal across the country - leaves that faction with just two options - disband (possibly costing the far-right sort's badly needed voters) or double down - seeking criminal prosecution and prison terms for women who get abortions (then make birth control illegal). Going that route *will* alienate huge numbers of people, including a great many conservatives who tolerated the anti-abortion types only to a point. 

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Zorral said:

How many states have Dem controlled state legislatures?

They control both chambers in 18 states.  Not coincidentally, every state that has a law protecting abortion is one of those states.

9 minutes ago, Zorral said:

How quickly can that change when every candidate is primaried over and over by anti-abortion candidates, or those who just say that is their goal? 

You think Dem incumbents in these states are going to lose primaries to anti-abortion candidates?

10 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Well, you know, so many people have stated, over and over and over, that the SC would never reverse Roe vs. Wade, because, well, you know, settled law. feh.

I don't understand this.  The fear of the GOP securing a conservative majority on the SC and subsequently overturning Roe has been palpable - including Dems using such fear in campaign appeals - for at least the past 20 years.

[sologdin]

What will they say if they can’t reverse Roe with a 6 member majority on the SCOTUS?

the usual suspects will set up six mock guillotines and raid the courthouse on trump's incitement, to Stop the Appeal Steal? there'll be a push for a clean sweep of all nine seats, to guarantee the sanctity of life, the sanctity of capital punishment, the sanctity of children held in cages, the sanctity of torture. 

the minority report is that it will demobilize them, make them believe that their activism is futile.

dunno.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

They control both chambers in 18 states.  Not coincidentally, every state that has a law protecting abortion is one of those states.

You think Dem incumbents in these states are going to lose primaries to anti-abortion candidates?

I don't understand this.  The fear of the GOP securing a conservative majority on the SC and subsequently overturning Roe has been palpable - including Dems using such fear in campaign appeals - for at least the past 20 years.

Word.

[sologdin]

the SC would never reverse Roe vs. Wade, because, well, you know, settled law. 

there's a process to disregard stare decisis, plenty of law on it.

but not sure why anyone would say that roe wouldn't be overruled, considering that it was two-thirds overruled by casey already. ('reverse' would not be the preferred nomenclature, as that makes it sound as though a superior court were changing the disposition in roe as between its parties, rather than declining to apply its rule going forward.)

[Zorral]

And people have been saying they are going after it, and here we are.  I don't understand why you think this doesn't matter, I really don't.

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Zorral said:

And people have been saying they are going after it, and here we are.  I don't understand why you think this doesn't matter, I really don't.

I don't think anyone is saying it doesn't.  It's just the very likely overturning of Roe (one way or another) is sufficiently devastating without exaggerating its effects with unrealistic scenarios.

[Jaxom 1974]

I don't know if this is the right analogy...but prohibition advocates wanted prohibition so badly, they were able to get it worked into the Constitution...it didn't last 15 years...

I know it isn't the same...the pain and damage isn't comparable...but should Roe fall, one can only hope the pendulum swings back to sense even quicker...

[sologdin]

yeah, apocalypticism is not helpful. a tactical approach assesses actual risk, rather than imaginary risk. at the moment, the casey regime allows substantial burdens on the 'liberty interest' (i.e., no longer a 'fundamental right' subject to strict scrutiny) so as to nullify the exercise of the right to terminate de facto in numerous jurisdictions. six states have one clinic left, for instance; 90% of counties in the US have no abortion provider.  a flat overruling of the federal right to terminate in casey/roe kicks it back to a state legislation situation. those states that have de facto burdened the right are the ones that currently do or potentially may de jure ban it.

we shouldn't expect states that protect the right to suddenly say 'oh well i guess we should ban it now because casey is toast.' rather, the situation in those states will be unchanged and the situation in the other states will be slightly changed.  that's not to say it won't be a big deal if the right to terminate suddenly becomes a state right only--but we shouldn't exaggerate its ill effect, which requires ignoring the current regime. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Slightly changed? Dude, expect a lot of changes over the next few years if the SC backs this. 

[sologdin]

what changes do you envision in states that de facto nullify the exercise of the right now but may de jure abolish the right in the future?

[Kalbear]

47 minutes ago, sologdin said:

what changes do you envision in states that de facto nullify the exercise of the right now but may de jure abolish the right in the future?

Criminal prosecution against women who go outside of the state to get it. Criminal prosecution with heavy sentencing for anyone who knowingly has or causes an abortion. Possible sentencing for women who miscarry. Possible sentencing for women who knowingly do things detrimental to their fetus development.

And before you say how these are just panicky freakouts, these are all laws that have been proposed previously in the US in the last 25 years, with the first one obviously being the actual Texas law. These are things Trump proposed as laws occasionally. 

And when you don't care particularly about generally being popular and can count on winning with 40% minorities, the threat of things being unpopular becomes less important than the threat of it being unpopular with those who decide primaries. 

 

[A True Kaniggit]

7 minutes ago, Kalsandra said:

Criminal prosecution against women who go outside of the state to get it. Criminal prosecution with heavy sentencing for anyone who knowingly has or causes an abortion. Possible sentencing for women who miscarry. Possible sentencing for women who knowingly do things detrimental to their fetus development.

And before you say how these are just panicky freakouts, these are all laws that have been proposed previously in the US in the last 25 years, with the first one obviously being the actual Texas law. These are things Trump proposed as laws occasionally. 

And when you don't care particularly about generally being popular and can count on winning with 40% minorities, the threat of things being unpopular becomes less important than the threat of it being unpopular with those who decide primaries. 

 

Doesn’t the bolded already happen in some states? I think I saw an article about it a little while ago. 
 

Found it.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59214544