Jump to content

US Politics: Roe v Wade into the quiet part of the stream


Week

Recommended Posts

Never Doubt They Do What They Say They Will Do.  They have said for 40 years They would do this.

They in TX finally had to let Ms. Herrera out of prison for murder / allegedly doing a self-abortion, because just the very charge was NOT a crime, not even in TX.  However with the overthrow of RvW she'd probably be on trial now for murder.

Heather Cox Richardson
May 4 

Quote

 


In 1985, President Ronald Reagan’s team made a conscious effort to bring evangelicals and social conservatives into the voting base of the Republican Party. The Republicans’ tax cuts and deregulation had not created the prosperity party leaders had promised, and they were keenly aware that their policies might well not survive the upcoming 1986 midterm elections. To find new voters, they turned to religious groups that had previously shunned politics.

“Traditional Republican business groups can provide the resources,” political operative Grover Norquist explained, “but these groups can provide the votes.” To keep that base riled up, the Republican Party swung behind efforts to take away women’s constitutional right to abortion, which the Supreme Court had recognized by a vote of 7–2 in its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and then reaffirmed in 1992 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Although even as recently as last week, only about 28% of Americans wanted Roe v. Wade overturned, Republicans continued to promise their base that they would see that decision destroyed. Indeed, the recognition that evangelical voters would turn out to win a Supreme Court seat might have been one of the reasons then–Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell refused to hold hearings for then-president Barack Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland. Leaving that seat empty was a tangible prize to turn those voters out behind Donald Trump, whose personal history of divorces and sexual assault was not necessarily attractive to evangelicals, in 2016.

But, politically, the Republicans could not actually do what they promised: not only is Roe v. Wade popular, but also it recognizes a constitutional right that Americans have assumed for almost 50 years. The Supreme Court has never taken away a constitutional right, and politicians rightly feared what would happen if they attacked that fundamental right.

Last night, a leaked draft of a Supreme Court decision, written by Justice Samuel Alito, revealed that the court likely intends to overturn Roe v. Wade, taking away a woman’s constitutional right to reproductive choice. In the decision, Alito declared that what Americans want doesn’t matter: “We cannot allow our decisions to be affected by any extraneous influences such as concern about the public’s reaction to our work,” he wrote. ....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, mcbigski said:

There may be a gulf between what you're told the 'heartland' thinks and what actually goes on outside of the NYT bubble.

As usual you don't know what you're spewing. I grew up there, my family is there, and have friends, many of whom are activists, who live in those parts, with all of whom I am in constant contact.  The family most definitely don't share my own views, nor do the communities in which they live, which is why I live in NYC. But they never tire of lecturing me about their views so I am very well informed. So zip it bub.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DMC said:

 

Anyway, this SC is perfectly capable of overturning Obergefell without invoking Loving.  While the majority in Obergefell cited Loving as one of the precedents, that really isn't gonna matter to the six justices that control the SC - three of which dissented in Obergefell.

Isn't Loving just the next domino after Obergefell though?  Can't imagine these folks stopping at any particular point as they slide deeper and deeper into the authoritarianism and fascism... 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Isn't Loving just the next domino after Obergefell though?

Nah.  I mean, in terms of LGBTQ+ rights there are obviously much more recent cases to turn to after (or perhaps even before) Obergefell - US v Windsor (2013), Lawrence v Texas (2003), Romer v Evans (1996).  Then in terms of reproductive rights the next domino is clearly Griswold.  It appears SC is primed to strike down racial gerrymandering too, so that would entail Shaw v Reno (1993) and Miller v Johnson (1995).  Oh, and of course there's affirmative action, so Bakke (1978) and Bollinger (2003).  Then if they wanna go after women's rights and the EPC - as well as RBG's signature case - there's US v Virginia (1996).

Point is there's a lot on their plate before they get to interracial marriage.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Realize that post was pretty damn depressing.  There is a sliver of hope when it comes to the LGBTQ+ cases.  It's pretty clear that Kavanaugh is going to be the swing vote on most of these cases (and most cases in general).  That in and of itself is hardly reason for optimism, of course.  But, Kavanaugh not only clerked for Kennedy (as did Gorsuch), but he also replaced him.  Now, it was obvious Kavanaugh was going to overturn Roe (and in the process overturn Kennedy's decision in Casey), but it's not nearly as clear what he'd do on the LGBTQ+ cases.  And even more so than preserving Roe, Kennedy's legacy WAS these cases.  He wrote the majority opinion for all four - Romer, Lawrence, Windsor, and Obergefell.

More importantly, Kavanaugh has broken with the ultra-conservative bloc (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch) on a couple recent LGBTQ+ cases - see here and here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Opinion | With Roe Gone, the War Over Abortion Will Go Nuclear
It’s not clear who will gain from the political fallout, and abortion may not stay a “state’s rights” issue for very long.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/04/roe-wade-abortion-war-states-rights-nuclear-00030037

Quote

 

In a prescient story, published just hours before the Alito draft opinion was disclosed, the Washington Post reported that national anti-abortion groups are planning “a push for a strict nationwide ban on the procedure if Republicans retake power in Washington. … The discussions reflect what activists describe as an emerging consensus in some corners of the antiabortion movement to push for hard-line measures that will truly end a practice they see as murder while rejecting any proposals seen as half-measures.”

The increasingly draconian measures enacted or simmering at the state level — outright bans, attempts to ban pregnant people from traveling out of state for abortions, attacks on the “morning-after” pill — reflect a militancy, or extremism, that is about to become a force across the Republican field. The same polarization that has effectively weeded out pro-abortion rights Republicans and anti-abortion Democrats in Washington means that GOP candidates will be positioning themselves harder and harder to win the support of social conservatives, for whom “leave it to the states” will be weak tea.

The argument here is not that abortion will sweep Republicans into power in Congress this fall; it’s that the historical drag on Democrats, Biden’s weak approval ratings and the possibility of energized voters on both side of the abortion issue will produce a GOP Congress in November, whose members will be disposed — out of conviction or political pressure — to vote for a national ban.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Nah.  I mean, in terms of LGBTQ+ rights there are obviously much more recent cases to turn to after (or perhaps even before) Obergefell - US v Windsor (2013), Lawrence v Texas (2003), Romer v Evans (1996).  Then in terms of reproductive rights the next domino is clearly Griswold.  It appears SC is primed to strike down racial gerrymandering too, so that would entail Shaw v Reno (1993) and Miller v Johnson (1995).  Oh, and of course there's affirmative action, so Bakke (1978) and Bollinger (2003).  Then if they wanna go after women's rights and the EPC - as well as RBG's signature case - there's US v Virginia (1996).

Point is there's a lot on their plate before they get to interracial marriage.  

And prompting hells own backlash less than a quarter of the way through such an agenda, possibly to the point where they render themselves irrelevant.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Isn't Loving just the next domino after Obergefell though?  Can't imagine these folks stopping at any particular point as they slide deeper and deeper into the authoritarianism and fascism... 

 

There are not 5 votes on this SC for overturning Loving.  I don't think there would even be 1.  This is very, very obvious if you think about it for about 30 seconds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

There are not 5 votes on this SC for overturning Loving.  I don't think there would even be 1.  This is very, very obvious if you think about it for about 30 seconds.

They'd literally just come up with a new rule that excuses only them for reasons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Reny of Storms End said:

They'd literally just come up with a new rule that excuses only them for reasons. 

No, they wouldn't.  That doesn't mean that another SC couldn't come to a different decision.  But this one won't.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

There are not 5 votes on this SC for overturning Loving.  I don't think there would even be 1.  This is very, very obvious if you think about it for about 30 seconds.

There are a lot of things that we all thought were obvious that aren't so obvious anymore...

Inmates are running the asylum now.  

 

10 minutes ago, HoodedCrow said:

Ginni Thomas wouldn’t like overturning Loving. 

You know, I don't know about that anymore.  She's over the edge so far, I'm not certain she wouldn't sacrifice 'ole Clarence if it furthered the agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like this court, in the name of constitutional purity, might be willing to overturn any past decision that limited the right of states to make discriminatory laws. After all, overturning Roe v Wade does not suddenly make abortion illegal, it makes states free to pass, more or less, any abortion laws they want. So, overturning a SC decision about interracial marriage does not suddenly ban interracial marriage, it just allows states to make ethnic/cultural marriage laws. It seems though it would be necessary for a federal statute on marriage to ensure that regardless of what an individual state might pass into law there would need to be inter-state recognition of marriages that were legally constituted in the state where they took place. If you can be married same-sex / interracially married in one state then you shouldn't suddenly become unmarried merely by hopping across to a neighbouring state where a same-sex / interracial marriage ban is in effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This wired piece discusses some of the many challenges that tech companies will face with this decision, including a number of the risks that I mentioned a couple of days ago

https://www.wired.com/story/tech-companies-not-ready-post-roe-era/

Quote

There may also be a reckoning for fertility- and menstruation-tracking apps that often sell user data. These apps could be a gold mine for states looking to target pregnant people with surveillance or even institute requirements for pregnancy registration. This idea is not far-fetched; it was proposed in Poland after a similar backsliding of abortion rights led by its conservative judiciary.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, george jar jar martin said:

well this one specific video is becoming quite popular lol

I really like how in the video he says it's absurd to say he'd cut social programs by a third, but then tots his supporting of ending the federal income tax. The level of stupidity is off the charts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, karaddin said:

This wired piece discusses some of the many challenges that tech companies will face with this decision, including a number of the risks that I mentioned a couple of days ago

https://www.wired.com/story/tech-companies-not-ready-post-roe-era/

 

These people saw The Handmaid's Tale and were inspired by Gilead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...