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

[A True Kaniggit]

Silly American women with your loose liquid brains.

Why would you think you have the right to control what happens to your own body?

Us menfolk believe otherwise, and that takes precedence.
 

Why did we even let you all start voting anyway?

It’s only been 100 years since women suffrage. Let us roll that back as well. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

34 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

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.

It seems he admits this is him in that video… wow:

 

[Kalbear]

Oh hey, let's just go right past repealing gay rights and go straight to not educating all kids

 

[The Anti-Targ]

3 hours ago, george jar jar martin said:

 

 

So he's saying individual liberty>govt, right? On abortion that surely means pro individual choice, right? Govt, including state govt, should not be interfering with that choice, until such time as the constitution establishes the individual identity and corresponding rights and freedoms of the child.

[Zorral]

They float the wildest of tinfoil bs, so why should those of us who are affected by their wild claims, who tell the world to be alarmed are dismissed, and then, guess what? They DO IT.

 

[Jaxom 1974]

35 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

Oh hey, let's just go right past repealing gay rights and go straight to not educating all kids

 

Was just coming to post this. It's like they're filled with a bloodlust to see who can strip away the most the quickest...

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Was just coming to post this. It's like they're filled with a bloodlust to see who can strip away the most the quickest...

It's almost like they've been given a signal to have at it. Who coulda ever thunk it?

[mormont]

9 hours 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.

Isn't it a moot point unless someone brings them a case against Loving? Which nobody is likely to do.

Obergefell is a different matter. That's a case they might be brought. I'd expect also that there will be cases limiting the availability of contraception, in particular banning the morning after pill, which will be the new 'but the babies!' cause.

[DMC]

45 minutes ago, mormont said:

Isn't it a moot point unless someone brings them a case against Loving? Which nobody is likely to do.

Obergefell is a different matter.

Yeah it's a good reminder that for the precedents of both Loving and Obergefell to be challenged, a state would have to pass a law that violates the standards set therein - just as the Mississippi law in Dobbs directly challenges Roe and Casey.  Even in such indecent times, a state passing a miscegenation law seems pretty remote.

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

Yeah it's a good reminder that for the precedents of both Loving and Obergefell to be challenged, a state would have to pass a law that violates the standards set therein - just as the Mississippi law in Dobbs directly challenges Roe and Casey.  Even in such indecent times, a state passing a miscegenation law seems pretty remote.

I could envisage Alabama or Mississippi passing an anti-miscegenation law, and it being litigated all the way to the Supreme Court.

One thing I’ve encountered on social media are people who really will argue that slavery and Jim Crow were benign.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

8 hours ago, Kalibuster said:

Oh hey, let's just go right past repealing gay rights and go straight to not educating all kids

 

That this is seen as a smart political move is incredibly disturbing.  Will he take swings at the 19th, 15th, 14th, and 13th Amendments next?

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That this is seen as a smart political move is incredibly disturbing.  Will he take swings at the 19th, 15th, 14th, and 13th Amendments next?

I expect that there may also be swings at things like term limits - an annoying inconvenience for authoritarian power-holding and enacting long-term policies - though this will not necessarily happen at the level of the U.S. Constitution but, rather, at the state and local levels. 

[SeanF]

34 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That this is seen as a smart political move is incredibly disturbing.  Will he take swings at the 19th, 15th, 14th, and 13th Amendments next?

More disturbing is that it might in actuality be a smart political move.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

8 minutes ago, SeanF said:

More disturbing is that it might in actuality be a smart political move.

Yes.  Precisely.

[Reny of Storms End]

14 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

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

Sorry for being pessimistic, just exasperated 

[IFR]

9 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

So he's saying individual liberty>govt, right? On abortion that surely means pro individual choice, right? Govt, including state govt, should not be interfering with that choice, until such time as the constitution establishes the individual identity and corresponding rights and freedoms of the child.

I think the argument would be that when individual rights conflict, the right of the conceptus to not be murdered trumps the right of the mother to have autonomy over her body. The key component being the conceptus is considered an individual. (That is to say, the individuality of the conceptus is established upon the moment and its detection: If not legally, then morally, and in this case moral law overrides actual law  until the legal system comes to its senses and matches moral law). Furthermore, the argument would continue that the mother has personal accountability for her actions. Don't want to risk children? Don't have sex. Trigger alert: 

 

Spoiler

Rape and incest and other means of involuntary pregnancy 

being a more rare justification among women who seek an abortion - here is the grayest area for pro-lifers, and even those who think an abortion is acceptable in these cases, the argument would then be saving all of those other lives is worth the sacrifice of the involuntary pregnancies.

Naturally, pro-choice is going to state that the conceptus does not qualify as life and therefore can't be considered an individual, and pro-life will dispute that, and the argument will go back and forth eternally.

And finally pro-life will point out that overturning Roe v Wade would not make abortion illegal, it would make it an issue for the state to decide. Don't like it? Move to another state. Can't afford to move? Too bad. Pro-choice will at this point protest that this is not fair to poor women, particularly women of color, and this is an outrageous violation of individual liberty all for protecting a clump of cells, and then the argument will once again devolve into whether the conceptus can be considered a person.

[A wilding]

8 minutes ago, IFR said:

worth the sacrifice of the involuntary pregnancies

The only response to a phrase like that to describe forcing a woman to carry a child to term against her will  is - certainly when it is men using it.

And that is even assuming that those using it are willing to whisk the baby away at birth and to take full responsibility for it from then on.

And that they are willing to ensure that the father takes personal accountability and does his share - after all he didn't have to have sex either.

P.S. I imagine that a large majority of women would find that phrase vastly more triggering than the oh so kindly spoilered out word "rape". After all the possibility of rape is a daily concern for most women already.

[IFR]

18 minutes ago, A wilding said:

The only response to a phrase like that to describe forcing a woman to carry a child to term against her will  is - certainly when it is men using it.

Oh, I agree.

I enjoy browsing the conservative subreddit, and these are the comments you'll see there.

I personally would rather keep autonomy over my own body, and not have a state legislative entity decide for me.

But regardless, these seem to be the popular viewpoints among conservatives who advocate for Roe v Wade to be overturned.

Quote

P.S. I imagine that a large majority of women would find that phrase vastly more triggering than the oh so kindly spoilered out word "rape". After all the possibility of rape is a daily concern for most women already

I'm not personally triggered by anything. No idea is unspeakably offensive or sensitive to me. However, I do try to accommodate the preferences of others.

Spoiler

Rape and sexual abuse

seem to be very sensitive topics here (which is surprising to me, considering the books this fandom arises from). I strive for courteous discussions, and so I do my best to accommodate these sensitivities, because I think an environment of comfort is the best environment to hold a discussion.

[Week]

 

Wonderful. I believe that Binance also has FSB ties. So just the best people all around.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/how-crypto-giant-binance-built-ties-russian-fsb-linked-agency-2022-04-22/

[Ormond]

For a small bit of good news, there was a special election (by-election) for a vacant seat in the Michigan state House of Representatives Tuesday in a district which is basically western and northern suburban and exurban Grand Rapids. This is in the part of Michigan that is traditionally very Republican, and this particular district has been represented by Republicans for decades.

The Republican who won the primary was extremely crazy even by Trumpist standards, and the Democrat won the election. Though she only got about 51% of the vote, her opponent was so crazy there was a less crazy write-in Republican candidate who got almost 8% of the vote, and if he had not been in the race it's probable her margin would have been higher. I know that people who turn out for special elections aren't the same as those who show up in a regular election, but it's still good news that a Democrat can win a district like this one when a completely crazy Republican gets nominated.

https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/2022/05/democrat-lands-upset-victory-over-controversial-republican-for-state-houses-74th-district-in-kent-county.html