IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags abortion laws , political predictions , prediction thread , Roe v. Wade

View Poll Results: When will Roe v Wade be overturned
Before 31 December 2020 20 18.35%
Before 31 December 2022 27 24.77%
Before 31 December 2024 9 8.26%
SCOTUS will not pick a case up 16 14.68%
SCOTUS will pick it up and decline to overturn 37 33.94%
Voters: 109. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
Old 3rd May 2022, 07:08 AM   #641
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 52,548
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Nah, Obergefell, then Loving.
I think they will just go for a twofor.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 07:08 AM   #642
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 40,000
Gay Marriage will be next. Republicans still are butt hurt about losing that one.
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 07:08 AM   #643
cosmicaug
Graduate Poster
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,772
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
The draft contends that Roe v. Wade was wrong to restrict the power of state legislatures in private matters. Does that same reasoning also apply to the decisions in Griswold v. Connecticut or even Loving v. Virginia?
Those are clearly next up for attack.
A difference here is that Loving vs. Virginia predated Griswold & Lawrence vs. Texas by quite a bit & was not premised on an inferred right to privacy.
__________________
--
August Pamplona
cosmicaug is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 07:11 AM   #644
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 40,000
Originally Posted by cosmicaug View Post
A difference here is that Loving vs. Virginia predated Griswold & Lawrence vs. Texas by quite a bit & was not premised on an inferred right to privacy.
None of that matters. The Republicans want symbolic victories over the Left combined with a "We can do anything we want" message. Actual legal decisions are not really the point.

Abortion, gays, women, blacks... they'll get their turn without worry or care about precedent or greater scope.

Hell if they can find a way to make the Death Penalty mandatory watch them do it, really round out the trifecta of big issues they are on the losing side of.
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 3rd May 2022 at 07:12 AM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 07:11 AM   #645
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 52,548
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
In the case of Loving v. Virginia, it definitely does not.
Sure it does, there is no explicitly stated right in the constitution to be able to marry anyone you choose to, so the state can step in and put what restrictions it wants on it. It isn't like any cases other that Roe were cited in this decision so it works for pretty much anything.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 07:13 AM   #646
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,738
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Yeah because it's totally liberals who storm government buildings when political decisions don't go their way.
That's precisely what's being advocated here. And my point is that this would be a very, very bad development. Do you disagree?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 07:14 AM   #647
SuburbanTurkey
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Null
Posts: 15,479
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
"Liberal agenda"? We were talking about threats of violence to coerce the Supreme Court. You managed to straw man yourself. Impressive.

Either that, or you're admitting that threats of violence ARE the liberal agenda.
I was mostly referring to normal Social Contract stuff. Populations can refuse to be governed by unpopular laws if they choose, often the most effective strategies are nonviolent. Mass demonstrations and refusal to cooperate in the normal operation of society is ideally what you'd want to see in this kind of situation, though I wouldn't shed any tears for minor property damage and disorder that often accompanies such spirited protest. The populace can inflict quite severe blows without drawing a single drop of blood, if they are animated enough.

Undoubtedly this would spiral into violence, but it would be the state and/or right wing paramilitary types initiating it as usual.

The use of stochastic terrorism is something that you usually see with minority, authoritarian movements that have no hope of ever actually amassing broad popular support. You know, like your average right winger that decides to shoot up an abortion clinic.

ETA: I don't think you understand me at all if you think I'm suggesting that liberals are anywhere cool enough to even consider doing anything like direct action. If anything, their response will be to quell immediate anger and try to siphon off energy into donation/election schemes that promise a lot and deliver little.

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 3rd May 2022 at 07:23 AM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 07:14 AM   #648
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 52,548
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
On further review, I would like to revise and extend my remarks.

I could easily see it being restricted, in the sense of certain methods being banned, or limitations placed on sale. Griswold overturned a complete ban on contraception. I can't imagine any state ever passing a complete ban, but I can see states restricting their use in some ways. The obvious case is any variant of a "morning after" pill, or any method aimed at preventing implantation of a fertilized egg. I could see some states passing such laws, and I think this court would uphold those laws if the states passed them.

ETA: Ninja'd by The Don
Don't you pay attention to the officials running for election in your own state, they are targeting Griswold

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...an/6879175001/

""Each of the radical Republicans running for Michigan AG want to overturn the right for married couples to use contraception without being prosecuted," Nessel tweeted."
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 07:15 AM   #649
crescent
Illuminator
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,905
I reading some speculation regarding the mechanics of the Supremes' voting process and the motive for the leak. There is speculation that the leak might have been done as a way of "locking in" the vote (which has not yet actually occurred, there has been no actual decision made yet). The line of reasoning goes that Alito had a majority of the court tentatively line up but was worried that the more left-leaning side of the bench might still be able to craft a dissent effective enough to peel off a vote or two.

So leak the "vote", that way the cat is out of the bag and the justices might be less likely to change the "vote" (which has not yet actually been made yet anyway).

I don't buy that line of reasoning - the right to an abortion has strong public support. Intense public pressure could have the opposite effect of what the "leak to lock in the vote" logic proposes, it could result in pressure to change an SC Justice mind or two.

If that second scenario comes true (justices change their minds before any sort of formal vote), that would sow distrust, or at least be used as an excuse to claim that SC has lost integrity:

Andy McCarthy:
Quote:
If this story is true, the Court should issue its opinion right away. Otherwise the disgraceful leak wins. I would say that if my side lost. If we lose the integrity of the Courtís process, we lose the Court. That should be intolerable to all of us who live the country.

I don't buy that line of logic either. If the SC has not issued the final opinion, then the decision has not yet been legally made. There is a point where it may be too late for a justice to change his/her opinion, but that step in the process has not yet been reached.

My guess is that the leak might have been sort of semi-unintentional. This is a big thing, any naive staffer might have just found to too much to sit on and just had to tell someone.

Or a left leaning staffer leaking because they thought that public pressure could change a mind or two before its not too late. But then again, the Ginny Thomas theory also seems pretty viable.
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 07:15 AM   #650
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 40,000
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That's precisely what's being advocated here. And my point is that this would be a very, very bad development. Do you disagree?
I'm insulted that you think I'm going to fall for you pretending that's the point.
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 07:16 AM   #651
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 32,928
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Gay Marriage will be next. Republicans still are butt hurt about losing that one.
Do you think they will go for federal bans or make each of these things "states rights"?

Arguably the latter is worse given that States Rights Started The Civil WarTM
__________________
Слава Україні! **** Putin!
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 07:16 AM   #652
Meadmaker
Guest
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
Originally Posted by alfaniner View Post
I for one am glad for the leak. Rather than being blindsided by the actual ruling, it allows for discussion and protest before the fact.
I tend to agree.

Although, it is a dangerous precedent. It's mostly a good idea not to see what's going on in advance, because in some cases there might be some actual uncertainty in a justice's mind. Could one of them change his mind. I've always wondered about the inner workings of the court. At what point do they actually cast their vote on a case, and when is it set in stone? I really have no idea.

From the outside, it's clear. When they pass out the papers, it's done. Before that, it doesn't exist. I don't know if it is still "passing out the papers", or if today it is done via hitting "publish" on the web site. I remember when Webster was being decided (or maybe Casey? I think Webster) I happened to be watching live and someone literally came out of the building carrying a box and was mobbed by reporters trying to grab a copy. I don't know if that's still how they do it today.

Anyway, though, that clear line is, mostly, a good idea. However, leaking it in this case is kind of a good thing, in my opinion. The very personal nature of the case, the immediate impact, all of that makes me think it's a good idea for people to know that this is on the way.

Now, the extremely interesting situation would be if, after all is said and done, a couple of justices actually changed their mind and when the real opininon comes out, Roe is upheld. However, I think that's a purely hypothetical scenario. I think Roe certainly will be overturned. It will be interesting, to legal scholars, to compare the draft version and the final version, to see any differences. For most people, though, what they care about is the bottom line, and the bottom line will be that Roe v. Wade is in the history books.

And I think the nature of this decision is such that it's good to have some warning that it's coming.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 07:18 AM   #653
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,988
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That's precisely what's being advocated here. And my point is that this would be a very, very bad development. Do you disagree?
I'm given to understand from Madison Cawthorne's hearings (referencing Reconstruction-era rulings) that advocating for insurrection is a perfectly legal and American thing to do. Why are you so insistent that being an American is a very, very bad development?

Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Do you think they will go for federal bans or make each of these things "states rights"?
First the one and then the other. Do you think "leaving it up to the states" to ban will slow down a federal ban later? Integrity only matters when a Democrat does it.

Last edited by Beelzebuddy; 3rd May 2022 at 07:20 AM.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 07:19 AM   #654
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 40,000
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Do you think they will go for federal bans or make each of these things "states rights"?

Arguably the latter is worse given that States Rights Started The Civil WarTM
*Shrugs* Could go either way. The "We can do what we want" message is what is really important and that's going to be in the text instead of the subtext more and more as time goes on.
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 07:22 AM   #655
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 34,452
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Do you think they will go for federal bans or make each of these things "states rights"?

Arguably the latter is worse given that States Rights Started The Civil WarTM
They'd like a federal ban, but I'm not sure they'll be able to achieve it.

In my view it will be States' rights but States could choose not to recognise marriages which are not legal in their jurisdiction hoping that corporations will then do the heavy lifting for them in states where things they don't like are legal. A company based in a state where gay marriage is illegal cannot be forced to provide benefits to a same sex spouse in a state where gay marriage is legal.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 07:22 AM   #656
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not In Follansbee
Posts: 4,864
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
The 14th amendment being codified into the constitution (as a direct consequence of the failure of a "states right" approach to government leading to bloody civil war) is a fact that conservative jurists prefer to ignore or view narrowly to the point of being without meaning.
There is an interesting and compelling case to be made that in the Civil War it was the union that were the rebels rather than the confederacy. That the union victory and the 14th amendment essentially created a new government, and since then history has been mostly southern conservatives trying to undo that revolution and return to the more oligarchic, less democratic, and less centralized government intended by the "founding fathers."

It would be nice for the "pro-Union" side to recognize this as then they would stop giving any credence to what the original framers intent was and instead recognize that Abraham Lincoln and the rest of the reconstructionist Republicans and their allies are the real "founding fathers" of what is now the United States. It's interesting to contemplate an alternative timeline where this is so...
Suddenly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 07:25 AM   #657
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,738
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I was mostly referring to normal Social Contract stuff. Populations can refuse to be governed by unpopular laws if they choose, often the most effective strategies are nonviolent.
How relevant is that here? Blue states will keep abortion legal regardless of what the court says. Red states are only going to make it illegal where those laws are popular within the state.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 07:27 AM   #658
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 32,928
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post

First the one and then the other. Do you think "leaving it up to the states" to ban will slow down a federal ban later? Integrity only matters when a Democrat does it.
I don't know.

But I don't think it comes down to integrity at all, but political strategizing.

For example, "states's rights" makes sense to a party that wants to pander to the evangelicals of the south, but also the more urbane (talking relatively, here) northerners.

If they pick up votes by banning abortions and gay marriage in the south, but allowing both in, say, northern states and Florida, then surely they are more likely to do that.
__________________
Слава Україні! **** Putin!
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 07:29 AM   #659
cosmicaug
Graduate Poster
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,772
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
How relevant is that here? Blue states will keep abortion legal regardless of what the court says. Red states are only going to make it illegal where those laws are popular within the state.
He thinks the GOP is focusing on following the mandates of what the general population wants. How adorable!
__________________
--
August Pamplona
cosmicaug is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 07:32 AM   #660
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 34,452
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
I don't know.

But I don't think it comes down to integrity at all, but political strategizing.

For example, "states's rights" makes sense to a party that wants to pander to the evangelicals of the south, but also the more urbane (talking relatively, here) northerners.

If they pick up votes by banning abortions and gay marriage in the south, but allowing both in, say, northern states and Florida, then surely they are more likely to do that.
It'll be interesting to see how that plays out.

There are true believers on both sides and I don't think that the Democratic Party would be willing to adopt an anti-abortion stance in certain states even if it might gain them votes. Some in the GOP are driven by a desire to, as they see it, save the lives of innocent unborn children regardless of the political cost or benefit. Others are more cynical (or pragmatic if you prefer) to consider such matters on a state by state basis.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 07:36 AM   #661
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not In Follansbee
Posts: 4,864
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
I don't know.

But I don't think it comes down to integrity at all, but political strategizing.

For example, "states's rights" makes sense to a party that wants to pander to the evangelicals of the south, but also the more urbane (talking relatively, here) northerners.

If they pick up votes by banning abortions and gay marriage in the south, but allowing both in, say, northern states and Florida, then surely they are more likely to do that.
"States rights" has always been a neo-Confederate buzzword that only means they don't want the federal government interfering with the state's ability to be as repressive as it wants. It wasn't like the south was out there protesting the fugitive slave act or anything.

A nationwide abortion ban would be on brand. It is probably inevitable because the GOP is going to need a way to keep using abortion to rile up the base and that's the obvious way to do it.

I mean, it would be hard to find Constitutional justification for such a ban as they'd need to connect it to interstate commerce, but I doubt the conservatives will still be concerned about the commerce clause being too broad.
Suddenly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 07:38 AM   #662
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 32,559
Originally Posted by cosmicaug View Post
A difference here is that Loving vs. Virginia predated Griswold & Lawrence vs. Texas by quite a bit & was not premised on an inferred right to privacy.
Just nitpicking, but I think Griswold predates Loving.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

"There is another world, but it's in this one." (Paul Eluard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 07:40 AM   #663
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 32,928
Originally Posted by Suddenly View Post
"States rights" has always been a neo-Confederate buzzword
Oh yes, I know. That's why I joked about how it shouldn't be invoked given that it started the Civil War.
__________________
Слава Україні! **** Putin!
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 07:41 AM   #664
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 40,000
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
How relevant is that here? Blue states will keep abortion legal regardless of what the court says. Red states are only going to make it illegal where those laws are popular within the state.
The same reason just having some states have slaves and others not was still a problem.
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 07:46 AM   #665
Random
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,405
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
How relevant is that here? Blue states will keep abortion legal regardless of what the court says. Red states are only going to make it illegal where those laws are popular within the state.
...Uh, what? Have you seen the modern Republican party? Popular? What do they care about that?

With gerrymandering, disproportionate Senate representation, and our idiotic Electoral Vote/House Delegation Backup Vote system, it is entirely possible for a majority of voters nationwide to vote Democrat, and for Republicans to win a trifecta.

They will then vote for a nationwide abortion ban. Democrats will try to filibuster in the Senate, and the Republicans will respond by throwing out the filibuster. (The C-Span camera will briefly swing to Joe Manchin, and a sad trombone sound will play) And that's it for legal abortion in the US. Solid chance of it happening in 2025.

The modern Republican party is not about policy, it is about being the party in power, nothing more. Individual members are either true believers, or are willing to go along with the true believers for fear of being thrown out of the party. That's how authoritarian/fascist movements work.

It will all come crashing down on its own eventually, but it would do unimaginable damage in the meantime, so it is better to oppose them from the start.
__________________
The road to Fascism is paved with people saying, "You're overreacting!".
Random is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 07:48 AM   #666
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 40,000
Cue 30 pages of "Durrr show me where the Republicans aren't being honest, no the fact that they have never once been honest doesn't count."
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 07:54 AM   #667
crescent
Illuminator
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,905
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
....Red states are only going to make it illegal where those laws are popular within the state.
I have serious doubts about that. It's a "majority of the majority" thing - they'll pass the laws if the law has the support of the majority of the people in the majority party. Party-line discipline will ensure that.

So my guess is that Republican-led states that have not yet outlawed abortion will do so now - even if that's unpopular with the governed. The GOP has been working too long towards this goal to go any other way.

Later, there may be some backtracking, but probably only after the usual tragedies get well documented. A few women will need to die from ectopic pregnancies or in childbirth. A few conservative legislators, judges, and ministers will need to see their wives, daughters, and mistresses prosecuted for getting abortions and be prosecuted themselves for helping to obtain them.

Then they'll backtrack. But not before then. They've spent too long digging this hole to think about getting out of it regardless of what the people who elected them actually think. Too much momentum for reality to have any impact yet.

Last edited by crescent; 3rd May 2022 at 07:55 AM.
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 07:54 AM   #668
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,738
Originally Posted by Random View Post
They will then vote for a nationwide abortion ban. Democrats will try to filibuster in the Senate, and the Republicans will respond by throwing out the filibuster. (The C-Span camera will briefly swing to Joe Manchin, and a sad trombone sound will play) And that's it for legal abortion in the US. Solid chance of it happening in 2025.
Not really.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 08:08 AM   #669
cosmicaug
Graduate Poster
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,772
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
Just nitpicking, but I think Griswold predates Loving.
Oops! I must have gotten it confused with something else (probably the sex toys thing in Texas so not even a SCOTUS thing).
__________________
--
August Pamplona
cosmicaug is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 08:09 AM   #670
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 34,452
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
I have serious doubts about that. It's a "majority of the majority" thing - they'll pass the laws if the law has the support of the majority of the people in the majority party. Party-line discipline will ensure that.

So my guess is that Republican-led states that have not yet outlawed abortion will do so now - even if that's unpopular with the governed. The GOP has been working too long towards this goal to go any other way.

Later, there may be some backtracking, but probably only after the usual tragedies get well documented. A few women will need to die from ectopic pregnancies or in childbirth. A few conservative legislators, judges, and ministers will need to see their wives, daughters, and mistresses prosecuted for getting abortions and be prosecuted themselves for helping to obtain them.
I doubt it. Those with power, money influence or any combination of the three will continue to be able to secure safe abortions should the need arise.

Originally Posted by crescent View Post
Then they'll backtrack. But not before then. They've spent too long digging this hole to think about getting out of it regardless of what the people who elected them actually think. Too much momentum for reality to have any impact yet.
I doubt they'll backtrack. If anyone points out their hypocrisy then they'll simply deny that they ever secured an abortion - either there was no abortion or the woman did it without their knowledge - or distract by jangling some keys somewhere.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 08:09 AM   #671
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada, eh?
Posts: 18,761
Meanwhile, Susan Collins is urgently working on her "concerned" face, as she is totally shocked that Drunky McRapeface (whom she voted to confirm), might have actually LIED to her over abortion rights.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 08:11 AM   #672
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada, eh?
Posts: 18,761
I wonder if the "Second Amendment" people can do something about the anti-abortion judges on the supreme court.

(And by that I mean show how to rally popular opinion. Isn't that the way its done? Bring up the second amendment then claim "Oh I didn't actually suggest violence".)
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 08:14 AM   #673
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 52,548
Originally Posted by Suddenly View Post
There is an interesting and compelling case to be made that in the Civil War it was the union that were the rebels rather than the confederacy.
Except for all the stuff about actually rebelling and starting a war and so on that the south so clearly did. And they did firmly refute that idea that all men were created equal so there is that as well.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 08:15 AM   #674
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Somewhere Else
Posts: 5,505
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Yeah because it's totally liberals who storm government buildings when political decisions don't go their way.
"It's only wrong when Liberals do it."

Conservatives want one party conservative rule.
__________________

"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."
Shalamar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 08:22 AM   #675
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 40,000
Originally Posted by Shalamar View Post
"It's only wrong when Liberals do it."

Conservatives want one party conservative rule.
True as evidence by all the doctors who got murdered by angry pregnant women because they wouldn't give them an abortion which stands at... *checks notes* none.

Every Republican Accusation is a Confession.
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 08:24 AM   #676
SuburbanTurkey
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Null
Posts: 15,479
It's pretty wild that the conservatives have finally realized a multi-decade political project (against all odds) and all they can do is complain about somebody didn't follow the clubhouse rules when leaking this decision.

These ghouls will never be happy. They're snatching away the rights of millions of people and they can't help but cry about how they're the real victims because someone tattled.

No matter how bad things get and how much they get their way, it will never be enough.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 08:26 AM   #677
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 32,559
I would add that I suspect Griswold will be the first to fall after Roe, because it's based on the same issue of privacy, and because birth control is firmly in the radar of those who are agitating against abortion. Some persons such as Warp12 have the idea that they can support one thing without the other, and so they themselves can, but I think it's a pipe dream to believe the politicians in charge are not going to continue in the direction they've made clear they're heading, and history suggests that a sizeable portion of the supporters of one thing will settle for the other, rationalizing the collateral damage.

Loving and Obergefell have a different basis, so I think that although they're almost certain to be attacked too, it will be a different battle, and though I cannot think of anti-miscegenation laws as anything but utterly loathsome and worthy of absolute contempt and calumny, it would not surprise me very much if the ever-drainward spiral of Republican thought takes the party there.

Let the bible waving bloviators explain how interracial rights are an unfortunate victim of the righteous need to keep marriage safe from the godless gay brigades and their gadarene groupies will leap as one, yelling "we had to, we had to." Every right you kill and bury is labelled a new kind of freedom if you wrap it in a flag.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

"There is another world, but it's in this one." (Paul Eluard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 08:29 AM   #678
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 40,000
Again the Right has literally no use for the kind of argumentative and moral consistently the Left is (at times overly) slavish toward. It won't bother them in the least that they have a half dozen different, contradicting, vague, and shifting reasons for doing anything.
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 08:30 AM   #679
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 7,304
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post

"If the Constitution doesn't explicitly grant you a given right, you are in fact forbidden that behavior" is a frightening interpretation.
I think a more proper construct would be: “If the Constitution doesn't explicitly grant you a given right, then any individual state may choose to criminalize that behavior".

Last edited by Fast Eddie B; 3rd May 2022 at 08:34 AM.
Fast Eddie B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2022, 08:31 AM   #680
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,006
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Not really.
Stop pretending you arenít shilling for a party of authoritarian power-mad scumbags. I donít think even you believe it anymore.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:35 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.