The Roe Countdown

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Delvo

And all this is with a doubly illegitimate Supreme Court. (Not only is there no excuse for the Kavenaugh thing, but the opening only still existed because of flagrant dereliction of duty by the Senate Republicans over Obama's last appointment.)

Sadly, while you might think it's illegitimate, it is the makeup of SCOTUS.

I reckon right now, the Dems' best hope of preserving any kind of future is to concentrate on winning the Senate, because even the indestructible RBG can't last until 2024.

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY

Or, they could simply stop using abortion as a method of birth control.

Chris B.

Yeah, those chicks getting raped should be on the damned pill. Serves them right, really.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by DragonLady

IF this law proves enforceable, I predict Alabama is in for a rough road over the next decades.

First, the welfare system will be inundated with single women who are pregnant -many of them teenagers who will drop out of school.

Illegal abortion attempts will proliferate -everything from the proverbial coat hangers to poisons to scalding bathwater will be employed; much of it completely unsuccessful or causing horrific injuries or both.

Then in five years or so the educational system will be inundated with new enrollees, many of them uncared for and unwanted. I realize this is already a problem, but I believe this law will only make it worse as the uptick in the birth rate is mostly going to be among those who are least equipped for it.

Once the kids are of working age and welfare stops the crime rates will start to skyrocket, as those dropouts who are unable to find work will turn to theft and selling drugs to survive.

In fifteen years or so the first round of babies will be having babies. They will continue the cycle of poverty by dropping out of school and burdening the social services just as the earlier generation before them.

Those who have always known they were unloved and unwanted will be suffering the aftermath; mental health services, the courts and the jails will be seeing a huge upsurge in the numbers of cases involving mental and emotional damage.

In other words Alabama and any acting as it is will again be thought of as a place to avoid or get out of due to it's ignorance and the kind of stupidity it was famous for before Roe v Wade and the partial halts of racist activity of the 1960's. Headed back to the same sewer now - unless the more intelligent can outweigh the ignorant by choice and stop the stupidity.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Delvo

And all this is with a doubly illegitimate Supreme Court. (Not only is there no excuse for the Kavenaugh thing, but the opening only still existed because of flagrant dereliction of duty by the Senate Republicans over Obama's last appointment.)

Technically it was not dereliction of duty, it was blatant refusal to follow proper and customary procedure to prevent a decent judge from being placed as normally would have happened. I will not be troubled at the loss of any conservative Supreme Court member to make up for that. Those have no honor.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Delvo

And all this is with a doubly illegitimate Supreme Court. (Not only is there no excuse for the Kavenaugh thing, but the opening only still existed because of flagrant dereliction of duty by the Senate Republicans over Obama's last appointment.)

And only one of the many reasons I loathe republickers.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by Baylor

Been hearing this for decades. Meanwhile Justin Trudeau is prancing around mosques in rainbow socks.

We're supposed to take you seriously when you talk of histrionics?

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

snipped*

Yeah, those chicks getting raped should be on the damned pill. Serves them right, really.

I'm glad to see you get on board with President Trump. Better late than never I suppose.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...st-life-danger

Chris B.

[Silly Green Monkey]

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY

Or, they could simply stop using abortion as a method of birth control.

Chris B.

This would be an easier goal if those who oppose abortion are also not against all forms of birth control. However, these laws are entirely aimed at women who are already pregnant, when birth control to prevent conception has already obviously failed.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by Baylor

Been hearing this for decades. Meanwhile Justin Trudeau is prancing around mosques in rainbow socks.

And he's still 10 times the leader ol' Grab Em By the Pussy Trump is not to mention 100 times the man that conservative douchebag Sheer is.

[PhantomWolf]

I don't know what you're all complaining about, the Republicans made it quite clear that abortion will stay perfectly legal in Alabama, right up to the moment that the woman learns she is pregnant!

[The Atheist]

Pretty good piece on the subject here, by a retired US Judge: https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...e-court-judges

Don't rely on precedent.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by Bob001

If you think abortion is commonly used as a "method of birth control" you are severely deluded.

Well in strict legal terms now some laws declare contraceptives to be abortofacients. This is one of the most insidious bits of civil precedent (Hobby Lobby case) worming its way into statutory law, and criminal law at that.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Well in strict legal terms now some laws declare contraceptives to be abortofacients. This is one of the most insidious bits of civil precedent (Hobby Lobby case) worming its way into statutory law, and criminal law at that.

It's all about control over female sexuality. It's no different than the days when women were considered chattels. In the past a woman's sexuality was owned by her father and brothers, who protected it until she was given to her husband. Now conservatives are still trying to keep that control, but instead of being so blatant about it, they are doing it with laws banning abortions and restricting birth control, thus making pregnancy a punishment for women that have sex outside of marriage, and in doing so pushing women towards not doing so. It's all about their control over women, pure and simple. Heck, one of the Georgia bill's writers even stated that the law would not cover zygotes in fertility labs because they weren't inside a woman!

[Baylor]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Pretty good piece on the subject here, by a retired US Judge: https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...e-court-judges

Don't rely on precedent.

That's not a good piece. That's a horrible piece. The author assumes psychic powers and says what Trump "believes." Try not to be such a sucker.

[Baylor]

Originally Posted by qayak

And he's still 10 times the leader ol' Grab Em By the Pussy Trump is not to mention 100 times the man that conservative douchebag Sheer is.

I disagree.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by Baylor

That's not a good piece. That's a horrible piece. The author assumes psychic powers and says what Trump "believes." Try not to be such a sucker.

One admittedly presumptive take on a motive (albeit one that has a mountain of evidence to support it).

That's it. That's all it takes for unrepentant regressives to make it all go away.

You could have just saved us all the bother and said "FAKE NEWS!"

ETA: It's the last sentence of the first paragraph, of course it takes an oversized bite. That's how oratory works. But the real principle on display here is any 10 words shoved together where an author words their opinions very forcefully means nothing in the entire article counts at all, the piece is a sham, the author is a fraud, and all other authors referencing the same data in the future will be equally suspect.

[JoeMorgue]

Confession. On a purely cynical, political level leaving Roe V Wade "technically" in place but gutting it as much as possible is a much better strategy for the Republicans.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Confession. On a purely cynical, political level leaving Roe V Wade "technically" in place but gutting it as much as possible is a much better strategy for the Republicans.

It worked so well with the Voting Rights Act.

Also the Affordable Care Act.

They seem to like gutting the enforcement mechanism so the law is still on the books, its just that literally no punishment can be used to make anyone conform to it.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Confession. On a purely cynical, political level leaving Roe V Wade "technically" in place but gutting it as much as possible is a much better strategy for the Republicans.

that was the strategy, but just like the MAGA crowd can tell the difference between a physical wall and a fence in some places, Evangelicals think that God can tell the difference between an overturn of Roe or just neutering it.

[cosmicaug]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Originally Posted by Baylor

That's not a good piece. That's a horrible piece. The author assumes psychic powers and says what Trump "believes." Try not to be such a sucker.

One admittedly presumptive take on a motive (albeit one that has a mountain of evidence to support it).

Enough evidence, in fact, that it would be almost perverse to believe that, as people who are not mind readers, we simply cannot know if he is taking certain positions (including going hardline on abortion) to pander to an evangelical base.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by cosmicaug

Enough evidence, in fact, that it would be almost perverse to believe that, as people who are not mind readers, we simply cannot know if he is taking certain positions (including going hardline on abortion) to pander to an evangelical base.

luckily, Trump supporters have no trouble reading the minds of Clinton, Soros and Pelosi...

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by cosmicaug

Enough evidence, in fact, that it would be almost perverse to believe that, as people who are not mind readers, we simply cannot know if he is taking certain positions (including going hardline on abortion) to pander to an evangelical base.

True it is always different when it is your mistress that gets knocked up vs your stated policy position. That is true of all of the evangelical base to start with.

[Baylor]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

One admittedly presumptive take on a motive (albeit one that has a mountain of evidence to support it).

That's it. That's all it takes for unrepentant regressives to make it all go away.

You could have just saved us all the bother and said "FAKE NEWS!"

ETA: It's the last sentence of the first paragraph, of course it takes an oversized bite. That's how oratory works. But the real principle on display here is any 10 words shoved together where an author words their opinions very forcefully means nothing in the entire article counts at all, the piece is a sham, the author is a fraud, and all other authors referencing the same data in the future will be equally suspect.

Also second of the second. Hate to join the skeptic who shouts "you didn't read it!" but that kinda proves you didn't.

You and The Atheist might believe in psychic powers, but I don't.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by Baylor

Also second of the second. Hate to join the skeptic who shouts "you didn't read it!" but that kinda proves you didn't.

My having referenced one example of the word "believes" but not another might be a flimsy bit of evidence in support of the idea that I didn't read it, but it's far from proof.

Seems like you're doing a little mind-reading of your own.

Quote:

You and The Atheist might believe in psychic powers, but I don't.

You are the only one of the three of us in this case to put forward a mind-reading theory.

Do not pin that **** on me or in any way suggest it is my premise to defend.

Keep your ******** on your side of the screen.

Anyways, good job not addressing anything of substance whatsoever.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Anyways, good job not addressing anything of substance whatsoever.

And good job you for playing along.

I find it easy to make no response to idiotic and trolling posts. Dignifying them with a typed reply is...

...dignifying them.

[Baylor]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Anyways, good job not addressing anything of substance whatsoever.

Already did. We can relitigate since you didn't follow along. Trump's two Supreme Court appointees have both said Roe v Wade is "settled." The author of that trash Guardian piece, assumes psychic powers and claims Trump "believes" Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. All comes down to whom you believe. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, or the psychic powers on an opinion piece.

[Baylor]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

And good job you for playing along.

I find it easy to make no response to idiotic and trolling posts. Dignifying them with a typed reply is...

...dignifying them.

Sure buddy. It couldn't be because you didn't expect your histrionics and lack of knowledge to get called out.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Confession. On a purely cynical, political level leaving Roe V Wade "technically" in place but gutting it as much as possible is a much better strategy for the Republicans.

They are still trying the death by a thousand cuts, the restriction of access being the most successful ones so far, the recent Alabama bill is just a rally point for the voters

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

They are still trying the death by a thousand cuts, the restriction of access being the most successful ones so far, the recent Alabama bill is just a rally point for the voters

Or, is it the way forward for Republican/christians to ban abortion without overturning Roe?

I imagine there's a clear case the states can put that their bans don't contravene Roe, because the woman still has the option of abortion, only it applies to women who don't know they're pregnant.

Might even work. Sales of pregnancy test kits will go through the roof.

[Upchurch]

Republican mega-donor demands Missouri Gov. Parson veto eight-week abortion ban

Quote:

A source close to Humphreys confirmed to The Star that if Parson does sign the abortion bill, Humphreys will bankroll an effort to repeal the new law by putting it on the ballot in 2020.

Humphreys’ threat is not hollow.

Since 2015, he and his family have poured more than $15 million into Missouri politics, supporting various Republican candidates and campaigns.

Not bad. Good to know moderate Republicans will still surface, from time to time.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Not bad. Good to know moderate Republicans will still surface, from time to time.

A drop in the ocean compared to these guys, though: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/democ...b0db9c29929cd3

[Darat]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Or, is it the way forward for Republican/christians to ban abortion without overturning Roe?



I imagine there's a clear case the states can put that their bans don't contravene Roe, because the woman still has the option of abortion, only it applies to women who don't know they're pregnant.



Might even work. Sales of pregnancy test kits will go through the roof.

Until they decide for safety reasons each pregency testing kit needs to be registered, and then returned and the result carefully recorded....

[DragonLady]

Originally Posted by Darat

Until they decide for safety reasons each pregency testing kit needs to be registered, and then returned and the result carefully recorded....

Unfortunately, I can actually picture that happening.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Republican mega-donor demands Missouri Gov. Parson veto eight-week abortion ban

Not bad. Good to know moderate Republicans will still surface, from time to time.

While its good that a notable republican donor is stepping up, the big question is: why was he a republican donor in the first place?

The republican party is known for its ties to christian evangelicalism. He should have known years ago that if the party he has financially supported for years had the opportunity, that there was a chance that a ban on abortions would be a desired outcome for many republican politicians.

Maybe he should have supported the "Leopards eating people's faces" party instead.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Baylor

Already did. We can relitigate since you didn't follow along. Trump's two Supreme Court appointees have both said Roe v Wade is "settled."

They claimed to respect precedent, but as the article pointed out, acted to overturn precedent in one of their cases.

The fact that they said "we respect precedent" and then acted to overturn a previously established precedent likely means that their claim that they "respect precedent" was a lie. You know, something they didn't really mean.

Quote:

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, or the psychic powers on an opinion piece.

Gorsuch and Kavanugh lied when they said they respected precedent. So why are you assuming they'll be honest when they talk about RvW as "settled"?

The opinion piece provided evidence. No 'psychic powers' needed.

[cosmicaug]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Originally Posted by Baylor

Already did. We can relitigate since you didn't follow along. Trump's two Supreme Court appointees have both said Roe v Wade is "settled."

They claimed to respect precedent, but as the article pointed out, acted to overturn precedent in one of their cases.

The fact that they said "we respect precedent" and then acted to overturn a previously established precedent likely means that their claim that they "respect precedent" was a lie. You know, something they didn't really mean.

That's a bit of an overstatement. No one nominated to the SCOTUS is ever going to say that they don't respect precedent. Nevertheless, SCOTUS will overturn precedents from time to time. That doesn't mean that Supreme Court nominees are all liars. It's more nuanced than that. Overturning precedent just needs to have some damn good reasons. What's unusual is overturning precedent and justifying it with 'because I said so' —which is how some are portraying the California v Hyatt decision (and if these conservative justices are fine with doing that in some obscure case about jurisdictional issues, it makes folk wonder if they wouldn't also do it for abortion).

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Originally Posted by Baylor

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, or the psychic powers on an opinion piece.

Gorsuch and Kavanugh lied when they said they respected precedent. So why are you assuming they'll be honest when they talk about RvW as "settled"?

The opinion piece provided evidence. No 'psychic powers' needed.

Kavanaugh is a serial perjurer and it certainly seems disingenuous to dismiss the entire article on the basis of calling a reasonable inference (that barely has relevance to the rest of the article) "mind reading" (though I personally think that she was wrong about the second inference: Kavanaugh was chosen on the basis of Trump's perception regarding Kavanaugh's beliefs in an expanded view of executive branch power and the antiabortion stuff was just icing on the cake —basically, Trump thinks Kavanaugh will kowtow to him).

[cosmicaug]

Originally Posted by cosmicaug

That's a bit of an overstatement. No one nominated to the SCOTUS is ever going to say that they don't respect precedent.

The corollary to that, of course, is that if you are concerned with a ruling being overturned and your candidate says they respect stare decisis, it means nothing.

[Baylor]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Gorsuch and Kavanugh lied when they said they respected precedent. So why are you assuming they'll be honest when they talk about RvW as "settled"?

The opinion piece provided evidence. No 'psychic powers' needed.

No it didn't. It provided wild speculation and fear mongering for histrionic skeptics. Christian/Conservative/Womyn hater/bad man Kavanaugh already sided with "liberal justices" in declining to hear a case that could defund Planned Parenthood.

Kind of strange there was no wild speculation about Kavanaugh, nor did anyone assume psychic powers to determine Kavanaugh's motivations. There was no poll made by our valiant womym champion OP. In fact, I don't even recall a thread on the topic.

[Baylor]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Or, is it the way forward for Republican/christians to ban abortion without overturning Roe?

I imagine there's a clear case the states can put that their bans don't contravene Roe, because the woman still has the option of abortion, only it applies to women who don't know they're pregnant.

Might even work. Sales of pregnancy test kits will go through the roof.

You just said in your OP you think Roe v. Wade will be overturned in a year. (lol) You don't even have faith in your own arguments. Add that with your histrionics, why should anyone take you seriously?

[cosmicaug]

Temporary injunction on lates Mississippi abortion law. What's the next step for this one? Appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/federal-judge-blocks-mississippi-anti-abortion-law-n1010196

[The Atheist]

Dunno where it goes next, but there's a nice bit in the article:

Quote:

Anti-abortion advocates have said that they hope the bills, which have prompted swift legal challenges, will ultimately lead to the U.S. Supreme Court overturning the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion nationwide.