ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


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 Amy Coney Barrett , People of Praise , Supreme Court nominees

Reply
Old 31st October 2020, 12:04 PM   #441
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,674
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
But some states have already attempted to make it illegal to carry a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion.
Attempted. Do you have a specific example in mind? I'm curious about the wording of the law and the outcome of the attempt.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2020, 12:21 PM   #442
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 12,056
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
....
And judges don't tend to care why someone nominated them. They have their own outlooks on the law and the constitution.
....

More fantasy. They may not care how they became judges, but they were nominated because of their views, which they then enforce in their decisions.
Quote:
An analysis by The Washington Post found that nearly three out of four opinions issued in federal voting-related cases by judges picked by the president were in favor of maintaining limits. That is a sharp contrast with judges nominated by President Barack Obama, whose decisions backed such limits 17 percent of the time.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...s/?arc404=true
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2020, 12:35 PM   #443
Mader Levap
Graduate Poster
 
Mader Levap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,239
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Where:

X = "criminalizing crossing state lines to get an abortion"

Nobody is saying they want and support X.

Plus, you've already been given evidence that state legislatures aren't actually interested in doing X. Not just Ziggurat's theoretical rebuttals. Actual evidence that the theory is correct.
X in this case is ban on abortion itself. "Criminalizing crossing state lines to get an abortion" can be one facet of this issue, let's define it as X1.

I am quite sure supporter of X (abortion ban) would like to do something about "crossing state lines to get an abortion".
Therefore realizing X1 would be desirable, even if it is unfeasible (at least here and now - supporter of X would want to deal with this problem in future).

Taking all of these things together, assurances from that supporter of X about impossibility of X1 comes off as insincere. At best, it would be "(unfortunately) we can't (yet) do anything about it, (you goddamn baby killers)".
__________________
Sanity is overrated. / Voting for Republicans is morally equivalent to voting for Nazis in early 30's.

Last edited by Mader Levap; 31st October 2020 at 12:37 PM.
Mader Levap is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2020, 02:39 PM   #444
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,387
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
More fantasy. They may not care how they became judges, but they were nominated because of their views, which they then enforce in their decisions.
That doesn't contradict what I said. Yes, they are picked for the views they have. But again, NONE of the justices views states as able to criminalize crossing borders to engage in activity in another state if that activity is legal in that other state. Nobody on the court has that view. That's just paranoid fantasy.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2020, 02:40 PM   #445
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,387
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Not for you, or me, or sensible people. But there are a surprisingly large number of people in this country for whom the abortion issue is so important it eclipses everything else.
Not enough to form a winning constituency on this.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2020, 02:45 PM   #446
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 58,035
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Not enough to form a winning constituency on this.
Enough to bolster the Republican Party with evangelicals for the last forty years, though. What on earth do you think those people are doing there, if not for abortion? If the Republican Party went officially and loudly pro-choice they'd lose a very large chunk of their most loyal adherents instantly.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2020, 03:00 PM   #447
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,387
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
But some states have already attempted to make it illegal to carry a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion.
Source? Because I don't believe you.

There have been multiple attempts at the federal level to make it illegal to bring minors across state lines to get abortions without parental consent. But that's quite different from what you said, both because it's the feds, not states, which can regulate crossing state lines, and because it's not a general prohibition but only a parental consent requirement.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2020, 03:01 PM   #448
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,387
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Enough to bolster the Republican Party with evangelicals for the last forty years, though.
You are confused. We aren't talking about a constituency to overturn Roe v. Wade. We're talking about a constituency to allow states to criminalize conduct engaged in outside their jurisdiction, in places where that conduct is legal. There is no constituency for that, including among evangelicals.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2020, 04:31 PM   #449
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 11,801
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Not for you, or me, or sensible people. But there are a surprisingly large number of people in this country for whom the abortion issue is so important it eclipses everything else.
I bet there are people at either end of the spectrum, though - that there are people for whom reproductive freedom is the issue that eclipses everything else.
Minoosh 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2020, 08:13 PM   #450
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 58,035
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You are confused. We aren't talking about a constituency to overturn Roe v. Wade. We're talking about a constituency to allow states to criminalize conduct engaged in outside their jurisdiction, in places where that conduct is legal. There is no constituency for that, including among evangelicals.
Are you certain of that? Some of them froth at the mouth at the concept of legal abortion. I wouldn't assume they'd draw a line at causing legal insanity just to stop it. True Belief doesn't always leave room for other priorities, like constitutionality, reason, and sense.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2020, 08:44 PM   #451
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,387
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Are you certain of that?
Yes, I am.

Quote:
Some of them froth at the mouth at the concept of legal abortion.
Not enough to make an influential political force.

Quote:
I wouldn't assume they'd draw a line at causing legal insanity just to stop it. True Belief doesn't always leave room for other priorities, like constitutionality, reason, and sense.
Look what happened in the wake of the abortion clinic bombings. There was a real pull back, a sense that that went too far. Yes, there are some fanatics. But most people, even most abortion opponents, are not fanatics.

Allowing states to criminalize conduct happening in other states is fanatical. Nobody wants that. Nobody is asking for that. There is no constituency for doing that. The only people even discussing it are people who need to dream up worst case scenarios to justify their panic.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2020, 08:50 PM   #452
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 58,035
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Allowing states to criminalize conduct happening in other states is fanatical. Nobody wants that. Nobody is asking for that. There is no constituency for doing that. The only people even discussing it are people who need to dream up worst case scenarios to justify their panic.
I agree, but not because "nobody wants that"-- what abortion opponents want is a flat federal all-compassing abortion ban, preferably written into the Constitution itself. That would override any state or inter-state nonsense about what's allowed and isn't. Why try for complicated ninja moves involving fifty separate cuts when they could just chop off the head all at once?
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2020, 09:24 PM   #453
Lurch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,610
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I agree, but not because "nobody wants that"-- what abortion opponents want is a flat federal all-compassing abortion ban, preferably written into the Constitution itself. That would override any state or inter-state nonsense about what's allowed and isn't. Why try for complicated ninja moves involving fifty separate cuts when they could just chop off the head all at once?
Which is why the SCOTUS seat filling is worth the very real potential drubbing the GOP faces this election. SCOTUS is the shibboleth, if you will. Because its voice is the last, that's awesome and awful power.

Folk like Zig will entangle and distract with arguments about things that could be too revaling to try and pull off right NOW, presenting this as indicative of some permanent unfeasibility. All while the rabid base clamors for a total solution we all can see as being in the works, with eventual realization coming ever nearer.
Lurch 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2020, 09:30 PM   #454
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,387
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I agree, but not because "nobody wants that"-- what abortion opponents want is a flat federal all-compassing abortion ban, preferably written into the Constitution itself. That would override any state or inter-state nonsense about what's allowed and isn't. Why try for complicated ninja moves involving fifty separate cuts when they could just chop off the head all at once?
Sure, a lot of abortion opponents would like a federal ban. But that’s not happening either. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, there may not be any constitutional hurdles (unlike interstate laws), but it’s still not popular enough to get something like that through Congress. And yes, public opinion on this sort of thing matters, a lot.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2020, 09:32 PM   #455
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,387
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
Which is why the SCOTUS seat filling is worth the very real potential drubbing the GOP faces this election. SCOTUS is the shibboleth, if you will. Because its voice is the last, that's awesome and awful power.

Folk like Zig will entangle and distract with arguments about things that could be too revaling to try and pull off right NOW, presenting this as indicative of some permanent unfeasibility. All while the rabid base clamors for a total solution we all can see as being in the works, with eventual realization coming ever nearer.
Politics is downstream from culture. Abortion rights aren’t losing the cultural war. They won’t lose the political war either.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2020, 09:32 PM   #456
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,898
Currently, the big issue regarding abortion and state lines is a proposal to establish a Federal law that makes it a crime to transport a minor from a state that requires parental approval for an abortion to a state that does not require approval for the purpose of obtaining an abortion. Such laws have been proposed in Congress a number of times. Such a law would likely be considered legal using the same principal that supports the Mann Act which makes it illegal to transport a girl or woman across state lines for the purpose of prostitution or "debauchery" or other "immoral purposes".

If the Supreme Court rules that State's can criminalize abortion, it would maybe be possible to pass a Federal law making it illegal to travel across state lines to get an abortion. But probably not. To my knowledge, the Mann Act has never be used to convict someone of transporting someone to somewhere like certain places in Nevada where prostitution is legal.

A State only has jurisdiction over crimes that occurred in the State or where the result of the crime occurred in the State (and some other more obscure circumstances).

However, a State could establish that a fetus is a "person" and that abortion is "murder" and pass a law making it a crime to transport a "person" for the purpose of "murder" of that "person". That would, in effect, make it a crime to travel outside the State to obtain an abortion.

I think it unlikely that such a law would pass and it is maybe questionable whether the Supreme Court would allow it, but it is certainly possible.
__________________
I don't need to fight to prove I'm right. - Baba O'Riley
DevilsAdvocate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2020, 06:23 AM   #457
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,387
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
If the Supreme Court rules that State's can criminalize abortion, it would maybe be possible to pass a Federal law making it illegal to travel across state lines to get an abortion. But probably not. To my knowledge, the Mann Act has never be used to convict someone of transporting someone to somewhere like certain places in Nevada where prostitution is legal.
That isn't equivalent, because even in Nevada, prostitution is still illegal for minors. There is no jurisdiction in the US where that isn't the case.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2020, 07:07 AM   #458
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,674
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Are you certain of that? Some of them froth at the mouth at the concept of legal abortion. I wouldn't assume they'd draw a line at causing legal insanity just to stop it. True Belief doesn't always leave room for other priorities, like constitutionality, reason, and sense.
How many states have attempted to criminalize crossing state lines for easier access to abortifacient drugs?

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-po...tion-abortion/
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2020, 07:13 AM   #459
Gulliver Foyle
Critical Thinker
 
Gulliver Foyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cork baaaiii
Posts: 360
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

Last edited by zooterkin; 10th November 2020 at 01:48 PM.
Gulliver Foyle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2020, 07:52 AM   #460
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 58,035
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
How many states have attempted to criminalize crossing state lines for easier access to abortifacient drugs?

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-po...tion-abortion/
I don't know. I didn't say they did, so ask someone who's making that argument.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2020, 08:06 AM   #461
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,594
This is all a trolling red hearing anyway.

Asking a woman to travel to another state to get an abortion is a punishment.

The contrarian trolls can start screaming about "NOW WAIT LET'S SPLIT THE HAIR ABOUT THAT BEING A PUNISHMENT" if they want, but it will just prove my point.

You shouldn't have to cross state lines to get a medical procedure.
__________________
No, someone having reality and facts on their side does not mean they have been given an unfair advantage and it is not a bias against you. You're just wrong.
JoeMorgue 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2020, 08:21 AM   #462
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,674
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I don't know. I didn't say they did, so ask someone who's making that argument.
If states were interested in doing the kind of thing that's being fantasized about, they've had plenty of opportunties to express that interest already. But it turns out there is no real interest at all in the kind of thing that's being fantasized about.

You can't think of a single state that's tried to criminalize crossing state lines to get access to abortion drugs. But somehow you think it's plausible that they might try to criminalize crossing state lines to get access to other abortion services. Why? What's your evidence?

If states are likely to take action along these lines, why don't we have any examples of states taking action along these lines?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2020, 09:10 AM   #463
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,387
Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle View Post
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
Go on, then. Tell me my life story.
__________________
"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

Last edited by zooterkin; 10th November 2020 at 01:47 PM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2020, 09:43 AM   #464
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 58,035
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
If states were interested in doing the kind of thing that's being fantasized about, they've had plenty of opportunties to express that interest already. But it turns out there is no real interest at all in the kind of thing that's being fantasized about.

You can't think of a single state that's tried to criminalize crossing state lines to get access to abortion drugs. But somehow you think it's plausible that they might try to criminalize crossing state lines to get access to other abortion services. Why? What's your evidence?

If states are likely to take action along these lines, why don't we have any examples of states taking action along these lines?
Are you confusing me with another poster? I think abortion opponents wouldn't mind if somehow they could magically create the legal nonsense of forbidding interstate abortion travel, but they can't. And they aren't going to try because they have the far more desirable (and realistic) goal of a federal abortion ban that would override whatever goes on in states.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2020, 09:51 AM   #465
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,674
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Are you confusing me with another poster? I think abortion opponents wouldn't mind if somehow they could magically create the legal nonsense of forbidding interstate abortion travel, but they can't. And they aren't going to try because they have the far more desirable (and realistic) goal of a federal abortion ban that would override whatever goes on in states.
My bad. Going back through the chain of replies, I see that you're saying that there's probably a "constituency" for it, in some sense. You're not saying it's likely to ever actually happen (though I think your reasoning for this is spurious).
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2020, 10:01 AM   #466
Lurch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,610
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
If states were interested in doing the kind of thing that's being fantasized about, they've had plenty of opportunties to express that interest already. But it turns out there is no real interest at all in the kind of thing that's being fantasized about.

You can't think of a single state that's tried to criminalize crossing state lines to get access to abortion drugs. But somehow you think it's plausible that they might try to criminalize crossing state lines to get access to other abortion services. Why? What's your evidence?

If states are likely to take action along these lines, why don't we have any examples of states taking action along these lines?
The aim is to make abortion illegal everywhere, so then the state lines won't matter.

It's about the long game, and the baby steps advanced (or attempted) to get there have this ultimate goal in mind.

Arguing about what might not be quite palatable enough to enact legally right now is to lose sight of this long game.
Lurch 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2020, 10:07 AM   #467
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,674
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
The aim is to make abortion illegal everywhere, so then the state lines won't matter.

It's about the long game, and the baby steps advanced (or attempted) to get there have this ultimate goal in mind.

Arguing about what might not be quite palatable enough to enact legally right now is to lose sight of this long game.
Tell it to The Don, who is fantasizing about states trying to criminalize crossing state lines to do things that are crimes at the origin but not at the destination. I'm debunking The Don's woo, not opining on the likelihood of a federal abortion ban (which I also consider unlikely).
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2020, 12:23 AM   #468
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 16,331
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Sure, a lot of abortion opponents would like a federal ban. But that’s not happening either. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, there may not be any constitutional hurdles (unlike interstate laws), but it’s still not popular enough to get something like that through Congress. And yes, public opinion on this sort of thing matters, a lot.
Ummm... why exactly should we believe that there would not be an attempt at a federal ban?

You don't need to win the popular vote to get control of the presidency and/or congress. And we have seen time and time again that republicans come down on the wrong side of an issue yet still regularly obtain political power. Most people thought that the vacant supreme court seat should be left until after the election, yet the republicans crammed a nominee through.

All that a future republican president/congress would do is to assume that 1) even though most people support Roe v Wade, it wouldn't be a significant enough issue for many people to change their vote, and 2) they would continue to get enough of their hardcore supporters to vote their way.

It wouldn't even have to be a complete abortion ban... they could put restrictions in place to make it harder (but not impossible)... complete ban on things like RU486, shorten the time frame they can be performed, etc. They can make it pretty much impossible to get an abortion, but still leave it technically legal.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

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

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2020, 12:34 AM   #469
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 16,331
Looks like the Girl Scouts stepped in it...

From: AOL
The Girl Scouts organization is clarifying its stance on women’s empowerment after facing controversy for a statement congratulating recently confirmed Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett on Wednesday. “Congratulations Amy Coney Barrett on becoming the 5th woman appointed to the Supreme Court since its inception in 1789,” the since-deleted tweet read... Instead of celebratory responses, however, the Girl Scouts’ message was met with replies from critics saying Barrett’s conservative views were at odds with the organization’s message of girl power...The Girl Scouts clarified that it was “not our intent” for the tweet to be viewed as a “political and partisan statement,” explaining that it is a “nonpolitical, nonpartisan organization.”...People on Twitter continued to criticize the organization for both backtracking and posting in support of the controversial figure in the first place.

Really foolish of the Girl Scouts... they should have recognized that confirming a Stepford wife would have been seen as an extremely partisan/political issue, and just remained silent. (Nobody would have faulted them for that). But now, nobody is happy with them... people who favor women's rights aren't happy because of the initial message, and the MAGAchuds aren't happy because they deleted the tweet.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

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

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2020, 05:18 AM   #470
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,387
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Ummm... why exactly should we believe that there would not be an attempt at a federal ban?
I didn’t say there wouldn’t be an attempt. I said it wouldn’t actually pass.

Quote:
You don't need to win the popular vote to get control of the presidency and/or congress.
You need to be pretty damn close to get the House. And abortion opponents aren’t near close enough.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2020, 06:49 AM   #471
Gulliver Foyle
Critical Thinker
 
Gulliver Foyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cork baaaiii
Posts: 360
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Go on, then. Tell me my life story.
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

Last edited by zooterkin; 10th November 2020 at 01:47 PM.
Gulliver Foyle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2020, 08:22 AM   #472
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,387
Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle View Post
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
.
The fact that you describe me as far right demonstrates that you don't know who I am. I doubt you're even very familiar with my postings.
__________________
"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

Last edited by zooterkin; 10th November 2020 at 01:47 PM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2020, 08:28 AM   #473
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,562
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post

Really foolish of the Girl Scouts... they should have recognized that confirming a Stepford wife would have been seen as an extremely partisan/political issue, and just remained silent. (Nobody would have faulted them for that). But now, nobody is happy with them... people who favor women's rights aren't happy because of the initial message, and the MAGAchuds aren't happy because they deleted the tweet.
Right. I don't think handmaidens are the role model the Girl Scouts should be promoting.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2020, 08:31 AM   #474
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,387
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Right. I don't think handmaidens are the role model the Girl Scouts should be promoting.
Because a woman who makes it onto the supreme court, a level of career achievement that's even more exclusive than becoming an astronaut, is just a "handmaiden" who believes women's role is to be subservient to men.

How do you survive this level of cognitive dissonance?
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2020, 08:39 AM   #475
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,562
https://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...38d_story.html

A 2010 People of Praise directory states that she held the title of “handmaid,” a leadership position for women in the community, according to a directory excerpt obtained by The Washington Post.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2020, 08:44 AM   #476
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,387
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Really foolish of the Girl Scouts... they should have recognized that confirming a Stepford wife would have been seen as an extremely partisan/political issue, and just remained silent.
**** whether or not it was seen as partisan by the crybullies. Was it partisan? No, it wasn't. That tweet hilighted all the Supreme Court women, not just Barret.

Yes, they could have avoided this kerfuffle if they kept silent. Appeasing the mob often works, for a while. But it's not a good long-term strategy. Once you pay the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane.

And it's absurd to call Barret a Stepford wife. She's a Supreme Court justice now, and she was a circuit court judge when she was nominated, which is a pretty damn prestigious position in its own right. Everyone knows who she is. Nobody knows who her husband is. How the hell does that translate into her being submissive to him?
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2020, 08:45 AM   #477
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,594
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The fact that you describe me as far right demonstrates that you don't know who I am. I doubt you're even very familiar with my postings.
*Snorts whatever I was drinking out of my nose*

I don't which possibility is worse honestly. That you think other people believe your "Oh I'm totally not on the far right, I just defend them in every discussion, am on their side in every discussion, shut down every criticism of them with pointless argumentatives, and pitch a hissy fit whenever they don't get what they want, and speak in nothing but their talking points with no mind of my own" routine or that you actually believe it yourself.
__________________
No, someone having reality and facts on their side does not mean they have been given an unfair advantage and it is not a bias against you. You're just wrong.

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 2nd November 2020 at 08:54 AM.
JoeMorgue 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2020, 08:48 AM   #478
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,387
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...38d_story.html

A 2010 People of Praise directory states that she held the title of “handmaid,” a leadership position for women in the community, according to a directory excerpt obtained by The Washington Post.
You can't have it both ways. You can't pretend you're using the "Handmaid's Tale" definition of the word to say that the Girl Scouts shouldn't promote it, but then use the People of Praise's definition of the word to say that Barret qualifies as one. They are diametrically opposed.

And why the hell shouldn't the Girl Scouts promote women who take on leadership positions? How regressive are you?
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2020, 08:49 AM   #479
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,562
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
*Snorts whatever I was drinking out of my nose*

I don't which possibility is worse honestly. That you think other people believe your "Oh I'm totally not on the far right, I just defend them in every discussion, am on their side in every discussion, shut down every criticism of them with pointless argumentatives, and pitch a hissy fit whenever they don't get what they want" routine or that you actually believe it yourself.
+1
I've heard plenty of this kind of thing on talk radio from "I'm not a Trump supporter but.." people.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2020, 08:50 AM   #480
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,387
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
*Snorts whatever I was drinking out of my nose*

I don't which possibility is worse honestly. That you think other people believe your "Oh I'm totally not on the far right, I just defend them in every discussion, am on their side in every discussion, shut down every criticism of them with pointless argumentatives, and pitch a hissy fit whenever they don't get what they want" routine or that you actually believe it yourself.
Tell me all about my far right policy preferences. Go on. How do I feel about marijuana legalization? How do I feel about gay marriage? How do I feel about abortion?

I'm sure I'm to the right of you on a lot of stuff. But far right? Yeah, no. If you need to call me far right, it's because you can't engage honestly.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

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 01:19 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.