This looks pretty significant, overturning Roe and Casey:
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473 (https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473)
There is a quote inside the link to the whole 98 pages. Have a look at some of it. Otherwise, the Politico article seems pretty informative to me.
My personal opinion is that women should have complete abortion rights, through "quickening", about four months. My political opinion is that 'twoud be good to get this question decided by States. People differ. The noise would be damped.
There would surely be many States to legalize abortion in some form should the draft become adopted.
The actual right to abortion would be guaranteed by cheap interstate travel. Used to be by plane for the rich; now that prices have come down one wouldn't have to be rich.
The legal issues and the creation of a right to privacy are intellectually interesting. But it is obvious that the Supreme Court is a political entity and this was a long time coming.
The effect on women will be bad in some cases. Some women can hardly afford to get an abortion now, and they can't get time off work to travel. The abortion pill is around $500 and other procedures can be much more.
More than half of abortions are now done by medication. So the issue of ordering abortion medication from out of state and getting it delivered is going to become a major one. States are already making that illegal. But that may not prevent it.
Politically, it may be good for the Dems, just in time for the midterms.
Quote from: downer on May 03, 2022, 03:36:18 AM
More than half of abortions are now done by medication. So the issue of ordering abortion medication from out of state and getting it delivered is going to become a major one. States are already making that illegal. But that may not prevent it.
Yes, the online pharmacy rather than the coathanger. Much easier for activists too, to drop off/send small packages than transport women to clinics.
Quote
Politically, it may be good for the Dems, just in time for the midterms.
Depends on how they play it. Might go well for some state governors (I see Newsom already making hay).
Quote from: bacardiandlime on May 03, 2022, 03:55:31 AM
Quote from: downer on May 03, 2022, 03:36:18 AM
More than half of abortions are now done by medication. So the issue of ordering abortion medication from out of state and getting it delivered is going to become a major one. States are already making that illegal. But that may not prevent it.
Yes, the online pharmacy rather than the coathanger. Much easier for activists too, to drop off/send small packages than transport women to clinics.
Quote
Many states are also banning mail meds.
Politically, it may be good for the Dems, just in time for the midterms.
Depends on how they play it. Might go well for some state governors (I see Newsom already making hay).
There's no question that predicating the right to abortion on the right to privacy was always dubious, but the reasoning hefe is transparent and self-serving bullshit. It also lays the groundwork for overturning Griswold and Obergfellas soon as the opportunity arises.
At this point, it's really starting to look like a shithole country, to coin a phrase.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on May 03, 2022, 06:18:56 AM
There's no question that predicating the right to abortion on the right to privacy was always dubious, but the reasoning hefe is transparent and self-serving bullshit. It also lays the groundwork for overturning Griswold and Obergfellas soon as the opportunity arises.
At this point, it's really starting to look like a shithole country, to coin a phrase.
The wider question of whether the US is a shithole country probably takes discussion too far afield. But red states have already make abortion difficult. Several states already have just one abortion clinic. There are many barriers to abortion in place.
Some abortions will probably still remain legal in the anti-abortion states, when the health or life of the pregnant woman is seriously in danger.
It is also possible that some people will be more careful about contraception if they know that abortion is illegal in their state.
So I don't anticipate major changes in the birth rate or the number of women who want abortions but can't them.
I don't dare open this thread again.
M.
Quote from: mamselle on May 03, 2022, 08:39:55 AM
I don't dare open this thread again.
M.
Even after the most "problematic" poster has been suspended?
I don't believe the broader GOP wants to run on forced birth, but I still woke up this morning feeling so very sick and scared.
Many women may say one thing in front of white kkkristian* nationalist patriarchy, but in the privacy of the voting booth... could look different.
If the dems are smart (and they aren't) they'll wedge issue the hell out of this. Of course they haven't effectively wedge issued taking away the expanded child tax credit that lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty and helped out middle class families substantially. If you can't rile people up over that, I probably shouldn't hold out hope for forced birth motivating a recognition that everyone's rights matter, and those rights include reproductive health and voting rights - not just gun ownership and the right to force your religious beliefs on other people.
*I should clarify that I find the teaching of Christ to be a valuable religious framework. The warping of the beliefs I grew up with that have emerged as a powerful anti-democratic force are as far removed from Christianity as real crab is from fake krab. So no offense intended to those who embrace christian values and make every effort to love their neighbor and do for the least of these.
I recall that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was critical of Roe, not the substance of the outcome, of course, but that the decision as made had stopped a political process that was underway already.
Here is her reasoning, expressed in her Madison Lecture of 1992: http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_059254.pdf (http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_059254.pdf)
The relevant material starts at roman numeral II on page 1198 and goes on to the end.
My body, my choice?
I'm all in, but rings a bit hollow when we have seatbelt laws, motorcycle helmet mandates, prohibition on certain drugs, prostitution ban in most places, and an inability to sell your kidney. Ladies, if you're on board with all those things I'm on your side. If you aren't, I still agree with choice but won't be joining you in the picket line. Have fun with authoritarianism aimed in your direction!
Is this something that will drive people to the polls and vote to change the federal legislature? (only 1/3 of the senate will be up, and would those up for re election be overturned as a result of this issue?)
I suspect that legislators in many of the states that have pushed the limits already (Tx, OK, MS) wont have any problems being re elected. The TV news reports that the majority of Americans support Roe V Wade (legal abortion). However, I dont know that the 'majority' is so large that it will make a huge change, and the places where the majority reside wont change their support.
I mean, 'the majority of Americans Voted for Clinton' , but the Republic is not represented by 'majority rule'. I could certainly be wrong, as this is not my field, but I would not be surprised to learn that in places where there is a majority view (one way or the other) the legislators already represent those ideas, so there wont be any changes in the end. (Having a super majority one way or the other in California wont change the votes for those that already represent California! /or TX or MS... so I dont see this issue having legs for the midterms, but I could be wrong. )
Quote from: financeguy on May 04, 2022, 03:15:46 PM
My body, my choice?
I'm all in, but rings a bit hollow when we have seatbelt laws, motorcycle helmet mandates, prohibition on certain drugs, prostitution ban in most places, and an inability to sell your kidney. Ladies, if you're on board with all those things I'm on your side. If you aren't, I still agree with choice but won't be joining you in the picket line. Have fun with authoritarianism aimed in your direction!
That is an incredibly ugly, patronizing, condescending thing to say. I am incensed that you say
Have fun with authoritarianism aimed in your direction! How dare you make light of a legal decision that undermines much of what women and minorities have gained over the past 50 years.
Quote from: nebo113 on May 05, 2022, 06:05:46 AM
Quote from: financeguy on May 04, 2022, 03:15:46 PM
My body, my choice?
I'm all in, but rings a bit hollow when we have seatbelt laws, motorcycle helmet mandates, prohibition on certain drugs, prostitution ban in most places, and an inability to sell your kidney. Ladies, if you're on board with all those things I'm on your side. If you aren't, I still agree with choice but won't be joining you in the picket line. Have fun with authoritarianism aimed in your direction!
That is an incredibly ugly, patronizing, condescending thing to say. I am incensed that you say Have fun with authoritarianism aimed in your direction! How dare you make light of a legal decision that undermines much of what women and minorities have gained over the past 50 years.
I'd just like to point out that there are women, including minority women, who are pro-life. Whether human rights should begin
at birth is a legitimate question for discussion.
Quote from: financeguy on May 04, 2022, 03:15:46 PM
My body, my choice?
I'm all in, but rings a bit hollow when we have seatbelt laws, motorcycle helmet mandates, prohibition on certain drugs, prostitution ban in most places, and an inability to sell your kidney. Ladies, if you're on board with all those things I'm on your side. If you aren't, I still agree with choice but won't be joining you in the picket line. Have fun with authoritarianism aimed in your direction!
Those laws are designed to protect the health and safety of a person and the people around them.
The right to choose whether or not to be pregnant and/or give birth is also about protecting the health and safety of the person who needs to decide about the impact a clump of cells will have on their lives.
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 05, 2022, 06:14:36 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on May 05, 2022, 06:05:46 AM
Quote from: financeguy on May 04, 2022, 03:15:46 PM
My body, my choice?
I'm all in, but rings a bit hollow when we have seatbelt laws, motorcycle helmet mandates, prohibition on certain drugs, prostitution ban in most places, and an inability to sell your kidney. Ladies, if you're on board with all those things I'm on your side. If you aren't, I still agree with choice but won't be joining you in the picket line. Have fun with authoritarianism aimed in your direction!
That is an incredibly ugly, patronizing, condescending thing to say. I am incensed that you say Have fun with authoritarianism aimed in your direction! How dare you make light of a legal decision that undermines much of what women and minorities have gained over the past 50 years.
I'd just like to point out that there are women, including minority women, who are pro-life. Whether human rights should begin at birth is a legitimate question for discussion.
Hawkeye to Charles on M*A*S*H: "Charles, you don't have to state the incredibly obvious. The extremely obvious will do."
Quote from: ciao_yall on May 05, 2022, 07:06:04 AM
Quote from: financeguy on May 04, 2022, 03:15:46 PM
My body, my choice?
I'm all in, but rings a bit hollow when we have seatbelt laws, motorcycle helmet mandates, prohibition on certain drugs, prostitution ban in most places, and an inability to sell your kidney. Ladies, if you're on board with all those things I'm on your side. If you aren't, I still agree with choice but won't be joining you in the picket line. Have fun with authoritarianism aimed in your direction!
Those laws are designed to protect the health and safety of a person and the people around them.
The right to choose whether or not to be pregnant and/or give birth is also about protecting the health and safety of the person who needs to decide about the impact a clump of cells will have on their lives.
So if a woman gets pregnant and wants to have a child, and her male partner doesn't, and decides to clandestinely feed her a date rape drug so she aborts, is he just guilty of being a jackass, like he would be if he fed her brownies laced with ex-lax since both will probably only make a few days discomfort? (I'm sure it would be easy to come up with something that could remove as many cells without causing any long term damage. Should any "clump of cells" have the same legal significance?)
Quote from: financeguy on May 04, 2022, 03:15:46 PM
My body, my choice?
I'm all in, but rings a bit hollow when we have seatbelt laws, motorcycle helmet mandates, prohibition on certain drugs, prostitution ban in most places, and an inability to sell your kidney. Ladies, if you're on board with all those things I'm on your side. If you aren't, I still agree with choice but won't be joining you in the picket line. Have fun with authoritarianism aimed in your direction!
Let's not attach any legitimacy to the logical fallacy of conflating practices that are equally applied to everyone with practices that impinge on the rights of half the populace only.
Let's also not fall into the trap of calling this bs "pro-life". It's pro-birth. Most of the folks who are out there fighting to take away my rights would have no interest in providing any kind of meaningful social safety net to support the forced-birth children. Let's also not forget that many abortions are medically necessary to either protect the life of a parent or prevent incredible pain and suffering of a very much wanted child.
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 05, 2022, 06:14:36 AM
I'd just like to point out that there are women, including minority women, who are pro-life. Whether human rights should begin at birth is a legitimate question for discussion.
Yes, women are not monolithic. But 70% of Americans support the right to choose in one form or another, and 81% of American women support it, according to Gallup. So...
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 05, 2022, 07:38:28 AM
So if a woman gets pregnant and wants to have a child, and her male partner doesn't, and decides to clandestinely feed her a date rape drug so she aborts, is he just guilty of being a jackass, like he would be if he fed her brownies laced with ex-lax since both will probably only make a few days discomfort? (I'm sure it would be easy to come up with something that could remove as many cells without causing any long term damage. Should any "clump of cells" have the same legal significance?)
Drugging people against their will is illegal, and rightly so. Last February, a bride was arrested in Florida for clandestinely lacing her wedding dinner with cannabis. And rightly so. These scenarios look entirely the same to me; the clump of cells in question doesn't enter into it.
QuoteYes, women are not monolithic. But 70% of Americans support the right to choose in one form or another, and 81% of American women support it, according to Gallup. So...
And they all live in different places and will be able to vote accordingly, something they are not allowed to do now. People differ.
Here is a shorter defense of the draft on constitutional grounds, from the Atlantic, no less.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/alito-roe-opinion-abortion-states-rights-constitution/629755/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/alito-roe-opinion-abortion-states-rights-constitution/629755/)
It isn't plausible that there's a strict distinction between interpreting what the law is and deciding what the law should be. Maybe there are some clear cases, but most of legal interpretation is in the penumbra of disputed cases. Judges are making law, not just interpreting it, and are very often guided by their own moral and political inclinations. It happens on both sides. It couldn't be otherwise. Literalism and originalism about law are just naive positions.
The patriarchal fascist right have plotted carefully and have won this round. I see lots of people saying how shocked they are. I don't know why. It was very clear this was the plan.
Quote from: downer on May 05, 2022, 09:42:57 AM
It isn't plausible that there's a strict distinction between interpreting what the law is and deciding what the law should be. Maybe there are some clear cases, but most of legal interpretation is in the penumbra of disputed cases. Judges are making law, not just interpreting it, and are very often guided by their own moral and political inclinations. It happens on both sides. It couldn't be otherwise. Literalism and originalism about law are just naive positions.
The patriarchal fascist right have plotted carefully and have won this round. I see lots of people saying how shocked they are. I don't know why. It was very clear this was the plan.
Then the patriarchal fascist right look to me like a bunch of weak reeds: They have
not prohibited abortion. They said people could vote on it.
It will be State by State and the people inside States are more homogeneous than the population at large.
Here's how the cookie is predicted to crumble: https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/map-23-states-ban-abortion-post-roe-america-rcna27081 (https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/map-23-states-ban-abortion-post-roe-america-rcna27081) [three of those 23 entities are possessions, not States.]
And, free movement of people will mean that it becomes slightly more expensive for some to obtain an abortion, nothing more.
I read an op ed the other day with a title that resonated - "Let's stop calling it the culture wars. This is religious tyranny". Spot on.
Quote from: dismalist on May 05, 2022, 09:01:41 AM
QuoteYes, women are not monolithic. But 70% of Americans support the right to choose in one form or another, and 81% of American women support it, according to Gallup. So...
And they all live in different places and will be able to vote accordingly, something they are not allowed to do now. People differ.
The whole point of having the trigger bills in place, along with hefty gerrymandering, is to ensure that they
can't vote on it.
Quote
Here is a shorter defense of the draft on constitutional grounds, from the Atlantic, no less.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/alito-roe-opinion-abortion-states-rights-constitution/629755/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/alito-roe-opinion-abortion-states-rights-constitution/629755/)
I don't know about "no less"--it's a pretty awful publication IMO, given to clickbait and the Slate school of hot takes rather than substance.
This defense is more of the same. I don't have the time to go through it and refute it point by point for you, so I'll content myself with observing that the defense, like the opinion, makes absolutely no effort to address the nature of the common law and the role of stare decisis, and it perpetuates the fiction that Roe is substantively different from Obergefell, Loving, Griswold etc. Those decisions all rest--transparently so--on the right to privacy, which is precisely what's being denied in Dobbs. They have nothing to do with questions of consent--indeed, to frame Roe as a question about a foetus' consent is to beg the question. The pretence that the Court is taking no substantive position on whether abortion should be legal is transparent bullshit. In fact, this "defense" is basically indistinguishable from the opinion itself. I see no analysis here, just regurgitation.
There's no question that the right to privacy is an ill-fitting justification for Roe and the other cases. That doesn't make the opinion worth the paper it isn't printed on.
Incidentally, those five justices perjured themselves in their confirmation hearings.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on May 05, 2022, 09:57:22 AM
Quote from: dismalist on May 05, 2022, 09:01:41 AM
QuoteYes, women are not monolithic. But 70% of Americans support the right to choose in one form or another, and 81% of American women support it, according to Gallup. So...
And they all live in different places and will be able to vote accordingly, something they are not allowed to do now. People differ.
The whole point of having the trigger bills in place, along with hefty gerrymandering, is to ensure that they can't vote on it.
Quote
Here is a shorter defense of the draft on constitutional grounds, from the Atlantic, no less.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/alito-roe-opinion-abortion-states-rights-constitution/629755/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/alito-roe-opinion-abortion-states-rights-constitution/629755/)
I don't know about "no less"--it's a pretty awful publication IMO, given to clickbait and the Slate school of hot takes rather than substance.
This defense is more of the same. I don't have the time to go through it and refute it point by point for you, so I'll content myself with observing that the defense, like the opinion, makes absolutely no effort to address the nature of the common law and the role of stare decisis, and it perpetuates the fiction that Roe is substantively different from Obergefell, Loving, Griswold etc. Those decisions all rest--transparently so--on the right to privacy, which is precisely what's being denied in Dobbs. They have nothing to do with questions of consent--indeed, to frame Roe as a question about a foetus' consent is to beg the question. The pretence that the Court is taking no substantive position on whether abortion should be legal is transparent bullshit. In fact, this "defense" is basically indistinguishable from the opinion itself. I see no analysis here, just regurgitation.
There's no question that the right to privacy is an ill-fitting justification for Roe and the other cases. That doesn't make the opinion worth the paper it isn't printed on.
Incidentally, those five justices perjured themselves in their confirmation hearings.
The trigger bills have been passed by the State legislatures. They were voted on.
I read the opinion differently.
No perjury, according to an article in the Guardian, no less. [Can't re- find it.]
Roe is well-nigh universally looked upon as bad court decision making. [Casey riles me even more.] It's the
outcome that many people like. For almost everybody, the outcome will not be different if Roe goes.
Quote from: dismalist on May 05, 2022, 09:54:51 AM
Quote from: downer on May 05, 2022, 09:42:57 AM
It isn't plausible that there's a strict distinction between interpreting what the law is and deciding what the law should be. Maybe there are some clear cases, but most of legal interpretation is in the penumbra of disputed cases. Judges are making law, not just interpreting it, and are very often guided by their own moral and political inclinations. It happens on both sides. It couldn't be otherwise. Literalism and originalism about law are just naive positions.
The patriarchal fascist right have plotted carefully and have won this round. I see lots of people saying how shocked they are. I don't know why. It was very clear this was the plan.
Then the patriarchal fascist right look to me like a bunch of weak reeds: They have not prohibited abortion. They said people could vote on it.
It will be State by State and the people inside States are more homogeneous than the population at large.
Here's how the cookie is predicted to crumble: https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/map-23-states-ban-abortion-post-roe-america-rcna27081 (https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/map-23-states-ban-abortion-post-roe-america-rcna27081) [three of those 23 entities are possessions, not States.]
And, free movement of people will mean that it becomes slightly more expensive for some to obtain an abortion, nothing more.
As I said upthread, I agree that the actual consequences from the decision will be less dramatic than people are saying. Women in the 23 states are going to find all sorts of ways around the law. They always have. There's plenty of advice online about how to get abortion pills.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/884m9x/how-to-do-your-own-abortion-with-pills
I'm sure the right would implement a federal ban on abortion if they could find a way. And maybe they will. And they might declare the US to be a Christian country. Democracy in the US is minimal and fragile as it is, and the political world is likely to become increasingly chaotic and unstable.
Quote from: dismalist on May 05, 2022, 10:14:49 AM
The trigger bills have been passed by the State legislatures. They were voted on.
They were voted on by gerrymandered state legislatures, not by the general populace. Moreover, electing those legislators was not a referendum on the issue.
Quote
For almost everybody, the outcome will not be different if Roe goes.
...how do you figure? Texas has already been charging women with homicide.
QuoteI'm sure the right would implement a federal ban on abortion if they could find a way.
Better keep the filibuster! :-)
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on May 05, 2022, 10:25:20 AM
Quote from: dismalist on May 05, 2022, 10:14:49 AM
The trigger bills have been passed by the State legislatures. They were voted on.
They were voted on by gerrymandered state legislatures, not by the general populace. Moreover, electing those legislators was not a referendum on the issue.
Quote
For almost everybody, the outcome will not be different if Roe goes.
...how do you figure? Texas has already been charging women with homicide.
Looks like charges were dropped. It is not a crime to
have an abortion in Texas. But the people of Texas can decide, not you or me, seeing we don't live there.
Gerrymandered? Are you against the dictatorship of Parliament? Not the general populace, not a referendum ... .
Correct. That's how the enterprise was intended. No tyranny of the majority.
Where you see problems, I see solutions. Where you see solutions, I see problems. You and I are different. We can't both be right, but we can both be wrong.
Quote from: Istiblennius on May 05, 2022, 09:56:42 AM
I read an op ed the other day with a title that resonated - "Let's stop calling it the culture wars. This is religious tyranny". Spot on.
Ah, so all of the opposition comes from a single religious group which controls a majority of the country. Who, exactly, would that be? (As far as I know, Christian denominations support a broad range of opinions on this, so any denomination would at most have a hold on a minority of voters,
even if all of the people in the denomination voted the way they were "told".)
Oh you and your logical fallacies.
You seem to be imagining how people might freely vote in a representative republic when considering the question of what religious means in this context.
Ignoring how a small group of radicals from several religious denominations, but mostly one, have come together to undermine our representative republic doesn't serve anyone well, including those radicals who are driving away former and potential followers.
Quote from: Istiblennius on May 05, 2022, 10:57:39 AM
Oh you and your logical fallacies.
You seem to be imagining how people might freely vote in a representative republic when considering the question of what religious means in this context.
Ignoring how a small group of radicals from several religious denominations, but mostly one, have come together to undermine our representative republic doesn't serve anyone well, including those radicals who are driving away former and potential followers.
The same argument could be made about how a small but highly vocal group of activists on the left have driven legislation which doesn't reflect the majority of voters, (such as biological males being placed in women's prisons just by self-identification as female.)
No religion required.
Right on. Let's move on to the what about-ism logical fallacy.
Putting a woman in women's prison does not create harm (aside from the usual harms associated with incarceration). Forced birth does.
The only parallel here is Women's rights are human rights and LGBTQA rights are human rights.
Quote from: dismalist on May 05, 2022, 10:14:49 AM
For almost everybody, the outcome will not be different if Roe goes.
First, this issue matters most to pregnant women. Given that group, anyone who has less money in the roughly half of states this could impact will be significantly impacted. I think the above is an overstatement.
If you want an informed analysis of the decision and it consequences by an actual expert rather than The Atlantic's bare recapitulation, here's one (https://verdict.justia.com/2022/05/03/overruling-roe-is-just-the-beginning).
It is also the case that states' specific laws can have a big impact. Current legislation in Missouri is much like the Virginia laws against interracial marriage that were struck down in Loving. Specifically, it would be a crime to go to Illinois, have an abortion, and return to Missouri.
QuoteSpecifically, it would be a crime to go to Illinois, have an abortion, and return to Missouri.
Don't know that that's true yet, but if it were, let Missouri try to enforce it. There will be no new Fugitive Slave Act [and even if there were...].
Whenever in doubt, support the Senate filibuster.
Quote from: Istiblennius on May 05, 2022, 12:09:40 PM
Right on. Let's move on to the what about-ism logical fallacy.
Putting a woman in women's prison does not create harm (aside from the usual harms associated with incarceration).
Except for the female inmates who were raped by the other "woman". That probably counts as harm.
You are levelling up by mixing multiple fallacies on this one - strawman and red herring all together all wound up in one grossly offensive little package.
Trans people are far more likely to be victims of sexual assault and other assaults than perpetrators. Cis people (including cis women) can also sexually assault other cis people (including cis women) in prison or any other environment.
Your assaults on the dignity and humanity of trans people are not okay. Please stop.
Assuming that the draft opinion becomes the official opinion, overturning RvW will primarily affect poor women in red states who can't afford to go to a blue one for an abortion. Since these women can't even afford an abortion, they will mostly struggle to afford the child. The likelihood is a difficult life for the mother, the father (if in the picture, as the modal abortion patient is single), the child, and her/their other child/children. So, while I can understand where anti-abortion folks are coming from, limiting the availability of abortions will make individuals and (probably) society more generally worse off.
Also, and I'm sure this has been said elsewhere in the thread, if Republicans care so much about families and babies, they should be supporting the social programs that will ensure health and well being for them after leaving the womb.
Quote from: dismalist on May 05, 2022, 12:41:46 PM
QuoteSpecifically, it would be a crime to go to Illinois, have an abortion, and return to Missouri.
Don't know that that's true yet, but if it were, let Missouri try to enforce it. There will be no new Fugitive Slave Act [and even if there were...].
Whenever in doubt, support the Senate filibuster.
We'll see what SCOTUS does with the Texas legislation. If that is upheld, it's New Zealand time for me. Missouri's abortion legislation will pass, and CA along with other states will go after guns.
Obergfell is on the chopping block, as well as
Griswold. IMO, thinking otherwise makes you a cockeyed optimist.
You know, I've predicted feared anticipated a roll-back of civil and personal rights to the extremely limited set that existed at this country's founding ever since I learned three decades ago that there were Supreme Court justices and protege(e)s who interpreted the Constitution through the lens of so-called "originalism" (which I understand to be, in practical terms, party legislate like it's [still] 1789).
(One benefit: It does make "screw you and the horse you rode up on" [a favorite Southern expression] still relevant. Conveniently.)
:rolls eyes:
Quote from: jimbogumbo on May 05, 2022, 02:02:48 PM
Quote from: dismalist on May 05, 2022, 12:41:46 PM
QuoteSpecifically, it would be a crime to go to Illinois, have an abortion, and return to Missouri.
Don't know that that's true yet, but if it were, let Missouri try to enforce it. There will be no new Fugitive Slave Act [and even if there were...].
Whenever in doubt, support the Senate filibuster.
We'll see what SCOTUS does with the Texas legislation. If that is upheld, it's New Zealand time for me. Missouri's abortion legislation will pass, and CA along with other states will go after guns.
Obergefell is on the chopping block, as well as Griswold. IMO, thinking otherwise makes you a cockeyed optimist.
The draft says that it would not imply anything for other issues in other cases.
It's fascinating how a decision on one case is used as an argument about decisions on other cases. I guess it's not convincing enough politically or juridically to oppose the case at hand.
I don't take the spillover seriously.
Quote from: dismalist on May 05, 2022, 02:21:22 PM
The draft says that it would not imply anything for other issues in other cases.
So did Bush v. Gore, and yet it's been used as precedent
hundreds of times by state and lower federal courts.
More importantly, the draft ruling devotes nearly zero space in its ~100 pages to distinguishing the case against Roe from the case against the other privacy laws, several of which relied on Roe as precedent. He say whatever he wants to say, but he hasn't shown anything of the sort. Remember also that Roe had 49 years and a 7-2 vote behind it; Obergefell has 7 years and a 5-4 ruling. Not that they care about
stare decisis, obviously, but it has a lot less
stare in its
decisis than Roe did.
Quote
I don't take the spillover seriously.
You don't, but actual experts
do.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on May 05, 2022, 03:37:28 PM
Quote from: dismalist on May 05, 2022, 02:21:22 PM
The draft says that it would not imply anything for other issues in other cases.
So did Bush v. Gore, and yet it's been used as precedent hundreds of times by state and lower federal courts.
More importantly, the draft ruling devotes nearly zero space in its ~100 pages to distinguishing the case against Roe from the case against the other privacy laws, several of which relied on Roe as precedent. He say whatever he wants to say, but he hasn't shown anything of the sort. Remember also that Roe had 49 years and a 7-2 vote behind it; Obergefell has 7 years and a 5-4 ruling. Not that they care about stare decisis, obviously, but it has a lot less stare in its decisis than Roe did.
Quote
I don't take the spillover seriously.
You don't, but actual experts do.
QuoteSo did Bush v. Gore
Sure. It was the right decision!
Para, we disagree --- on everything, I might add. Indeed, I think we live in different realities.
The peaceful solution is to live in different countries, or, as I hope is possible, in different States.
From Wikipedia. These four voted against Obergefell: Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito each wrote a separate dissenting opinion. The Chief Justice read part of his dissenting opinion from the bench, his first time doing so since joining the Court in 2005.[114][115]
If you don't think Scalia will be replaced by two to three of the new Justices you indeed live in a dream world.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on May 05, 2022, 04:35:35 PM
From Wikipedia. These four voted against Obergefell: Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito each wrote a separate dissenting opinion. The Chief Justice read part of his dissenting opinion from the bench, his first time doing so since joining the Court in 2005.[114][115]
If you don't think Scalia will be replaced by two to three of the new Justices you indeed live in a dream world.
Well,
different worlds, jimbogumbo.
I am happy to read the dissenting opinions [please link], but I don't think there is a big problem, as the current draft essentially says Amendment Nine.
I'm a Niner, actually.
Also, one has to be able to distinguish one's friends from one's opponents.
Agreed. BTW, in my world one can be both a friend and an opponent:)
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Quote from: jimbogumbo on May 05, 2022, 05:05:19 PM
Agreed. BTW, in my world one can be both a friend and an opponent:)
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Thank you, jimbojumbo.
I like the dissent. Here's a paragraph:
Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not
about whether, in my judgment, the institution of mar-
riage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is
instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that
decision should rest with the people acting through their
elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen
to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal
disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no
doubt about the answer.
Same principle as the current case. Same solution. I stay unworried, nay, positively enamored.
I am your friend. [Now, don't say with friends like these you don't need enemies. :-(]
Quote from: nebo113 on May 05, 2022, 06:05:46 AM
Quote from: financeguy on May 04, 2022, 03:15:46 PM
My body, my choice?
I'm all in, but rings a bit hollow when we have seatbelt laws, motorcycle helmet mandates, prohibition on certain drugs, prostitution ban in most places, and an inability to sell your kidney. Ladies, if you're on board with all those things I'm on your side. If you aren't, I still agree with choice but won't be joining you in the picket line. Have fun with authoritarianism aimed in your direction!
That is an incredibly ugly, patronizing, condescending thing to say. I am incensed that you say Have fun with authoritarianism aimed in your direction! How dare you make light of a legal decision that undermines much of what women and minorities have gained over the past 50 years.
It's only "making light" of the abortion situation if you think those other things are frivolous. And if you do think that just because they don't affect you, why should I care about the things you value when they don't affect me? I'm not a fan of selective libertarianism, favoring to get out of other people's business entirely, including abortion. I'm all for the "my body/my choice" argument but unfortunately women in the United States are the fat personal trainers and bankrupt financial planners who don't exactly lend legitimacy to their statements with their actions. When women as a group largely vote for every possible infraction on my life, it's difficult for me to really give an F about your abortion rights, although I agree you should have them. Two totally different things to be in agreement with something on the one hand and on the other hand actually make any effort beyond that agreement.
Quote from: Istiblennius on May 05, 2022, 01:39:55 PM
You are levelling up by mixing multiple fallacies on this one - strawman and red herring all together all wound up in one grossly offensive little package.
Trans people are far more likely to be victims of sexual assault and other assaults than perpetrators. Cis people (including cis women) can also sexually assault other cis people (including cis women) in prison or any other environment.
Lawsuit: Female Prisoner Says She Was Raped by Transgender Inmate (https://news.wttw.com/2020/02/19/lawsuit-female-prisoner-says-she-was-raped-transgender-inmate)
Quote
An inmate at Illinois' largest women's prison says she was raped by a transgender inmate who was transferred into her housing unit last year, and claims Illinois Department of Corrections officials conducted a "sham investigation" to help cover up the incident.
'I was sexually assaulted in a women's prison... by a fellow inmate with male genitalia': (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9819631/I-sexually-assaulted-womens-prison-fellow-inmate-male-genitalia.html)
Quote
The prisoner who sexually assaulted Amy — we cannot legally identify her, so we shall call her J — is a transgender woman, with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), and therefore referred to by the female pronoun, but still had male genitalia.
Amy was equally well aware that J still had male genitalia because she often intimidated her and fellow female prisoners at HMP Bronzefield in Ashford, Middlesex, by exposing them.
Transgender prisoner who sexually assaulted inmates jailed for life (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/11/transgender-prisoner-who-sexually-assaulted-inmates-jailed-for-life)
Quote
Karen White, 52, admitted sexually assaulting women in female prison and raping two other women outside jail
Transgender Rikers inmate sentenced to 7 years for raping female prisoner (https://nypost.com/2022/04/25/transgender-rikers-inmate-gets-7-years-for-raping-female-prisoner/)
Quote
A transgender Rikers inmate raped a female prisoner while in the women's section of the jail and has been sentenced to seven years, officials said Monday.
Ramel Blount, 33, who goes by Diamond Blount, pleaded guilty to attempted rape April 7 in an apparent plea deal.
Investigators said Blount — who was housed in the female section of the facility — approached a 33-year-old female inmate in the bathroom at the Rose M. Singer center Feb. 8, 2021, after the victim had just finished showering.
Blount held the victim down by the back of her neck and raped her, investigators said.
Quote
Your assaults on the dignity and humanity of trans people are not okay. Please stop.
Little known fact: When people can claim some sort of status and benefit merely by self-declaration, some people will
lie simply in order to claim the benefit.
A system that can easily be gamed invites people to game the system.
The right is already planning a federal abortion ban.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/05/02/republicans-will-try-to-ban-abortion-nationwide-if-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade-report-reveals/
Rates of sexual inactivity have been increasing in recent years, especially for men. I guess that trend will continue.
One fact that I haven't seen much reported is that abortion rates have been steadily decreasing since 1980 in the US. They are less than half than they were in 1980.
The birth rate is also down. Teenage pregnancy is way down just about everywhere in the US.
Paradoxically, countries with higher abortion rates are those where it is illegal. It's quite possible that making abortion illegal will increase the abortion rate in the US.
Quote from: financeguy on May 05, 2022, 07:17:31 PM
Quote from: nebo113 on May 05, 2022, 06:05:46 AM
Quote from: financeguy on May 04, 2022, 03:15:46 PM
My body, my choice?
I'm all in, but rings a bit hollow when we have seatbelt laws, motorcycle helmet mandates, prohibition on certain drugs, prostitution ban in most places, and an inability to sell your kidney. Ladies, if you're on board with all those things I'm on your side. If you aren't, I still agree with choice but won't be joining you in the picket line. Have fun with authoritarianism aimed in your direction!
That is an incredibly ugly, patronizing, condescending thing to say. I am incensed that you say Have fun with authoritarianism aimed in your direction! How dare you make light of a legal decision that undermines much of what women and minorities have gained over the past 50 years.
It's only "making light" of the abortion situation if you think those other things are frivolous. And if you do think that just because they don't affect you, why should I care about the things you value when they don't affect me? I'm not a fan of selective libertarianism, favoring to get out of other people's business entirely, including abortion. I'm all for the "my body/my choice" argument but unfortunately women in the United States are the fat personal trainers and bankrupt financial planners who don't exactly lend legitimacy to their statements with their actions. When women as a group largely vote for every possible infraction on my life, it's difficult for me to really give an F about your abortion rights, although I agree you should have them. Two totally different things to be in agreement with something on the one hand and on the other hand actually make any effort beyond that agreement.
So I am in the category of
fat personal trainers and bankrupt financial planners ???? Refusing me health care if I need an abortion or I will die is the equivalent of forcing you to wear a seat belt????
We need to stop the political and social threads on this forum. They are pointless, and just lead to people feeling contempt.
Quote from: Ruralguy on May 06, 2022, 06:35:27 AM
We need to stop the political and social threads on this forum. They are pointless, and just lead to people feeling contempt.
There's a point if you respect facts and language. We have a couple troll-bigots who do not. That's why facts, logic, and empathy don't work--they expect
you to respect facts and language, because they don't have to. And that is the key. Once you understand that, you can let go of any and all discussion with them, because discussions become a troll-bigot playground.
The big secret: the troll-bigots only have power if we give it to them. That's the nice thing about the world of the fora and other discussion groups--whatever happens here has limited real-world consequences.
The world becomes a scary place when enough people give troll-bigots real power, and the world becomes their playground. That's when you need heroes. And maybe, within our limits, we can be those heroes, or at least be a little heroic.
I enjoy everyone's discussions, even the vaguely obnoxious ones. These prepare me for comebacks when people send those out IRL.
Quote from: dismalist on May 05, 2022, 05:21:26 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on May 05, 2022, 05:05:19 PM
Agreed. BTW, in my world one can be both a friend and an opponent:)
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Thank you, jimbojumbo.
I like the dissent. Here's a paragraph:
Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not
about whether, in my judgment, the institution of mar-
riage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is
instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that
decision should rest with the people acting through their
elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen
to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal
disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no
doubt about the answer.
Same principle as the current case. Same solution. I stay unworried, nay, positively enamored.
I am your friend. [Now, don't say with friends like these you don't need enemies. :-(]
I thought the purpose of the court was to uphold the Constitution against the tyranny of the majority (and/or the wealthy lobbyists?)
Silly me.
Quote from: financeguy on May 05, 2022, 07:17:31 PM
Quote from: nebo113 on May 05, 2022, 06:05:46 AM
Quote from: financeguy on May 04, 2022, 03:15:46 PM
My body, my choice?
I'm all in, but rings a bit hollow when we have seatbelt laws, motorcycle helmet mandates, prohibition on certain drugs, prostitution ban in most places, and an inability to sell your kidney. Ladies, if you're on board with all those things I'm on your side. If you aren't, I still agree with choice but won't be joining you in the picket line. Have fun with authoritarianism aimed in your direction!
That is an incredibly ugly, patronizing, condescending thing to say. I am incensed that you say Have fun with authoritarianism aimed in your direction! How dare you make light of a legal decision that undermines much of what women and minorities have gained over the past 50 years.
It's only "making light" of the abortion situation if you think those other things are frivolous. And if you do think that just because they don't affect you, why should I care about the things you value when they don't affect me? I'm not a fan of selective libertarianism, favoring to get out of other people's business entirely, including abortion. I'm all for the "my body/my choice" argument but unfortunately women in the United States are the fat personal trainers and bankrupt financial planners who don't exactly lend legitimacy to their statements with their actions. When women as a group largely vote for every possible infraction on my life, it's difficult for me to really give an F about your abortion rights, although I agree you should have them. Two totally different things to be in agreement with something on the one hand and on the other hand actually make any effort beyond that agreement.
Something tells me
financeguy doesn't even understand the need for birth control, much less abortions.
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 06, 2022, 04:26:28 AM
Quote from: Istiblennius on May 05, 2022, 01:39:55 PM
You are levelling up by mixing multiple fallacies on this one - strawman and red herring all together all wound up in one grossly offensive little package.
Trans people are far more likely to be victims of sexual assault and other assaults than perpetrators. Cis people (including cis women) can also sexually assault other cis people (including cis women) in prison or any other environment.
Lawsuit: Female Prisoner Says She Was Raped by Transgender Inmate (https://news.wttw.com/2020/02/19/lawsuit-female-prisoner-says-she-was-raped-transgender-inmate)
Quote
An inmate at Illinois' largest women's prison says she was raped by a transgender inmate who was transferred into her housing unit last year, and claims Illinois Department of Corrections officials conducted a "sham investigation" to help cover up the incident.
'I was sexually assaulted in a women's prison... by a fellow inmate with male genitalia': (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9819631/I-sexually-assaulted-womens-prison-fellow-inmate-male-genitalia.html)
Quote
The prisoner who sexually assaulted Amy — we cannot legally identify her, so we shall call her J — is a transgender woman, with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), and therefore referred to by the female pronoun, but still had male genitalia.
Amy was equally well aware that J still had male genitalia because she often intimidated her and fellow female prisoners at HMP Bronzefield in Ashford, Middlesex, by exposing them.
Transgender prisoner who sexually assaulted inmates jailed for life (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/11/transgender-prisoner-who-sexually-assaulted-inmates-jailed-for-life)
Quote
Karen White, 52, admitted sexually assaulting women in female prison and raping two other women outside jail
Transgender Rikers inmate sentenced to 7 years for raping female prisoner (https://nypost.com/2022/04/25/transgender-rikers-inmate-gets-7-years-for-raping-female-prisoner/)
Quote
A transgender Rikers inmate raped a female prisoner while in the women's section of the jail and has been sentenced to seven years, officials said Monday.
Ramel Blount, 33, who goes by Diamond Blount, pleaded guilty to attempted rape April 7 in an apparent plea deal.
Investigators said Blount — who was housed in the female section of the facility — approached a 33-year-old female inmate in the bathroom at the Rose M. Singer center Feb. 8, 2021, after the victim had just finished showering.
Blount held the victim down by the back of her neck and raped her, investigators said.
Quote
Your assaults on the dignity and humanity of trans people are not okay. Please stop.
Little known fact: When people can claim some sort of status and benefit merely by self-declaration, some people will lie simply in order to claim the benefit.
A system that can easily be gamed invites people to game the system.
More little known facts:
Women can rape women.
Men can rape men.
Sexual violence is not limited to beastly men and delicate women.
Quote from: ciao_yall on May 06, 2022, 07:10:38 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 06, 2022, 04:26:28 AM
Quote from: Istiblennius on May 05, 2022, 01:39:55 PM
You are levelling up by mixing multiple fallacies on this one - strawman and red herring all together all wound up in one grossly offensive little package.
Trans people are far more likely to be victims of sexual assault and other assaults than perpetrators. Cis people (including cis women) can also sexually assault other cis people (including cis women) in prison or any other environment.
Lawsuit: Female Prisoner Says She Was Raped by Transgender Inmate (https://news.wttw.com/2020/02/19/lawsuit-female-prisoner-says-she-was-raped-transgender-inmate)
Quote
An inmate at Illinois' largest women's prison says she was raped by a transgender inmate who was transferred into her housing unit last year, and claims Illinois Department of Corrections officials conducted a "sham investigation" to help cover up the incident.
'I was sexually assaulted in a women's prison... by a fellow inmate with male genitalia': (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9819631/I-sexually-assaulted-womens-prison-fellow-inmate-male-genitalia.html)
Quote
The prisoner who sexually assaulted Amy — we cannot legally identify her, so we shall call her J — is a transgender woman, with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), and therefore referred to by the female pronoun, but still had male genitalia.
Amy was equally well aware that J still had male genitalia because she often intimidated her and fellow female prisoners at HMP Bronzefield in Ashford, Middlesex, by exposing them.
Transgender prisoner who sexually assaulted inmates jailed for life (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/11/transgender-prisoner-who-sexually-assaulted-inmates-jailed-for-life)
Quote
Karen White, 52, admitted sexually assaulting women in female prison and raping two other women outside jail
Transgender Rikers inmate sentenced to 7 years for raping female prisoner (https://nypost.com/2022/04/25/transgender-rikers-inmate-gets-7-years-for-raping-female-prisoner/)
Quote
A transgender Rikers inmate raped a female prisoner while in the women's section of the jail and has been sentenced to seven years, officials said Monday.
Ramel Blount, 33, who goes by Diamond Blount, pleaded guilty to attempted rape April 7 in an apparent plea deal.
Investigators said Blount — who was housed in the female section of the facility — approached a 33-year-old female inmate in the bathroom at the Rose M. Singer center Feb. 8, 2021, after the victim had just finished showering.
Blount held the victim down by the back of her neck and raped her, investigators said.
Quote
Your assaults on the dignity and humanity of trans people are not okay. Please stop.
Little known fact: When people can claim some sort of status and benefit merely by self-declaration, some people will lie simply in order to claim the benefit.
A system that can easily be gamed invites people to game the system.
More little known facts:
Women can rape women.
Men can rape men.
Sexual violence is not limited to beastly men and delicate women.
Bingo. You don't deny or denigrate identity because of a real or imagined cabal of potential perpetrators saying, "Gee whilikers, I wish there were laws and statutes that, by virtue of granting rights to those with trans or fluid identities, would enable me to rape more people." Because ANYONE CAN COMMIT SEXUAL VIOLENCE. AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE IS WRONG. That part doesn't change.
So, if your argument is down to, "But what of the perverts?" you really don't have an argument. Again, our resident bigot-trolls know this very well (and don't care--see my last post), but bless some folks' hearts, there are those who think it is a real argument.
Let's stick to the draft ruling on abortion, shall we?
The abominably high incidence of sexual violence and rape in prisons (by some estimates as high as 1/5 of the prison population...) is a different matter entirely, as are trans rights.
Quote from: little bongo on May 06, 2022, 07:44:01 AM
You don't deny or denigrate identity because of a real or imagined cabal of potential perpetrators saying, "Gee whilikers, I wish there were laws and statutes that, by virtue of granting rights to those with trans or fluid identities, would enable me to rape more people."
Who's denying or negating identity? I'm pointing out that when
rules that are applied are ridiculously simple to game, then people will game them. Changing the
rules to not be so easy to game is one of the ways to keep the actions of the people trying to game the system from reflecting on the people who are NOT trying to game the system.
(In academic settings, that's why we come down hard on cheaters; because their actions devalue the degrees of everyone else who didn't cheat. The
rules for academic integrity are an inconvenience for the people who don't cheat, but having their degrees respected is worth it.)
Quote from: nebo113 on May 06, 2022, 06:05:58 AM
Quote from: financeguy on May 05, 2022, 07:17:31 PM
Quote from: nebo113 on May 05, 2022, 06:05:46 AM
Quote from: financeguy on May 04, 2022, 03:15:46 PM
My body, my choice?
I'm all in, but rings a bit hollow when we have seatbelt laws, motorcycle helmet mandates, prohibition on certain drugs, prostitution ban in most places, and an inability to sell your kidney. Ladies, if you're on board with all those things I'm on your side. If you aren't, I still agree with choice but won't be joining you in the picket line. Have fun with authoritarianism aimed in your direction!
That is an incredibly ugly, patronizing, condescending thing to say. I am incensed that you say Have fun with authoritarianism aimed in your direction! How dare you make light of a legal decision that undermines much of what women and minorities have gained over the past 50 years.
It's only "making light" of the abortion situation if you think those other things are frivolous. And if you do think that just because they don't affect you, why should I care about the things you value when they don't affect me? I'm not a fan of selective libertarianism, favoring to get out of other people's business entirely, including abortion. I'm all for the "my body/my choice" argument but unfortunately women in the United States are the fat personal trainers and bankrupt financial planners who don't exactly lend legitimacy to their statements with their actions. When women as a group largely vote for every possible infraction on my life, it's difficult for me to really give an F about your abortion rights, although I agree you should have them. Two totally different things to be in agreement with something on the one hand and on the other hand actually make any effort beyond that agreement.
So I am in the category of fat personal trainers and bankrupt financial planners ???? Refusing me health care if I need an abortion or I will die is the equivalent of forcing you to wear a seat belt????
I don't know that you are, but given the small number of females statistically speaking who lean libertarian (regardless of official party) I'm saying the group overall doesn't have a great track record on individual rights vs collectivism. It's almost as if there are actual numbers that tell us what people support and you can look those up. Increased spending, regulation and mandates of a wide variety are more widely supported by females in almost all categories. You can look at specific issues but the catch all is party registration with females, not surprisingly leaning to the nanny state option. Fine, make a case for those things, but then don't at the same time tell me, my body my choice and get daddy government off my back. You start a fire, you can't expect it to only keep you warm but not potentially burn down your house or the whole village if it gets too big. You get it started and then it does what IT wants to do. This is the unfortunate price women will pay for not advocating limited government overall, since it simply will not happen situationally for anyone. You either support individual rights or eventually your own will get taken.
And yes, being forced to wear a seatbelt is of similar kind, not necessarily of degree. Enjoy that city council meeting to regulate someone's choice of shrubbery or color of their front door to their own house while railing 5 minutes later about being "pro choice." Women have let the thieves into the temple and are surprised someone is looting the place. The fact that you almost imply that my analogy is absurd due to the supposedly less "important" (to you) decision on autonomy in wearing a helmet or selling a kidney just further proves my point: If you aren't going to support the "small freedoms" how in the world do you expect a massive government to give you choice on the admittedly "big freedoms?" You have to be all in on personal choice or you won't have it.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on May 06, 2022, 07:55:40 AM
Let's stick to the draft ruling on abortion, shall we?
The abominably high incidence of sexual violence and rape in prisons (by some estimates as high as 1/5 of the prison population...) is a different matter entirely, as are trans rights.
Is it okay if I just point out that the cherry picking logical fallacy was used this time? I've got a bingo card going.
I do completely agree that the icky prison discussion immediately went off the rails. But I also think these issues are intertwined due to the spillover (which is very real). The right of people who are not cis-male to make medical decisions about their own bodies includes both abortion and gender affirming care.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on May 06, 2022, 07:55:40 AM
Let's stick to the draft ruling on abortion, shall we?
The abominably high incidence of sexual violence and rape in prisons (by some estimates as high as 1/5 of the prison population...) is a different matter entirely, as are trans rights.
Parasaurolophus makes good sense, as usual.
As for financeguy's all-in approach to individual rights, I think I can appreciate it. Where I disagree is the idea of, let's not support this essential right because there are a whole lot of other rights that we should enjoy. Plus, abortion rights are indeed an "everybody" problem, even if it might not appear so at first glance.
Quote from: Istiblennius on May 06, 2022, 09:07:15 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on May 06, 2022, 07:55:40 AM
Let's stick to the draft ruling on abortion, shall we?
The abominably high incidence of sexual violence and rape in prisons (by some estimates as high as 1/5 of the prison population...) is a different matter entirely, as are trans rights.
Is it okay if I just point out that the cherry picking logical fallacy was used this time? I've got a bingo card going.
I do completely agree that the icky prison discussion immediately went off the rails. But I also think these issues are intertwined due to the spillover (which is very real). The right of people who are not cis-male to make medical decisions about their own bodies includes both abortion and gender affirming care.
Let's see... strawman, red herring, cherry picking... if you've also got concern trolling plus the free space, I'd say you have bingo. Feel free to collect your prize, a year's supply of Rice-A-Roni, the San Francisco treat.
Do they still make Rice-A-Roni?
I ate that for dinner probably three nights a week in grad school.
Quote from: Istiblennius on May 06, 2022, 10:25:08 AM
Do they still make Rice-A-Roni?
I ate that for dinner probably three nights a week in grad school.
Yes.
I still eat it once or twice per month. Lean ground beef sautéed, then beef flavored RiceA-Roni on top, to cook for 15 minutes. I recommend using only a little over half the recommended quantity of water. Then it's a tad softer than
al dente.
Quote from: financeguy on May 06, 2022, 08:40:08 AM
I don't know that you are, but given the small number of females statistically speaking who lean libertarian (regardless of official party) I'm saying the group overall doesn't have a great track record on individual rights vs collectivism. It's almost as if there are actual numbers that tell us what people support and you can look those up. (A) Increased spending, regulation and mandates of a wide variety are more widely supported by females in almost all categories. You can look at specific issues but the catch all is party registration with females, not surprisingly leaning to the nanny state option. Fine, make a case for those things, but then don't at the same time tell me, my body my choice and get daddy government off my back. You start a fire, you can't expect it to only keep you warm but not potentially burn down your house or the whole village if it gets too big. You get it started and then it does what IT wants to do. This is the unfortunate price women will pay for not advocating limited government overall, since it simply will not happen situationally for anyone. (B) You either support individual rights or eventually your own will get taken.
(C) And yes, being forced to wear a seatbelt is of similar kind, not necessarily of degree. Enjoy that city council meeting to (D) regulate someone's choice of shrubbery or color of their front door to their own house while railing 5 minutes later about being "pro choice." Women have let the thieves into the temple and are surprised someone is looting the place. The fact that you almost imply that my analogy is absurd due to the supposedly less "important" (to you) decision on autonomy in wearing a helmet or selling a kidney just further proves my point: If you aren't going to support the "small freedoms" how in the world do you expect a massive government to give you choice on the admittedly "big freedoms?" You have to be all in on personal choice or you won't have it.
(A) Do you know why that is? Because women, historically, have been at the short end of the social and political stick. They recognize the importance of community and legal support when their husband leaves them with kids to raise; when random blathering politicians decide to create laws about what medications they can or cannot take; when banks won't give them a credit card or mortgage despite having a job. Women are the ones taking the kids to the doctor when they are sick from bad air, or dirty water.
(B) Don't worry, plenty of pols out there who scream about "limited government" are busy trying to pass laws to control school curriculum, medical care, who marries whom, ban books...
(C) There is a social cost to people not wearing seatbelts and either becoming vegetables at Medicaid expense, or dying and leaving widows and orphans. Same with vaccine requirements in schools - there is a social cost to kids bringing and spreading communicable diseases.
(D) Uh-oh, someone is in trouble with his HOA. What did you do? I'm on the board of my HOA and have to explain that safety is the reason behind 99% of our seemingly inane rules. The remaining 1% are because some people have no taste.
A) It depends on what you consider the "short stick." A lot of the men in Ukraine who are getting shot at while the women are allowed to leave would disagree.
B) I'm not a Republican either. I want both sides out of my business and yours.
C) The same is true of any medical procedure.
D) No HOA membership here. I won't be somewhere that has one since I don't want to be subjected to a busy body who decides what is acceptable "taste" on my property.
If I may throw another question into the mix (sorry if this was discussed earlier in the thread): Will this affect the midterm elections and perhaps save the Democrats from losing the Senate?
Alito is apparently, according to his draft opinion, is concerned about the shortage of babies.......How sweet of him.
The idea of a "shortage" depends on perspective.
From the point of view of reducing our carbon footprint, the fewer people the better.
It's becoming rather common for people I know to say something like "humans have had their time, that enough of us."
Those are not perspectives that Catholics are sympathetic to.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on May 06, 2022, 07:37:29 PM
If I may throw another question into the mix (sorry if this was discussed earlier in the thread): Will this affect the midterm elections and perhaps save the Democrats from losing the Senate?
I don't know, and it really depends on the state, but there's this:
QuoteCNN poll:
SCOTUS should NOT overturn Roe 66%
SCOTUS should overturn Roe 34%
State abortion laws should be:
More permissive 58%
More restrictive 42%
Should there be a national law legalizing abortion:
Yes 59%
No 41%
McConnell is floating a national ban on abortion.
Thomas (helpmeet to Ginni) is concerned about the reputation of the Supremes.
Quote from: nebo113 on May 07, 2022, 06:04:54 AM
Alito is apparently, according to his draft opinion, is concerned about the shortage of babies.......How sweet of him.
I believe that quote about "domestic supply of infants" - comes from a CDC report they cite, it's not something Alito wrote.
Quote from: bacardiandlime on May 08, 2022, 07:07:17 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on May 07, 2022, 06:04:54 AM
Alito is apparently, according to his draft opinion, is concerned about the shortage of babies.......How sweet of him.
I believe that quote about "domestic supply of infants" - comes from a CDC report they cite, it's not something Alito wrote.
Regardless of whether that was his specific phrase, it's still an argument he cited for why women should be forced to give birth against their will. The idea that it's somehow important for people to have access to adoptable infants (instead of one of the 400,000 kids in foster care) and that's a good justification for forced birth is appalling and commodifies children.
Quote from: bacardiandlime on May 08, 2022, 07:07:17 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on May 07, 2022, 06:04:54 AM
Alito is apparently, according to his draft opinion, is concerned about the shortage of babies.......How sweet of him.
I believe that quote about "domestic supply of infants" - comes from a CDC report they cite, it's not something Alito wrote.
The Alito draft does contain the phrase "domestic supply of infants". It is referencing a CDC report about the numbers of families wanting to adopt being greater than the number of available babies for adoption. Justice Barrett used the same argument in another case regarding abortion rights.
https://www.salon.com/2022/05/03/adoption-makes-abortion-unnecessary-claims-the-right-thats-even-worse-than-it-sounds/
The argument is that abortion is not necessary because women can put their babies up for adoption.
NPR covered the argument last December.
https://www.npr.org/2021/12/14/1063784711/its-not-as-simple-as-abortion-v-adoption-just-ask-bri
One factor is that women who put babies up for adoption experience considerably more grief than women who have abortions.
Most of the guys I know start sobbing at a splinter, and claim sick days for a chest cold.
The folks supporting forced birth have no comprehension of the pain and trauma associated with birth-giving, nor will they ever have cause to, being mostly male.
The empathy differential must be in the millions.
M.
Quote from: onthefringe on May 08, 2022, 07:29:11 AM
Quote from: bacardiandlime on May 08, 2022, 07:07:17 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on May 07, 2022, 06:04:54 AM
Alito is apparently, according to his draft opinion, is concerned about the shortage of babies.......How sweet of him.
I believe that quote about "domestic supply of infants" - comes from a CDC report they cite, it's not something Alito wrote.
Regardless of whether that was his specific phrase, it's still an argument he cited for why women should be forced to give birth against their will. The idea that it's somehow important for people to have access to adoptable infants (instead of one of the 400,000 kids in foster care) and that's a good justification for forced birth is appalling and commodifies children.
To be more precise, being forced to give birth is more akin to enslaving females, not commodifying children. Actual commodification would involve paying mothers for the children! That would enable voluntary exchange.
But complaining about a shortage of babies is like complaining about a shortage of somebody else's talent, pure rhetoric, just a bunch 'a woids.
Quote from: downer on May 08, 2022, 07:36:33 AM
Quote from: bacardiandlime on May 08, 2022, 07:07:17 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on May 07, 2022, 06:04:54 AM
Alito is apparently, according to his draft opinion, is concerned about the shortage of babies.......How sweet of him.
I believe that quote about "domestic supply of infants" - comes from a CDC report they cite, it's not something Alito wrote.
The Alito draft does contain the phrase "domestic supply of infants". It is referencing a CDC report about the numbers of families wanting to adopt being greater than the number of available babies for adoption. Justice Barrett used the same argument in another case regarding abortion rights.
https://www.salon.com/2022/05/03/adoption-makes-abortion-unnecessary-claims-the-right-thats-even-worse-than-it-sounds/
The argument is that abortion is not necessary because women can put their babies up for adoption.
NPR covered the argument last December.
https://www.npr.org/2021/12/14/1063784711/its-not-as-simple-as-abortion-v-adoption-just-ask-bri
One factor is that women who put babies up for adoption experience considerably more grief than women who have abortions.
Don't conservatives always preach that the justices aren't supposed to be making policy considerations?
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on May 08, 2022, 10:51:37 AM
Quote from: downer on May 08, 2022, 07:36:33 AM
Quote from: bacardiandlime on May 08, 2022, 07:07:17 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on May 07, 2022, 06:04:54 AM
Alito is apparently, according to his draft opinion, is concerned about the shortage of babies.......How sweet of him.
I believe that quote about "domestic supply of infants" - comes from a CDC report they cite, it's not something Alito wrote.
The Alito draft does contain the phrase "domestic supply of infants". It is referencing a CDC report about the numbers of families wanting to adopt being greater than the number of available babies for adoption. Justice Barrett used the same argument in another case regarding abortion rights.
https://www.salon.com/2022/05/03/adoption-makes-abortion-unnecessary-claims-the-right-thats-even-worse-than-it-sounds/
The argument is that abortion is not necessary because women can put their babies up for adoption.
NPR covered the argument last December.
https://www.npr.org/2021/12/14/1063784711/its-not-as-simple-as-abortion-v-adoption-just-ask-bri
One factor is that women who put babies up for adoption experience considerably more grief than women who have abortions.
Don't conservatives always preach that the justices aren't supposed to be making policy considerations?
Yes, when they don't like the policies. And the same is generally true for liberals.
Quote from: downer on May 08, 2022, 11:00:04 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on May 08, 2022, 10:51:37 AM
Quote from: downer on May 08, 2022, 07:36:33 AM
Quote from: bacardiandlime on May 08, 2022, 07:07:17 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on May 07, 2022, 06:04:54 AM
Alito is apparently, according to his draft opinion, is concerned about the shortage of babies.......How sweet of him.
I believe that quote about "domestic supply of infants" - comes from a CDC report they cite, it's not something Alito wrote.
The Alito draft does contain the phrase "domestic supply of infants". It is referencing a CDC report about the numbers of families wanting to adopt being greater than the number of available babies for adoption. Justice Barrett used the same argument in another case regarding abortion rights.
https://www.salon.com/2022/05/03/adoption-makes-abortion-unnecessary-claims-the-right-thats-even-worse-than-it-sounds/
The argument is that abortion is not necessary because women can put their babies up for adoption.
NPR covered the argument last December.
https://www.npr.org/2021/12/14/1063784711/its-not-as-simple-as-abortion-v-adoption-just-ask-bri
One factor is that women who put babies up for adoption experience considerably more grief than women who have abortions.
Don't conservatives always preach that the justices aren't supposed to be making policy considerations?
Yes, when they don't like the policies. And the same is generally true for liberals.
Except liberals haven't spent decades lecturing the rest of us that judges should never make policy.
If one looks more closely at what's going on in States, things look quite different from the rhetoric.
Pew's n ≈ 35, 000 Religious Landscape Survey of 2014 allows a breakdown of public opinion on abortion rights by State.
url]https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/01/21/do-state-laws-on-abortion-reflect-public-opinion/[/url]
[National samples are too small to be meaningfully disaggregated by State. But opinion on abortion rights is relatively stable over time.]
Note the map at the beginning. Only seven small States have clear majorities against abortion rights. The West Coast and the Northeast have clear majorities in favor of abortion rights.
Even Florida has a clear majority in favor.
Everything else is in play, including even Texas!
As for those trigger laws, much is posturing. No reason not to pass a law if it can't be enforced.
This is not the end of democratic choice; this is the beginning.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on May 08, 2022, 11:05:26 AM
Except liberals haven't spent decades lecturing the rest of us that judges should never make policy.
Some legal formalists feel the need to respond to the parade of horribles that the legal realists will deploy in their dissent.
As long as the primary process remains the same for state legislatures it wouldn't matter even if every state had a majority in favor of legal abortion. The legislatures in almost all Republican states will make it illegal.
Occasionally offers to support or pay for "camping trips" appear on my social media feed, for those who don't live in "camping friendly" states.
Quote from: ciao_yall on May 06, 2022, 07:05:00 AM
I thought the purpose of the court was to uphold the Constitution against the tyranny of the majority (and/or the wealthy lobbyists?)
Silly me.
I guess I'm silly as well. I didn't realize that a person's rights were up for a vote (whether that be at the state or federal level).
I'm probably not going to be affected by the decision, but I can see where it could lead. Since certain unnamed judges clearly lied in their Senate hearings, I don't trust that they aren't lying about "This will only affect Roe." Plus, I have some empathy and can care for other people than just myself.