SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
I mean you either think women should decide these things for themselves or you don't. What's in between?
Misogynist barbarians in Alabama impose forced pregnancy law
- Thread starter Jeff Robinson
- Start date
I mean you either think women should decide these things for themselves or you don't. What's in between?
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
Different places have quite varying rules on abortion that can get quite detailed. What proportion of the USA has abortion that is outlawed in all circumstances and what proportion will facilitate abortion at any point in the term under any circumstance?
And are you saying that cases where the rules are stricter are clear cases of all women in that jurisdiction having less of a say?
Plumdaff
joy in people
I think it's wider than that. Alito's legal justification for this is that any legal right not covered in the original US constitution cannot be upheld. So abortion is the start. They are coming for gay marriage, they are coming for all legislation protecting against discrimination. They are coming for the right to public education.
These people are violent extremists, and they are very clear in what they want to achieve. A country where power rests with the people who got to be the Founding Fathers, and everyone else should remember their rightful place.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
In the case of catholic church, we don't have to think too hard about the reasons why they might want to increase the supply of neglected children.
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
It’s striking how similar the legal reasoning in the leaked judgement is to a 1986 SCOTUS decision upholding the constitutionality of an ‘anti-sodomy law’. The view that ‘if a specific right hasn’t been legally recognised for hundreds of years then it’s not protected by the constitution’ does have all the implications you suggest and more.
Bowers v. Hardwick - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
Is there a more blatant example of gaslighting?
This guy’s wife is a fascist who supported the January 6 insurrection and he has ruled in cases where she has submitted evidence or had a material interest (all his decisions surprisingly have coincided with her interests):
www.theguardian.com
This guy’s wife is a fascist who supported the January 6 insurrection and he has ruled in cases where she has submitted evidence or had a material interest (all his decisions surprisingly have coincided with her interests):
Ginni Thomas texts spark ethical storm about husband’s supreme court role
Stash of messages from Clarence Thomas’s activist wife released to January 6 committee have raised conflict-of-interest concerns
Combustible
Well-Known Member
These originalists are of course very selective when it comes to when they apply their originalism. Unless they can point to where corporations are mentioned in the constitution
en.wikipedia.org
Citizens United v. FEC - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
I
Is there a more blatant example of gaslighting?
This guy’s wife is a fascist who supported the January 6 insurrection and he has ruled in cases where she has submitted evidence or had a material interest (all his decisions surprisingly have coincided with her interests):
Ginni Thomas texts spark ethical storm about husband’s supreme court role
Stash of messages from Clarence Thomas’s activist wife released to January 6 committee have raised conflict-of-interest concerns
There's a lot of people who think she's the one who leaked the draft of the decision. I wouldn't be surprised given her previous actions.
Last edited:
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
There is of course an issue other than the SC decision.
Those states that have 'trigger laws' in place, have them in place because that is the wish of the people who elected the legislators.
You vote (usually) for the person or party whose views chime most closely with yours, so the 'trigger legislation' is the wish of the majority of the electorate.
Given the ethnic make up of the states with the most vicious legislation, then it seems that those who are going to be most disadvantaged by the legislation; it was pointed out upthread that the rich will have no problems getting an abortion, not matter which state they live in; are either not voting, or voting for the party that is going to deny them safe abortion.
I appreciate that it is not quite that simple, gerrymandering and voter suppression do come into play, but maybe people need to actually vote, and use social media to raise the abortion issue. IIRC elections are imminent in the US.
Those states that have 'trigger laws' in place, have them in place because that is the wish of the people who elected the legislators.
You vote (usually) for the person or party whose views chime most closely with yours, so the 'trigger legislation' is the wish of the majority of the electorate.
Given the ethnic make up of the states with the most vicious legislation, then it seems that those who are going to be most disadvantaged by the legislation; it was pointed out upthread that the rich will have no problems getting an abortion, not matter which state they live in; are either not voting, or voting for the party that is going to deny them safe abortion.
I appreciate that it is not quite that simple, gerrymandering and voter suppression do come into play, but maybe people need to actually vote, and use social media to raise the abortion issue. IIRC elections are imminent in the US.
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
Always I should imagine, a volatile population and easy access to firearms.
hitmouse
so defeated, thinks it's funny
Things getting a bit heated in Wisconsin:
Leading to the usual tedious liberal conspiracist dicks rushing to proclaim it a false flag on the basis of having nice handwriting, and an entertainingly shit Daily Fail write-up:
www.dailymail.co.uk
Fire at Anti-Abortion Group’s Wisconsin Office Investigated as Arson
Graffiti on the building reportedly showcased the phrase, “If abortions aren’t safe then you aren’t either.”
www.thedailybeast.com
Leading to the usual tedious liberal conspiracist dicks rushing to proclaim it a false flag on the basis of having nice handwriting, and an entertainingly shit Daily Fail write-up:
Antifa goons hurl Molotov cocktail into Wisconsin anti-abortion office
The damage was discovered on Mother's Day morning when a passerby reported seeing smoke coming from the headquarters of the anti-abortion group Wisconsin Family Action in Madison.
Ah yes, the circle-A, which famously stands for "antifa". The News 3 article linked to isn't available in a GDPR country, but looking at it through a proxy confirms that there's no mention of "antifa" there, that's purely a Mail invention.
hitmouse
so defeated, thinks it's funny
Last edited:
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
all those republicans are a signal advertisement for the use of condoms
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
In the States the picture varies a fair bit by the particular state. Male:female differences in attitudes have reduced a little in recent years afaik, but the general picture is that the majority of people do not take a very polarised stance when it comes to
terms for elective abortion.
You could say everything bad that happens in America is down to elderly men if you were so inclined, I guess.
There are quite a few pro-life women in Congress, but a good few have been put in there to support this.
The recent thing is about rubbing the Dems’ noses in the bit of power that the Republicans have. In 2022, not 1942.
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
Elderly white men, yes. Great majority of senators, governors, judges, sheriffs, company CEOs.
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
And golfers.
(not the professional ones)
Not the great majority of pro-lifers or misogynists, though.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I don't see how explicitly linking the restriction reproductive rights with racism is helpful tbh in terms of explaining what is going on. It ignores the various ways in which the restriction of reproductive rights is used as a political tool, and not just in the US.
It's more useful imho to link it to the promotion of creationism and battle to suppress the teaching of evolution. It is part of a certain kind of conservative's desire to impose their version of Christianity on everyone else. It has a fair bit in common with the Taliban.
It's more useful imho to link it to the promotion of creationism and battle to suppress the teaching of evolution. It is part of a certain kind of conservative's desire to impose their version of Christianity on everyone else. It has a fair bit in common with the Taliban.
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
I think that’s a part of it, and part of it is also about shoring up the support of voters from those groups.
Ax^
Silly Rabbit
in Congress over the years yes
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yes, of course. To those for whom this has been a political strategy, its purpose has been to energise a particular base, as has anti-evolution stuff. It's the same base in both cases.
Ax^
Silly Rabbit
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
have republicans being bending over for Christian fundamentalists when did this happen
Ok, give me an estimated year of when you were last visiting and I’ll do my best to fill in some gaps.
The power dynamic isn’t simply one-way, the Republicans make sure to say certain things and get to rely on the fundies as a reliable block of votes, since for the last few decades they have increasingly had nowhere else to go.
Plus there’s a lot of funding coming from them.
Last edited:
Yossarian
⏭️
have republicans being bending over for Christian fundamentalists when did this happen
The Republican-fundamentalist alliance isn't quite as old as they're now pretending it is - this piece on the origins of the religious right was an interesting read.
It wasn’t until 1979—a full six years after Roe—that evangelical leaders, at the behest of conservative activist Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion not for moral reasons, but as a rallying-cry to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term. Why? Because the anti-abortion crusade was more palatable than the religious right’s real motive: protecting segregated schools.
Both before and for several years after Roe, evangelicals were overwhelmingly indifferent to the subject, which they considered a “Catholic issue.” In 1968, for instance, a symposium sponsored by the Christian Medical Society and Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelicalism, refused to characterize abortion as sinful, citing “individual health, family welfare, and social responsibility” as justifications for ending a pregnancy.
The Real Origins of the Religious Right
They’ll tell you it was abortion. Sorry, the historical record’s clear: It was segregation.
www.politico.com
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
The Republican-fundamentalist alliance isn't quite as old as they're now pretending it is - this piece on the origins of the religious right was an interesting read.
It wasn’t until 1979—a full six years after Roe—that evangelical leaders, at the behest of conservative activist Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion not for moral reasons, but as a rallying-cry to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term. Why? Because the anti-abortion crusade was more palatable than the religious right’s real motive: protecting segregated schools.
Both before and for several years after Roe, evangelicals were overwhelmingly indifferent to the subject, which they considered a “Catholic issue.” In 1968, for instance, a symposium sponsored by the Christian Medical Society and Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelicalism, refused to characterize abortion as sinful, citing “individual health, family welfare, and social responsibility” as justifications for ending a pregnancy.
The Real Origins of the Religious Right
They’ll tell you it was abortion. Sorry, the historical record’s clear: It was segregation.
That alliance had arguably been coalescing since the mid-60’s, which has the obvious racial connection (see also Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”), but yeah, cemented in the 70’s.
Last edited:
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
I think some of what is going is a fear of white replacement. There's fewer white babies being born and more black and brown ones and that scares Republicans. They're afraid of becoming the minority. I don't know why. Its not like being a minority has ever led of bad things for that minority. . . .
Last edited:
Similar threads
