Dude, stop.
Let’s just assume the will of the people can dictate state level legislation (but you know, the whole “flawed democracy” rating thing kind of gets in the way), are women supposed to feel cheered by the possibility that the abortion they need in July would be available to them with a hypothetical pregnancy in 2026?
Hey, it worked well enough for slavery, why mess around with a proven model.
Yeah, and Texas could bring the age of consent back down to 12.
Competing theories on where this leak came from…
A liberal leaning clerk who wanted to get the warning out there to see if resistance to the ruling could be mounted prior to it being officially published
Someone from within the majority with the intention of letting all the piss and vinegar come out now, and also gives the right a distraction to pursue by going after the source of the leak, as if that is the relevant bit of the story.
The furiosity with which I’ve seen the right wing talking heads go after Sotomayor makes me think its the latter.
The other theory going around is that one of the five is softer than the other four in the majority, and this was an effort to consolidate that majority now before it got watered down in the drafting process. Ginni Thomas has already done and said things at least as batshit crazy and contradictory to constitutional convention.
The idea that once it’s gone public there is no backing out? I don’t discount it as a rationale (especially if it come from the mind of Mrs Thomas), but I cannot see it as being a good rationale as it runs counter the idea I floated in option 1. I guess there might have been a thought on how bad the backlash would be and this was a trial balloon to see if they thought said blow back was manageable.
Since Trump was able to appoint three conservative justices this has been on the cards and is in no way surprising.
The circumstances of one of them was appalling, as it was Obama’s choice, I think it was Garland, but Mitch McConnell blocked it all until Trump became President. When Scalia died Trump had another choice. Then when RBG died he added a third justice (I remember years ago when the health of RBG was in question she had an opportunity to step down and let Obama appoint another justice, but she chose to carry on).
Anyway, the point being, this is all a very obvious development given the make up of the Supreme Court.
Whether people like it or not depends on their view of abortion. If it is about a woman’s right to do what she wants with her own body, then of course these developments are deeply concerning.
If your view on abortion takes into account the right to life of the unborn, you will be glad that Roe v Wade is in jeopardy.
I don’t think you need go as far as New Mexico. Mexico will be an abortion factory I suspect.
It was predictable in many ways given the people who had been appointed and the knowledge of the reasons behind those appointments. But we kept being told that the existing ruling was established precedent and the court would not challenge that. The fact we suspect they were lying (and that the likes Susan Fucking Collins or Kathleen Parker can shut their fucking traps for criticising us for suggesting otherwise) does not alter the enormity of what they have indicated they are about to it by overruling existing precedent, and that has to be acknowledged.
If this were limited to just an abortion ruling it would be enormous. But it isnt.
Agree about RBG, all the hagiographies but today is part of her legacy.
As to your point about the two fundamental principles at stake, that is precisely why leaving it to state level regulation is simply incoherent.
Catholic?
Yes but Mexico.
Republicans are so fucking disingenuous.
Life begins at conception!!! Every life is precious and must be protected at all costs.
Just don’t give birth, coz once it’s out, you’re on your own.
Their mealy-mouthed bullshit makes me sick.
I thought the right were all about freedom, baby. Woooooo!!!
But they aren’t allowing women the freedom to choose.
If she dies she dies, but the argument they give is the baby has not had the opportunity to get baptized. The mother has and if she chose to forgo that then if she dies because of her pregnancy she will go to hell and it will be her fault. The baby has not had that chance so they need to preserve the baby at all costs.
What they dont address is the lengths theyre willing to go to to preserve the life of an ununsured unbaptized newborn who is struggling. I guess at that point its on the baby to figure out how to get to baptized.
It’s such a dark philosophy.
The baby will just have to pull itself up by its bootstraps.*
*Bootstraps not included.
This wouldn’t apply to Republicans’ mistresses though, right? Or ‘job creators’?
I mean, come on, good ol’ boys will be good ol’ boys and they just wanna have fun.
What I haven’t seen since I lived over here is a coherent pro life stance. On a personal note I lean towards pro life and I want to protect the life of the unborn. I wouldn’t be an extremist on that, and I’d want more education, and much easier access to contraception, and I would still leave it to personal choice, as making such a personal thing a matter of law and possible criminalization seems wrong. My hope would be that with sensible policies in place the abortion rate would drop that way.
With that said, my pro life view would also want to see medical care provided for all, rich or poor, because, well, that’s pro life. And a free kindergarten place too. And sort the gun shit out as that is appalling, and because I am pro life I would be in favor of much stronger gun restrictions than I see here. Oh, and because I am pro life I would be against the vast majority of wars I’ve seen in my lifetime, but I’m not a pacifist, as I have room for a just war within my pro life stance. Because I am pro life I also believe in fair taxation, and the concept of strengthening society through that.
My pro life view influences what I think about healthcare, education, guns, war, taxation, and numerous other things.
Since I have lived here I would agree that the Republican position on generally being pro life is not coherent, and there are lots of policies that are routinely accepted with little to no consideration on whether or not they enable life to flourish.
I can sympathise with your views Red OTW, unfortunately the ‘pro life’ moniker is now an extremist position. It doesn’t mean reducing the incidence of abortion, nor education on safe sex or access to contraception, the far right employ it to exclusively mean regulating abortion so that it is definitely not a personal matter for the woman involved and they definitely do not believe that she deserves any ‘freedom’ to ‘choose’. Taken on its face value, anyone with humanity must be ‘pro life’ as nobody (Putin types aside) would subscribe to an ‘anti life’ position. The point of the far right using the language is to move the discussion away from one about balancing womens’ reproduction rights against those of an foetus (and in some cases embryo) to an emotive position that naturally seems hard to be against.
This may make me sound like a patronising cunt (which no doubt I am) but IMO:
You would be better off thinking of yourself as having a position on ‘abortion’ and being ‘anti-abortion’ in the context of foetus of certain gestation in environments for eg. where there are no risks to the mothers health (and perhaps ‘pro-abortion’ in the context of other scenarios etc…). Being specific about this would help you distinguish your position from all those myriad of ‘pro life’ positions on healthcare, guns etc and also think through the specifics around when and where you are more or less uncomfortable with a ‘pro abortion’ stance. If everyone in the US did this perhaps the dreadful ‘pro life’ would be replaced with something more nuanced and defensible.