Official Thread for Abortion Demagoguery

[Willfully Horn 8270]

15 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Please share what's next.

 

fifa

[Gil Bang 26247]

On 9/1/2021 at 1:00 PM, DonkeyCigars said:

Those are funny.

What about this old chestnut:

”Government should demand and mandate people get vaccinations, people don’t get a choice about what goes in their body!” By people who are pro-abortion under the reasoning of choice of what to do with your own body?

That seems comically inconsistent and something that would be a funny meme or Twitter screengrab. Got one of those on hand, too? Lol

Who the fuck is advocating for forced vax?  Nobody, that's who.  It's just a matter of get the vax or stay the fuck home, for the most part. 

13 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

No, purgatory is for sinners. Fetuses are not sinners so they go to limbo. 

Imagine that otherwise intelligent people believe this fucking horseshit.  It boggles the mind.

6 hours ago, Chooky said:

Force the child to testify. 

"Okay little Hayden or Tyler or Jordan or whatever the fuck your name is. Is the vagina you came out of in the courtroom today? Would you please point to that vagina? Let the record reflect that the little, slack-jawed prick pointed to his mother's vagina."

Roy Kent, Attorney at Law?

[JimmyJames 12271]

36 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

It is a new thread. Completely separate. And it’s your fault. Ask the formerly dead dude.

Time is a flat circle.

[washparkhorn 9974]

Lobby your politicians.

But also . . . 

libertarians should absolutely loath this legislation

The fiscal conservatives must be livid.

And it's not good for business. The data is there.

It's time to see what good libertarian Corporate Citizens say when the State strips freedom from Human Citizens. 

 

[brakeman 28757]

Go Wilcats!

[staboner 5098]

Texas punching itself in the face. again. running out of eyes to blacken. 

 

[washparkhorn 9974]

3 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

The GQP done Fucked Up.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20945]

 

[brakeman 28757]

please, please, please.

[StassneyHorn 6783]

I really hope the two posters who said they would discuss their rape and raise fantasies with women in their families actually did, and can report back after it’s now a more finite possibility.

[Bullneck 19547]

10 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

Depending on how things shake out, this could actually lead to the expansion of the court. 

I'm thinking this, too. The Repubs made it a lot easier to sell the idea to the public.  Straight party line vote.  Someone wire Manchin some money anonymously so he just shuts up and votes.

[Horn Dog 10180]

USSC on Citizens United-  “Spending money is a form of free speech and therefore protected by the 1st amendment!”

USSC on Texas passing a law banning spending money on or in support of abortion-  “This is fine.”

[wildcat09 29597]

Watch the clip. It’s even worse than the tweet makes it seem.

[Bojack 2092]

We're on our way to being face sucking Aliens.  Holy shit.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

I'd like to have a discussion with that guest on removal of the testes that are hosting sperm. How appropriate that the GOP has a white male from Florida as the voice of reasonableness about the state controlling a woman's fertilized egg.

[bonnieblue 542]

39 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Watch the clip. It’s even worse than the tweet makes it seem.

Yeesh. Lorena Bobbitt may have been on to something

[Anastasis 23724]

43 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Watch the clip. It’s even worse than the tweet makes it seem.

 

"Latent birthing person" is the preferred nomenclature, dude. 

[Post Oak 20570]

I'll never understand female republicans.

[South Austin 53235]

49 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Watch the clip. It’s even worse than the tweet makes it seem.

"Host body"?

 

[wildcat09 29597]

There are a few articles floating around the internet today, which I'm sure some DT dipshit will come post in this thread, about how the conservatives took the private right of action from the liberal playbook and liberals are being hypocrites by complaining about it in this context. I'm just going to go ahead and pre-emptively explain why that's bullshit. Private rights of action in laws that liberals have historically supported are created (1) to give people a right to protect their own rights (e.g. to sue for unlawful discrimination), or (2) to enforce environmental laws. They're created to ensure that the purpose of an applicable law isn't defeated by the refusal to enforce it by state actors. However, SB8 specifically created a private right of action for the clear purpose of avoiding judicial review. This is so completely different that it is utterly dishonest to pretend that it is similar to how private rights of action have been used in the past.

However, there is an historical law that this law does appear to borrow from. It's not a civil rights law, or an antidiscrimination law, or an environmental law though. It's the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. The Fugitive Slave Act allowed states to appoint anyone they wanted as bounty hunters to hunt down and capture escaped slaves. It allowed someone who simply claimed to own an escaped slave to swear that a black person was their slave and required that the state accept such a sworn statement as conclusive and forbid the testimony of an alleged escaped slave to be admitted as evidence to the contrary. And it subjected anyone who aided, abetted, or assisted an escaped slave to fines, imprisonment, and civil liability of $1,000 per alleged-escaped slave that they aided, to be paid to the alleged-slaveowner.

It is hard not to conclude that the Texas legislature used the Fugitive Slave Act as a model for SB8.

 

 

[MC Fresh Breath 4075]

50 minutes ago, Post Oak said:

I'll never understand female republicans.

Religion, fear, and loathing.  All intertwined.

[Gap03 3394]

7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It is hard not to conclude that the Texas legislature used the Fugitive Slave Act as a model for SB8.

 

Y'all Qaeda:  "Hell, yeah - if'ns we're gonna get back to like thangs were in the good ol' days, we gotsta start makin' laws like we had in the good ol' days!
 

[MC Fresh Breath 4075]

 

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/09/sb8-texas-abortion-democrats-filibuster-manchin-voting-rights.html?utm_source=flipboard.com&utm_medium=social_acct&utm_campaign=feed-part

Somehow this is all the fault of the Bernie Bros and the dirtbag left social media according to Chooky (and apparently quite a few folks on this board who agreed with him).

Quote

 

Those justices aren’t alone in their willful blindness. Moderate Democrats also refuse to see the constitutional crisis they are abetting. For even as Republicans gleefully nullify constitutional protections, Kyrsten Sinema & Co. put the Senate’s procedural norms above our democracy’s integrity.

 

Quote

For now, congressional Democrats have the power to arrest the anti-democratic right’s momentum. They can pass voting-rights legislation that makes casting a ballot easier for all Americans, no matter where they live. They can ban partisan gerrymandering in congressional elections and mitigate the Senate’s overrepresentation of white Americans by granting statehood to D.C. and any U.S. territory that wants it. Such measures would not ensure “one-party government” (nor should they). Rather, they would bring the partisan composition of Congress into greater alignment with that of the electorate. As a result, the Republican Party would likely be forced to put greater distance between itself and its most reactionary wing.

Democrats can also pass a law codifying abortion rights. And they can reform the Supreme Court in a manner that would prevent the conservative movement from advancing its anti-majoritarian goals by judicial fiat.

Quote

Joe Manchin, meanwhile, cites the January 6 insurrection as an argument against democracy reform. 

Quote

 One party is so committed to its ideological objectives that it is willing to violate the Constitution to achieve them. The other is so ambivalent about its own goals that it fetishizes procedural obstacles to their enactment.

Quote

But whatever its origins, the Democratic Party’s inability to wield power with the fervor of its opponents has placed our republic in needless jeopardy. The time to go nuclear was yesterday. If Democrats don’t press that button soon, we’ll reap the fallout tomorrow.

Quote

 

In the U.S., constitutional law guarantees pregnant people the right to have an abortion without “interference from the state.” Judicial precedent also empowers Americans to preempt any state law that flagrantly violates their constitutional rights: Even before an illicit statute takes effect, individuals can seek a court order barring state officers from enforcing it.

The pro-life movement abhors these legal niceties. In recent years, red states have routinely enacted de facto repeals of Roe v. Wade, only to see their unconstitutional laws nipped in the bud. Of course, conservatives did not respond to these setbacks by revising their agenda to better fit the demands of law and procedure. Rather, they used every tool at their disposal — including unprecedented violations of Senate convention — to assemble an anti-abortion Supreme Court majority. Meanwhile, in Texas, Republicans devised a cockamamie scheme for nullifying abortion rights immediately — with just a small favor from their friends on the high court.

The Texas GOP passed a law that effectively bans abortions after the sixth week of pregnancy — before many women even realize they are pregnant — but outsourced enforcement of this ban to private citizens. Under the law, known as SB 8, “any person, other than an officer or employee of a state or local governmental entity in this state,” can sue anyone who “knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion” after the sixth week of pregnancy. In other words, any doctor, clinic staff member, nonprofit, or even taxi driver who consciously helps someone end their pregnancy could be legally liable. The law entitles plaintiffs who win such suits to at least $10,000 from the defendant.

This is an unusual way to enforce a law. It turns every private citizen in the state of Texas into a potential hybrid of spy and bounty hunter. It threatens to besiege the state’s court system with lawsuits. But it also offers the judiciary a pretext for sitting on its hands as a blatantly unconstitutional law is implemented. Precedent empowers individuals to block the enforcement of unconstitutional laws by suing the state officer tasked with enforcing those measures. In the case of SB 8, however, no such state officer exists. So there is none to sue.

This pretext is absurd. As Vox’s Ian Millhiser writes, the tactic “could be used to undermine virtually any constitutional right. Imagine, for example, that New York passed an SB 8–style law allowing private individuals to bring lawsuits seeking a $10,000 bounty against anyone who owns a gun.”

Nevertheless, Texas’s gambit proved compelling to five of the Supreme Court’s six conservative justices. On Wednesday night, they issued an order allowing the law to take effect. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, “Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of Justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand.”

Those justices aren’t alone in their willful blindness. Moderate Democrats also refuse to see the constitutional crisis they are abetting. For even as Republicans gleefully nullify constitutional protections, Kyrsten Sinema & Co. put the Senate’s procedural norms above our democracy’s integrity.

This week, Republicans in the Texas state legislature passed a battery of voting restrictions, including measures aimed at making it harder for voters in Democratic-leaning Harris County to cast their ballots. Texas is just one of 18 states that have collectively passed more than 30 bills restricting voting this year, a development that the New York Times describes as “one of the greatest contractions of access to the ballot since the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965.”

Whether these measures will significantly depress turnout or affect election outcomes is unclear. But the intentions of their authors are transparent. The conservative movement no longer makes a secret of its contempt for democracy. Republicans openly argue that voters in (overwhelmingly white) rural areas deserve more political power than those in urban ones. Conservative pundits suggest that Democratic majorities are inherently illegitimate because they owe their existence to recent immigrants. The notion that the 2020 election was stolen is not merely popular with the GOP base; it has become one of its animating causes.

In February, former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon called on Trump supporters to avenge Trump’s stolen reelection by seizing control of the Republican Party from the bottom up: By taking lowly “precinct officer” positions in critical swing states, they could influence the selection of poll workers and election-oversight boards. As ProPublica reports, it appears that a great many Republicans heeded this call: GOP leaders in 41 battleground counties have seen an unusual influx of precinct officers. Altogether, at least 8,500 new officers have joined these county parties. No parallel surge has occurred among Democrats.

Again, whether Bannonite activists will succeed in subverting election administration in key states is unknowable. All things considered, the prospect seems unlikely. But the radicalization of the American right is indisputable. A large and growing portion of this movement considers Democratic election victories inherently illegitimate and aspires to prevent them through the subversion of electoral processes.

Meanwhile, our political system’s large structural biases, which overrepresent rural areas in both the House and the Senate, make it eminently possible for the GOP to secure full control of the federal government in 2024 while losing the popular vote by more than four points. Democrats owe their current, paper-thin Senate majority to multiple blowout election cycles. Barring a realignment, the party will likely lose its Senate majority by 2024 and struggle to gain a new one for many years to come.

In sum, an openly anti-democratic political movement has secured control of the judiciary and is using it to abet flagrant violations of constitutional rights. It is simultaneously passing voter-restriction laws, and giving partisan actors greater control over election administration, in states across the country. Its most zealous recruits are joining county Republican parties in key battleground areas as part of a conscious plot to ensure that the 2024 election does not turn out the way the 2020 one did. Anti-democratic biases embedded within existing electoral maps give this movement a massive advantage in federal elections, such that it can rule in defiance of majority will, even if its voting restrictions and administrative chicanery prove impotent. In fact, if one simply projects existing electoral trends forward, one would expect the Democratic Party to lose its trifecta in 2022 and fail to regain one for a decade or more, a scenario that would give the most pro-carbon political party in the developed world veto power over climate legislation until the mid-2030s.

For now, congressional Democrats have the power to arrest the anti-democratic right’s momentum. They can pass voting-rights legislation that makes casting a ballot easier for all Americans, no matter where they live. They can ban partisan gerrymandering in congressional elections and mitigate the Senate’s overrepresentation of white Americans by granting statehood to D.C. and any U.S. territory that wants it. Such measures would not ensure “one-party government” (nor should they). Rather, they would bring the partisan composition of Congress into greater alignment with that of the electorate. As a result, the Republican Party would likely be forced to put greater distance between itself and its most reactionary wing.

Democrats can also pass a law codifying abortion rights. And they can reform the Supreme Court in a manner that would prevent the conservative movement from advancing its anti-majoritarian goals by judicial fiat.

Unlike Texas’s abortion ban, none of these measures would contravene constitutional law. Enacting them would, however, require abolishing the Senate filibuster. And for a critical mass of Senate Democrats, that is simply a bridge too far.

I’ve rehearsed the argument for the filibuster’s abolition many times over the past four years. Suffice to say, the Senate’s 60-vote threshold for the passage of major legislation is not actually a tradition (because it has existed for roughly two decades); it defies the Constitution’s intent (because the Framers considered mandating a supermajority threshold for the passage of bills in the Senate and decided against it); it is inherently conservative (because it biases the legislative process toward the status quo); and it is inherently anti-democratic (because it gives representatives accountable to a tiny fraction of the electorate veto power over all legislation).

The filibuster’s Democratic proponents never acknowledge these realities. Nor do they make any serious attempt to grapple with the nature of their opposition or our political moment. Arizona senator Kyrsten Sinema has repeatedly argued that Democrats must not eliminate the legislative filibuster to pass democracy-enhancing reforms because doing so would enable a future Republican government to more easily impose voting restrictions nationwide. Yet we do not need to imagine a hypothetical future in which the GOP runs roughshod over democratic rights. That crisis is already upon us. The conservative movement is wielding power far in excess of its popular support. The second most populous state in the country has already effectively repealed Roe v. Wade. Regardless of what Democrats do today, a future Republican Senate majority could abolish the legislative filibuster any time it wished. Banning partisan gerrymandering and granting D.C. statehood — which is to say making House and Senate representation more equitable — would offer far better protection against the reactionary right than the filibuster ever could.

Joe Manchin, meanwhile, cites the January 6 insurrection as an argument against democracy reform. In the West Virginia senator’s view, the more radical the right becomes, the more acquiescent Democrats must be. In fact, it seems that Manchin may not even be willing to support a budget-reconciliation bill that makes meaningful investments in climate infrastructure.

This asymmetry between each major party’s appetite for hardball is a defining fact of our politics. One party is so committed to its ideological objectives that it is willing to violate the Constitution to achieve them. The other is so ambivalent about its own goals that it fetishizes procedural obstacles to their enactment.

To an extent, this reality is a symptom of our democratic crisis rather than a cause. It is the overrepresentation of conservative voters that has left Democrats reliant on Manchin for a Senate majority. But whatever its origins, the Democratic Party’s inability to wield power with the fervor of its opponents has placed our republic in needless jeopardy. The time to go nuclear was yesterday. If Democrats don’t press that button soon, we’ll reap the fallout tomorrow.

 

 

Edited September 3, 2021 by MC Fresh Breath

[Jive Turkey 13016]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

It is hard not to conclude that the Texas legislature used the Fugitive Slave Act as a model for SB8.

the party wanting "purity of the ballot box" absolutely relied on the Fugitive Slave Act in crafting SB8.

 

[Js1 87223]

 

[Macanudo 13330]

That's a few fucking days late.

[JimmyJames 12271]

It’s hard to imagine the court doing something that will make it look more illegitimate in the eyes of the public than what they just did. Let a clearly unconstitutional law stand with no argument and no opinion. 
 

Hell at least the dred Scott decision and citizen United were actual written opinions with arguments and signatures.  This is just a complete cop out. 
 

Just a bullshit procedural dodge that the vast majority of the public will think is bullshit, because it is. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

While we’re at it let’s just bring back slavery by allowing any white citizen to sue any black who refuses to come over and clean his house on command. 

Supreme Court- “looks like our hands are tied again!”

[C-Man 27802]

[Bateshorn 9991]

Remember that time a bunch of independent voters and Bernie Bros stayed home, or worse, voted for a failed reality tv star and known grifter because they found the competent governance lady to be off putting?

[Born to Run 6601]

the party wanting "purity of the ballot box" absolutely relied on the Fugitive Slave Act in crafting SB8.
 

Which GOP candidate is going bust out a midget with a broom this spring?

[Nivek 17420]

18 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Yeah, that was a badly constructed sentence because typing when angry is challenging for me.

Meh,  most of my posts come across as nearly unintelligible due to the steady stream of interruptions.   I was just trying to make you laugh a little.  

[Willfully Horn 8270]

44 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

While we’re at it let’s just bring back slavery by allowing any white citizen to sue any black who refuses to come over and clean his house on command. 

Supreme Court- “looks like our hands are tied again!”

Gun violence. Any rando can sue any and all who enable a gun to be fired at a human.

[MC Fresh Breath 4075]

49 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Remember that time a bunch of independent voters and Bernie Bros stayed home, or worse, voted for a failed reality tv star and known grifter because they found the competent governance lady to be off putting?

NM

 

Edited September 3, 2021 by MC Fresh Breath
not worth it

[JimmyJames 12271]

10 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Gun violence. Any rando can sue any and all who enable a gun to be fired at a human.

Yep. If you aid and abet the purchase of a gun (ie like sell it) that winds up killing someone anyone in America can sue you for wrongful death of that individual. 
 

“But muh rights?!??”  - gun lovin imbecile 

Response. “Supreme court has spoken dude.”
 

The idiotic expansion of this stupid ass law into other areas are virtually endless. 

[Willfully Horn 8270]

Not wrongful death. Abortion is not a wrongful death, per se. No deaths required to hang this lunacy on gun violence. Even self defense.

[ROFL BOX 6655]

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

[Willfully Horn 8270]

Stonekettle is the best blood pressure medicine.

[Chooky 13341]

56 minutes ago, Born to Run said:

Which GOP candidate is going bust out a midget with a broom this spring?

People like that reform, daddy.  Maybe we should get us some.

[wildcat09 29597]

 

 

[brakeman 28757]

[brakeman 28757]

[Js1 87223]

1 hour ago, Bateshorn said:

Remember that time a bunch of independent voters and Bernie Bros stayed home, or worse, voted for a failed reality tv star and known grifter because they found the competent governance lady to be off putting?

I do but they keep telling us to get over it 

[JimmyJames 12271]

10 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

 

 

The Texas taliban has not really thought through what they have unleashed here. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 34106]

10 minutes ago, brakeman said:

that's pretty, pretty, pretty good

[washparkhorn 9974]

4 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I do but they keep telling us to get over it 

Some of you are working to burn the Democratic Coalition to the ground. Very GOPish.

This is a thread about abortion. Start a thread about the 2016 abortion elsewhere. Thank you.

 

[Macanudo 13330]

Going out on a limb here but what stops someone (most likely a woman in this case) from filing suit saying that Due Process (5th amendment) rights are violated because the government is farming out authority to non-government entities?

[High Plains Drifter 11192]

17 hours ago, mchookem said:

i mean that's awesome and all but we've already been run over so

 

 

A parable (fable? allegory? pearls of wisdom? at the very least, some sort of lesson) from your pal, High Plains Drifter:

One time I was biking and came across a rattle snake that had been run over. Looked deader than fried chicken--it had a tire sized flat spot right in the middle of its body, guts squirted out all over the road, flies hovering around, etc. I stopped and got my pocket knife, intending to cut off its rattle for a keepsake. I grabbed its tail and the fucking thing struck at me, coming goddamn close to actually biting me. I swear I could feel the breeze of its mouth on the back of my hand. I was very stupid (and very lucky).

 

[Pescado_Rojo 19592]

What's stopping us from reporting every legislator's daughter for a suspected abortion? Worst case, they all have to go through at least a cursory discovery. Best case we make a few bucks and put one of these fucks in the crosshairs of the pro-life nutters.

[ROFL BOX 6655]