the alabama abortion attack

[wildcat09 29,187]

32 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

8 justices signed on to that opinion, with Thomas concurring in part and dissenting in part.  So maybe 8.5.  That was a pretty good trick to get all SCOTUS justices to sign on to something he created out of whole cloth.

Thank you for so clearly demonstrating the efficacy of Roberts' approach.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

and how super dumb all the other justices are!

[Biff Tannen 45,477]

8 minutes ago, Fondren & Main said:

I don’t think anyone thinks that making abortion illegal will stop abortion from happening.  I think this woman is a total fucking loon.  I’m not sure what point you’re trying to convey by quoting her.

You don't?  Then why all the hubbub?  Let's keep it legal and move on with our lives.

[Nivek 16,808]

Just like how the anti-vaccine morons do not know their history the anti-choice dipshits do not know and do not care about history.   I kind of want them to suffer the consequences of their own decisions.  I hope we can remove federal aid programs from these freeloading states and let them pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.  

[David Dennison 18,605]

18 minutes ago, Fondren & Main said:

I don’t think anyone thinks that making abortion illegal will stop abortion from happening.  I think this woman is a total fucking loon.  I’m not sure what point you’re trying to convey by quoting her.

Abortion is never going to be illegal in the United States. It's just going to be difficult to get one if you are poor.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

we should get another banner fund put together and get a billboard in Birmingham just saying "Please secede."

[David Dennison 18,605]

3 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Just like how the anti-vaccine morons do not know their history the anti-choice dipshits do not know and do not care about history.   I kind of want them to suffer the consequences of their own decisions.  I hope we can remove federal aid programs from these freeloading states and let them pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.  

It's no coincidence that red states are the shithole states.

[jimmyjazz 45,513]

Can one of you Constitutional scholars outline the likely range of SCOTUS response to a legal challenge of the Alabama law?  Are they likely to chip away at certain aspects of the law or is it an all or nothing deal?

I have to believe the failure to carve out cases of rape or incest would be addressed, if that is possible.  As far as I know, though, SCOTUS can't write law . . . would they kick the whole thing back to Alabama?  

This is just not the kind of thing I pay attention to in my daily life, even though I probably should.

[Cheeseweasel 26,437]

22 minutes ago, Fondren & Main said:

I don’t think anyone thinks that making abortion illegal will stop abortion from happening.  I think this woman is a total fucking loon.  I’m not sure what point you’re trying to convey by quoting her.

Side note: When I see someone quoting from Twitter, you've lost me in the debate. Twitter is cancer.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Can one of you Constitutional scholars outline the likely range of SCOTUS response to a legal challenge of the Alabama law?  Are they likely to chip away at certain aspects of the law or is it an all or nothing deal?

I have to believe the failure to carve out cases of rape or incest would be addressed, if that is possible.  As far as I know, though, SCOTUS can't write law . . . would they kick the whole thing back to Alabama?  

This is just not the kind of thing I pay attention to in my daily life, even though I probably should.

to me the biggest exposure for the ban side is that Roe v. Wade ties the right to abortion to viability.  because science necessarily moves viability date forward all the time, the court could keep looking at shorter and shorter time periods for constitutionality.

[David Dennison 18,605]

10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Can one of you Constitutional scholars outline the likely range of SCOTUS response to a legal challenge of the Alabama law?  Are they likely to chip away at certain aspects of the law or is it an all or nothing deal?

I have to believe the failure to carve out cases of rape or incest would be addressed, if that is possible.  As far as I know, though, SCOTUS can't write law . . . would they kick the whole thing back to Alabama?  

This is just not the kind of thing I pay attention to in my daily life, even though I probably should.

If I had to guess, because this particular law is so extreme, the 11th Circuit is going to rule the entire law unconstitutional and SCOTUS won't grant cert.

Edited May 16, 2019 by David Dennison

[Cheeseweasel 26,437]

2 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

to me the biggest exposure for the ban side is that Roe v. Wade ties the right to abortion to viability.  because science necessarily moves viability date forward all the time, the court could keep looking at shorter and shorter time periods for constitutionality.

Yeah, that does seem to be the "risk". Is a fetus viable in the third trimester? And if so, does that fetus fall under equal protection?

I think they will avoid the question completely and not grant cert to the Alabama law or any of the other "fetal heartbeat" laws and give deference to Roe.

[GSU&UT 1,798]

11 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Side note: When I see someone quoting from Twitter, you've lost me in the debate. Twitter is cancer.

Pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of the GOP and evangelicals is cancer, got it.

Edited May 16, 2019 by GSU&UT

[GSU&UT 1,798]

35 minutes ago, Fondren & Main said:

I don’t think anyone thinks that making abortion illegal will stop abortion from happening.  I think this woman is a total fucking loon.  I’m not sure what point you’re trying to convey by quoting her.

Are you dense? The point is how incredibly hypocritical these people are. If you were to poll every single pro-lifer in Alabama who think gun control laws don't work I'd bet the venn diagram of the responses would be a complete circle.

[Cheeseweasel 26,437]

1 minute ago, GSU&UT said:

Pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of the GOP and evangelicals is cancer, got it.

Yeah, that's exactly what my point was.

[GSU&UT 1,798]

1 minute ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Yeah, that's exactly what my point was.

Did you not just concede that anything from twitter being used to drive home a point is "cancer?"

[wildcat09 29,187]

33 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

and how super dumb all the other justices are!

Nobody said that. Do you think all judges 100% agree with all dicta contained in a legal opinion they join?

[jimmyjazz 45,513]

7 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Yeah, that does seem to be the "risk". Is a fetus viable in the third trimester? And if so, does that fetus fall under equal protection?

Sorry, I'm running on fumes this morning:  doesn't Roe V Wade give states discretion in limiting or outlawing 3rd trimester abortions?  I'm not seeing where the exposure is regarding the Alabama law.  As fetal viability becomes possible at earlier ages, it would seem that a recrafting of those RVW provisions would be "justifiable".  (I'm not trying to get into a pro-life or pro-choice argument here, I'm just trying to understand where this draconian Alabama law crosses up with the "viability" intent of RVW.)

[wildcat09 29,187]

18 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Side note: When I see someone quoting from Twitter, you've lost me in the debate. Twitter is cancer.

I dunno, historian twitter is pretty great.

[Cheeseweasel 26,437]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Sorry, I'm running on fumes this morning:  doesn't Roe V Wade give states discretion in limiting or outlawing 3rd trimester abortions?  I'm not seeing where the exposure is regarding the Alabama law.  As fetal viability becomes possible at earlier ages, it would seem that a recrafting of those RVW provisions would be "justifiable".  (I'm not trying to get into a pro-life or pro-choice argument here, I'm just trying to understand where this draconian Alabama law crosses up with the "viability" intent of RVW.)

Nah, you are right on. The Alabama law is a hail mary that will never be caught by SCOTUS. I think the "risk" in SCOTUS taking any of these cases is that medicine has progressed since 1973 and we have a better understanding of viability. 

[Cheeseweasel 26,437]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I dunno, historian twitter is pretty great.

Twitter is great for comedy. Twitter is a shitstorm for politics.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Sorry, I'm running on fumes this morning:  doesn't Roe V Wade give states discretion in limiting or outlawing 3rd trimester abortions?  I'm not seeing where the exposure is regarding the Alabama law.  As fetal viability becomes possible at earlier ages, it would seem that a recrafting of those RVW provisions would be "justifiable".  (I'm not trying to get into a pro-life or pro-choice argument here, I'm just trying to understand where this draconian Alabama law crosses up with the "viability" intent of RVW.)

i don't think it is possible to uphold AL law and keep Roe v Wade.  I think Roe's language is clear enough that viability is the threshold, and AL's complete ban does not get there.  I think the options are (1) overrule RvW's reasoning, and allow AL law to stand (2) keep RvW and find AL unconstitutional and move on down the road (3) keep RvW and find AL unconstitutional and have some passage in there that says "evidence before the district court was that viability is now possible at 6 weeks.  AL does not meet that, and therefore is unconstitutional" which would be a signal to everyone to pass 6 week statutes.

[jimmyjazz 45,513]

1 minute ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

i don't think it is possible to uphold AL law and keep Roe v Wade.  I think Roe's language is clear enough that viability is the threshold, and AL's complete ban does not get there.  I think the options are (1) overrule RvW's reasoning, and allow AL law to stand (2) keep RvW and find AL unconstitutional and move on down the road (3) keep RvW and find AL unconstitutional and have some passage in there that says "evidence before the district court was that viability is now possible at 6 weeks.  AL does not meet that, and therefore is unconstitutional" which would be a signal to everyone to pass 6 week statutes.

Thanks.  What's the mechanism for "overruling" or "overturning" RVW?  Is it just a matter of ruling that a contradictory law is Constitutional? 

It sounds to me like you think SCOTUS must deem the entire law as written as either Constitutional or not, but would signal in its opinion where that boundary lies, allowing states to respond according to that new line in the sand.

[Biff Tannen 45,477]

FWIW, Jeffrey Toobin thinks SCOTUS is going to overturn Roe v Wade because of this.  *ducks

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,342]

2 hours ago, GSU&UT said:

Anyone citing that Virginia is allowing third trimester abortions at will for anyone seeking them is not arguing in good faith and should be ignored.

It's so sad, isn't it?  And yet Onboard, Works with Seed etc...  continue on with their stupidity even after being shown repeatedly that it's not true.

I guess it's true: you can't fix stupid. 

[jimmyjazz 45,513]

Just now, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

It's so sad, isn't it?  And yet Onboard, Works with Seed etc...  continue on with their stupidity even after being shown repeatedly that it's not true.

I guess it's true: you can't fix stupid. 

Well, when there are people claiming that physicians execute live babies after delivery, it does muddy the water a bit.

[wildcat09 29,187]

It's so common in discussions that I don't typically mind (and do it myself) when people use Roe as the standing law, but it's not. Planned Parenthood v. Casey is the standing law. Right now, under Casey, states can regulate abortions during any trimester. Pre-viability abortions simply can't place an "undue burden" on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion.  The likeliest route for SCOTUS to take in effectively banning abortions is to simply never find an undue burden.

[hpslugga 4,039]

8 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

Pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of the GOP and evangelicals is cancer, got it.

They’re obvious hypocrites. There’s no doubt about that. His point was that Twitter is not the best way to provide evidence of that. And he’s correct; it’s not the best way to provide evidence of that. There are plenty of other more credible avenues that’ll illustrate that point, probably even more strongly.

[Cheeseweasel 26,437]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It's so common in discussions that I don't typically mind (and do it myself) when people use Roe as the standing law, but it's not. Planned Parenthood v. Casey is the standing law. Right now, under Casey, states can regulate abortions during any trimester. Pre-viability abortions simply can't place an "undue burden" on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion.  The likeliest route for SCOTUS to take in effectively banning abortions is to simply never find an undue burden.

You're right. I only reference Roe because when you reference Casey, few know about it.

[Cheeseweasel 26,437]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Thanks.  What's the mechanism for "overruling" or "overturning" RVW?  Is it just a matter of ruling that a contradictory law is Constitutional? 

It sounds to me like you think SCOTUS must deem the entire law as written as either Constitutional or not, but would signal in its opinion where that boundary lies, allowing states to respond according to that new line in the sand.

SCOTUS will rule on the case at hand (whatever it will be IE: Planned Parenthood vs. Alabama) and say this is constitutional because... or this is unconstitutional because....

They won't (technically) overturn RVW/Casey, they will just create a "new standard".

[Aqua Buddha 14,488]

6 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

FWIW, Jeffrey Toobin thinks SCOTUS is going to overturn Roe v Wade because of this.  *ducks

Mark my words, this will split the Republican party.  Prolly 40-50% of their voters are secretly pro-choice to some degree.  (Suburban women, for example.)  They never paid much attention to the carping by the pro-life crowd because they never considered Roe in serious jeopardy.  Now it is.

They're going to get their asses handed to them in 2020.

[GSU&UT 1,798]

7 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

They’re obvious hypocrites. There’s no doubt about that. His point was that Twitter is not the best way to provide evidence of that. And he’s correct; it’s not the best way to provide evidence of that. There are plenty of other more credible avenues that’ll illustrate that point, probably even more strongly.

Cool, it's a board where people don't generally write a thesis defense and instead post reactionary images, tweets, videos. etc. It was a simple and clear point.

[Fondren & Main 6,658]

24 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

Are you dense? The point is how incredibly hypocritical these people are. If you were to poll every single pro-lifer in Alabama who think gun control laws don't work I'd bet the venn diagram of the responses would be a complete circle.

The issues are apples and oranges.  You’re the dumbass here if you can’t see that.  Also, there are a ton of dumbfucks in office on both sides of the aisle.  The fact that that is even being brought up in the thread is surprising.  I thought y’all were smarter than that.  For God’s sake there’s an idiot in Congress right now that thinks Guam will flip over if too many people live on the island!

[wildcat09 29,187]

3 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Mark my words, this will split the Republican party.  Prolly 40-50% of their voters are secretly pro-choice to some degree.  (Suburban women, for example.)  They never paid much attention to the carping by the pro-life crowd because they never considered Roe in serious jeopardy.  Now it is.

They're going to get their asses handed to them in 2020.

I hope this is right. However, I was pretty sure all those educated suburban white women who were secretly not super conservative would cross over and vote for Hillary and that didn't happen. Maybe they really truly didn't think abortion rights were at risk, but if that's the case, they haven't been paying attention for the past 15-20 years. The lunatics have been running the GOP asylum for some time.

[GSU&UT 1,798]

3 minutes ago, Fondren & Main said:

The issues are apples and oranges.  You’re the dumbass here if you can’t see that.  Also, there are a ton of dumbfucks in office on both sides of the aisle.  The fact that that is even being brought up in the thread is surprising.  I thought y’all were smarter than that.  For God’s sake there’s an idiot in Congress right now that thinks Guam will flip over if too many people live on the island!

The law is being made to criminalize abortion in the hopes people will not seek abortion. I don't know how that isn't a fair comparison to many of the same people who would also say that gun laws don't prevent gun violence.

[jimmyjazz 45,513]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

I hope this is right. However, I was pretty sure all those educated suburban white women who were secretly not super conservative would cross over and vote for Hillary and that didn't happen. Maybe they really truly didn't think abortion rights were at risk, but if that's the case, they haven't been paying attention for the past 15-20 years. The lunatics have been running the GOP asylum for some time.

I think a lot of people get fatigued by predictions of what will happen, and they don't react until something *actually* happens.  For a large portion of the electorate, especially those who comprise most of the left, RvW is just an accepted standard carved in stone.  Now, the threat is very real, and much more visible.

[Cheeseweasel 26,437]

11 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Mark my words, this will split the Republican party.  Prolly 40-50% of their voters are secretly pro-choice to some degree.  (Suburban women, for example.)  They never paid much attention to the carping by the pro-life crowd because they never considered Roe in serious jeopardy.  Now it is.

They're going to get their asses handed to them in 2020.

As a long time Republican I hope you are right. This party needs to be destroyed and rebuilt. Flush out all of the Religious Nutjobs who want us to be The Christian Saudi Arabia.

[Hank Kingsley 20,635]

Where are the millions of Republican men that have greenlighted abortions in their lifetimes? Where are the millions of Republican women that have had abortions? 

Just sitting this one out, I guess? Don't want to speak out against your own party? 

 

 

 

 

[jimmyjazz 45,513]

Just now, Hank Kingsley said:

Where are the millions of Republican men that have greenlighted abortions in their lifetimes? Where are the millions of Republican women that have had abortions? 

Just sitting this one out, I guess? Don't want to speak out against your own party? 

 

 

 

 

There's actually a hashtag movement underway by which women "confess" having had one or more abortions in their life:  #youknowme

I'm pretty sure it will be stillborn, especially among conservatives, but you never know.

[Hank Kingsley 20,635]

17 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Mark my words, this will split the Republican party.  Prolly 40-50% of their voters are secretly pro-choice to some degree.  (Suburban women, for example.)  They never paid much attention to the carping by the pro-life crowd because they never considered Roe in serious jeopardy.  Now it is.

They're going to get their asses handed to them in 2020.

Yeah, no. 

I haven't seen any pushback from Republicans yet as they clearly embrace the party's authoritarian tendencies. Party over country. 

 

[David Dennison 18,605]

NM

Edited May 16, 2019 by David Dennison
Derp.

[David Dennison 18,605]

29 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

FWIW, Jeffrey Toobin thinks SCOTUS is going to overturn Roe v Wade because of this.  *ducks

They might!

But they also might not.

 

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

20 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Mark my words, this will split the Republican party.  Prolly 40-50% of their voters are secretly pro-choice to some degree.  (Suburban women, for example.)  They never paid much attention to the carping by the pro-life crowd because they never considered Roe in serious jeopardy.  Now it is.

They're going to get their asses handed to them in 2020.

I don't think suburban women are secretive about theIr support for abortion.  I haven't met many who didn't have a pretty strong opinion in support of Roe. v Wade 

It's Bible thumpers that would be secretly in support of it.

[Hank Kingsley 20,635]

White suburban women will stay quiet and not upset the GOP's strategy/plans.

Hell, they're basically the reason Trump was elected in the first place. 

 

[David Dennison 18,605]

Just now, Hank Kingsley said:

White suburban women will stay quiet and not upset the GOP's strategy/plans.

Hell, they're basically the reason Trump was elected in the first place. 

They are also why Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House.

[WhatTheBuck 28,700]

2 hours ago, Post Oak said:

I'm actually rooting for climate change

Frontrunner. 

[Foosters 17,691]

19 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I hope this is right. However, I was pretty sure all those educated suburban white women who were secretly not super conservative would cross over and vote for Hillary and that didn't happen. Maybe they really truly didn't think abortion rights were at risk, but if that's the case, they haven't been paying attention for the past 15-20 years. The lunatics have been running the GOP asylum for some time.

My one bit of anecdotal evidence is this 50 something 2x Obama voter who was just so sick of this PC nonsense and snowflake bullshit that she pulled the lever for DOTUS.  We all told her she was crazy. She would roll her eyes and say things like "oh, you guys are overreacting.  You millennials always make mountains out of molehills."  

She now admits she was mistaken and can't believe that Roe is in danger.

 

[Aqua Buddha 14,488]

6 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

White suburban women will stay quiet and not upset the GOP's strategy/plans.

Hell, they're basically the reason Trump was elected in the first place. 

 

There was a huge shift in suburban white women from 2016 to 2018.  It was pretty well documented.

[Hank Kingsley 20,635]

8 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

They are also why Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House.

 

2 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

There was a huge shift in suburban white women from 2016 to 2018.  It was pretty well documented.

Fair enough. I stupidly think of my anecdotal evidence of white suburban moms I know that will back Trump in 2020, when the reality nationwide is different. Thanks for the corrections. 

 

[Biff Tannen 45,477]

15 minutes ago, Foosters said:

My one bit of anecdotal evidence is this 50 something 2x Obama voter who was just so sick of this PC nonsense and snowflake bullshit that she pulled the lever for DOTUS.  We all told her she was crazy. She would roll her eyes and say things like "oh, you guys are overreacting.  You millennials always make mountains out of molehills."  

She now admits she was mistaken and can't believe that Roe is in danger.

 

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes, right Brisket?