The Supremes

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

1 minute ago, Saint Austin said:

Despite my better judgment I'm dipping my toe into this thread here. But would a lawyer who's better than me explain how Congress could pass a law codifying Roe? Even if it did pass such a law, wouldn't the SCOTUS have the same ability to strike down Roe, as well as that law, kicking it back to the states?

not likely.  congress has a lot of leeway on laws they pass, e.g., through the commerce clause.  all scotus is saying is that the constitution doesn't guarantee that right. 

[Nivek 16987]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Annie's entire professional career is predicated on controlling and denying people's access to healthcare and lifesaving treatment. No shit he takes glee in creating more levers to control personal healthcare decisions and deny care

Have some respect.  My 2 yr old couldn't count to 30, 50x a day.   That takes some talent.

[Poe It Up 126]

17 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

 I am never going to vote for a party that advocates for suppressing a person’s right to vote. I’m never going to vote for a party that supports violent insurrection in response to an unwanted outcome from a free and fair election. I am never going to vote for a party whose members introduce legislation to put women in jail for using contraception or terminating pregnancies before 17 weeks. If you think that makes me a liberal you need your head examined. 

I have no idea what you are or what you purport to be, that’s not really the point of the discussion. 

 

16 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

There is legislation in Louisiana up for a boat that would be having an abortion in the first weeks of gestation felony murder. We are moving towards a theocracy. 

McCormick’s bill is a joke. You can see his colleagues pulling their collar’s in nervousness when the issue comes up. It will never make it into law and if it somehow does, the federal courts will strike it down. Emotions are high, but let’s not get ridiculous here. 

[Neonmoon 38130]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

My summary, from December:

Troll: "You're all racist eugenicists!"

Everyone else: "Fuck you, troll"

Troll: "Why can't we find some reasonable common ground? I think you guys should stop being crazy with your opposition to Longhorn victories and come around to my view that it's actually good when the Longhorns win games!" 

[Saint Austin 745]

Just now, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

not likely.  congress has a lot of leeway on laws they pass, e.g., through the commerce clause.  all scotus is saying is that the constitution doesn't guarantee that right. 

I get that the Commerce Clause is often used as a means for the feds to exert authority, but I still don't see a convincing Commerce Clause-based argument here.

[wildcat09 29410]

1 minute ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

not likely.  congress has a lot of leeway on laws they pass, e.g., through the commerce clause.  all scotus is saying is that the constitution doesn't guarantee that right. 

This SCOTUS would absolutely strike down any federal statute that attempted to codify Roe.

[sidis 9832]

9 hours ago, Anastasis said:

The "abortion issue" will not and cannot be solved with "legal solutions". Legal solutions are not really solutions for most things, abortion included, and most will only take us backwards. I don't think that Roe was a good ruling, but I don't think that overturning Roe fixes anything and will only make the entire environment more toxic. A significant number of abortions, ~ 100k per year per CDC, are serial cases where the women involved had 2+ prior abortions. Start there in terms of building some common ground, and work outwards. These are situations where the psychological and medical ramifications are pretty obvious. We can't and should not count on the government, but if people on both sides of the issue could disengage from the politics and focus on some actual real world praxis, we maybe could get somewhere.  Picture an MLF type organization focused on addressing abortion in the same way and context that they address homelessness.  

respectfully, this is not an answer...at least not a relevant one to this topic at hand.  this is effectively a handwave with non-specific vagueries that, if i simply changed a few words, could easily be turned into a bland, non-specific coachspeak solution to drug dependency...another issue in which criminalization impacts the effectiveness of combating its abuse.  the question at hand is the supreme court overturning roe v. wade and its implications on abortion and women's rights in this country.  that is what is being discussed (and occasionally debated) here in a thread about the supreme court.  you say we "can't and should not count on the government" for a solution to the issue of abortion.  roe v. wade essentially said the same thing...that it is not an issue of government because it is not a criminal act and an issue of privacy (something i believe, based on your postings, you care deeply about in other contexts).  it affirmatively held that, for the most part, it is an intimate issue for the woman and her doctor and not the domain of the state.  not an issue for the state or for the benefit of political opportunism.  however, the ussc is removing that federal protection and making it possible for states to criminalize the action...and thus, has ostensibly made it almost entirely part of the government's domain through putative criminal prosecution on behalf of the state.  so which is it, anastasis?  we live in a country of laws that define the rules of behavior as a baseline.  you can't handwave the importance of that away by just saying "hey, this isn't an arena in which a legal solution is the best way of dealing with the underlying problem."  well no shit, but when the state criminalizes it (and even sets forth civil penalties), then that necessarily defines categorically...how the complex issues can even be addressed.

discussion/debate/rage/etc... about the ussc establishing that states can impose laws establishing the criminality of the act is not being discussed as a "legal solution."  it is a baseline paradigm in which the issue exists for how our society treats those individuals and it inherently defines that options and rules on how it can be dealt with, regardless of anyone's desired outcomes.  the issues are complex as you acknowledge.  outright criminalizing abortion simplifies those complex issues instantly.  you can't ignore that and act superior because other people are outraged that the "solution" (lack of federal protection against regional criminalization) is now the law of the land because alito, kavanaugh, gorsuch, barrett, and thomas think tradition is the appropriate legal standard.

what you are talking about is akin to drug rehabilitation...that we need to mitigate and end as many abortions as we possibly can in as humane a way possible. clearly you see abortions as heinous and undesirable.  you obviously associate judgment with them (hence your opening characterization of "convenience" as if that should carry some shame).  fine.  while there are certainly some circumstances in which i might agree with such a characterization, i simply don't share that perspective categorically and believe the first trimester abortions in particular, are simply not a problem.  that is not to mitigate the impact that undertaking them may or may not have on the woman and/or partner, but criminalizing it (or making them liable to random other citizens in civil court) certainly does not aid the well-being of those who are faced with that path.  how can we work on any type of solution if that is the contextual paradigm?  you want to focus on the real world praxis of abortion to arrive at the best possible outcomes for society as it relates to abortion...i applaud that and welcome that.  how does allowing texas, lousiana, tennessee, florida, mississippi, etc... making something that has been demonstrated to be unavoidable from a practical sense potentially a prosecutable homicide going to aid in that process?  this is the source of the histrionics that you mock.

i am happy to disengage the issue from politics (i desperately wish it would) and seek out a common ground solution in which we can mitigate the extremes and/or abuses of abortion activities.  the problem is that your party was hijacked many years ago by the jerry fallwells of the world and the issue was seized upon by hypocritical, political opportunists to leverage as a mobilization tool (admittedly, by both extremes but the comparison is not remotely equitable).  and that has now been fully realized in a real-world context that has real-world consequences.  if you want to live in the real world, and address it in a humane way that prioritizes education and avoidance in an effective way, you can't ignore the destructiveness of this decision (and its regional consequences) in building that bridge to reach more nuanced, empathetic, and compassionate (non-legal) solutions to your desired reduction in scenarios where unwanted pregnancies call for abortions.  i note that in your post that you do acknowledge the overturn is counterproductive and will exacerbate the toxicity despite you disagreeing with roe in the first place.  so, take a stand.  should it be protected by the federal government as a baseline right to privacy for a woman and then addressed outside the legal context?  or should states be free to let the greg abbotts and ken paxtons of the world decide what is best?  in another thread, i would welcome a more specific discussion of your ideas on "building common ground and working outwards" (unclear on what that means) with serial abortion individuals but in this one, the issue is whether or not the federal government should protect women from their state governments seeking criminal action against them for any type of abortion.

[Nivek 16987]

46 minutes ago, B00M said:

So the pendulum swing to the left after the most divisive US president in modern history, was electing *checks notes* Joe Biden... and a split Congress? So this undoing of 50 years of freedom that multiple generations of young people have enjoyed was a "predictable correction to the middle"? 1 in 5 people, tops, want what's coming to states like Texas. Middle.

 

This is why the teach the controversy and repeal of the Fairness Doctrine were the lynch pin for making this happen.  The idea is to trick people into thinking this isn't a fringe element of lunatics but a reasoned belief held by half the country.   

[hpslugga 4062]

7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

My summary, from December:

Troll: "You're all racist eugenicists!"

Everyone else: "Fuck you, troll"

Troll: "Why can't we find some reasonable common ground? I think you guys should stop being crazy with your opposition to Longhorn victories and come around to my view that it's actually good when the Longhorns win games!" 

Like a soccer player who commits a hard foul knocking out an opposing player’s tooth and he looks at the referee as if to say “what? Me? I didn’t do anything!!!”

[Sawbonz 27593]

6 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

I have no idea what you are or what you purport to be, that’s not really the point of the discussion. 

 

McCormick’s bill is a joke. You can see his colleagues pulling their collar’s in nervousness when the issue comes up. It will never make it into law and if it somehow does, the federal courts will strike it down. Emotions are high, but let’s not get ridiculous here. 

Once Roe is gone federal courts will have no say. Are you willfully ignorant or just stupid?

[wildcat09 29410]

Any woman with an ectopic pregnancy would be dead long before SCOTUS ever got involved.

[sidis 9832]

10 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

McCormick’s bill is a joke. You can see his colleagues pulling their collar’s in nervousness when the issue comes up. It will never make it into law and if it somehow does, the federal courts will strike it down. Emotions are high, but let’s not get ridiculous here. 

i genuinely used to share this perspective.  truly.  but the ussc's lack of intervention in the appeal of the texas case has relieved me of that delusion.  the supreme court actually refused to intervene on texas's law allowing citizens to privately sue each other over suspected abortions precisely BECAUSE it created the vigilantism and thus, did not present anything to rule on regarding the state.  that made me lose all faith that complete shitcannery will not be pursued and upheld by the worst among us.  i hope i am wrong.

moreover, how are these laws supposed to be challenged in federal court in light of roe being overturned?

Edited May 10, 2022 by sidis

[gmr548 16617]

Despite my better judgment I'm dipping my toe into this thread here. But would a lawyer who's better than me explain how Congress could pass a law codifying Roe? Even if it did pass such a law, wouldn't the SCOTUS have the same ability to strike down Roe, as well as that law, kicking it back to the states?

Even in this relatively extreme draft opinion, SCOTUS does not go anywhere near outlawing abortion. It just states it’s not inherently protected by the constitution, which would essentially leave it to states. Federal law trumps state law (that’s why Jim Crow is no longer the last of the south), so action from Congress would void various state bans. SCOTUS had to leave the path for federal action open to allow for the federal abortion ban the GOP wants. That’s a two way street.

They could of course strike it down in a completely arbitrary, nakedly partisan fashion, but even this court has shown it wouldn’t go that far.

If Democrats were smart, they’d put together a right to privacy package inclusive of Roe’s abortion protections, but also other, less polarizing decisions put at risk by this opinion.

But they’re not.

[wildcat09 29410]

3 minutes ago, sidis said:

i genuinely used to share this perspective.  truly.  but the ussc's lack of intervention in the appeal of the texas case has relieved me of that delusion.  the supreme court actually refused to intervene on texas's law allowing citizens to privately sue each other over suspected abortions precisely BECAUSE it created the vigilantism and thus, did not present anything to rule on regarding the state.  that made me lose all faith that complete shitcannery will not be pursued and upheld by the worst among us.  i hope i am wrong.

moreover, how are these laws supposed to be challenged in federal court in light of roe being overturned?

My guess, post-Roe overturn, is that a litigant would appeal to the courts to find a substantive due process right to get an abortion when the life of the mother is in danger. The Court could always choose to draw a new line there (I suspect this is basically what Roberts wants to do, rather than expressly overturn Roe). But of course that's a really fuzzy determination and any woman whose life is at risk unless she gets an abortion doesn't have time to take a lawsuit to SCOTUS.

[elfenix 34334]

18 minutes ago, Saint Austin said:

Despite my better judgment I'm dipping my toe into this thread here. But would a lawyer who's better than me explain how Congress could pass a law codifying Roe? Even if it did pass such a law, wouldn't the SCOTUS have the same ability to strike down Roe, as well as that law, kicking it back to the states?

yeah they'd just claim the law permitting abortion through second trimester is unconstitutional and make up some shit as to why that is. they'd probably gleefully do it while overturning all the other commerce clause cases. 

Edited May 10, 2022 by elfenix

[wildcat09 29410]

1 minute ago, gmr548 said:

Even in this relatively extreme draft opinion, SCOTUS does not go anywhere near outlawing abortion. It just states it’s not inherently protected by the constitution, which would essentially leave it to states. Federal law trumps state law (that’s why Jim Crow is no longer the last of the south), so action from Congress would void various state bans. SCOTUS had to leave the path for federal action open to allow for the federal abortion ban the GOP wants. That’s a two way street.

They could of course strike it down in a completely arbitrary, nakedly partisan fashion, but even this court has shown it wouldn’t go that far.

If Democrats were smart, they’d put together a right to privacy package inclusive of Roe’s abortion protections, but also other, less polarizing decisions put at risk by this opinion.

But they’re not.

Yes it has. It absolutely has. See the recent OSHA vaccine mandate case or any of the cases on pandemic restrictions against religious gatherings.

The proposed law that would effectively "codify" Roe is based on Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. Now, any sane person who looks at any actual facts related to abortion would recognize that interstate commerce is hugely involved, but a majority of this Court would absolutely say otherwise. No fucking question about it.

[Anastasis 23488]

2 hours ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

What's your overriding position on this issue Anastasis? 

Human life has intrinsic value.

 

2 hours ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

The state should have the right to determine whether a woman takes the child to term?  

No. I don't think political or legislative actions will produce viable solutions to the issue. 

[Captainant 27797]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

My guess, post-Roe overturn, is that a litigant would appeal to the courts to find a substantive due process right to get an abortion when the life of the mother is in danger. The Court could always choose to draw a new line there (I suspect this is basically what Roberts wants to do, rather than expressly overturn Roe). But of course that's a really fuzzy determination and any woman whose life is at risk unless she gets an abortion doesn't have time to take a lawsuit to SCOTUS.

I think Roberts place in history will be that of a butcher of rights. His court has consistently issued opinions that rarely completely overturn a precedent or law, and prefer to gut them so there's still the facade of voting rights or privacy. It's a pretty clever trick, and entirely characteristic with the intellectual dishonesty that is the standard for conservative legal theory

[sidis 9832]

9 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I think that maybe your more pressing concern as a medical professional should be the people telling you and others that hormonal contraception increases risk for heart disease. 

 

9 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Seems like it would be easy disinformation to shoot down. Or otherwise, something that the medical system should address instead of the legal system. 

 

8 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I don't think that ocp should be illegal, but I am also not the one telling people here that it increases cardiac risk as a smoke screen for aborting fetuses. 

 

9 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Who is on third. 

just so you know, this series of posts is precisely what gives air to people like wildcat's contentions of your intent here.  this is seriously bad faith.  if you genuinely think that disabusing a poster on this board's inconsequential statement is a more pressing concern to a medical professional than a proposed law eliminating access to contraceptives, then that is sociopathic.  of course, i don't believe you believe that.  but it does bolster wildcat's observation that you ignore the 100 foot tall tsunami heading towards the beach at 100 mph and instead focus on the fact that it is a little warm outside and some water could really cool things down.

[Saint Austin 745]

9 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Yes it has. It absolutely has. See the recent OSHA vaccine mandate case or any of the cases on pandemic restrictions against religious gatherings.

The proposed law that would effectively "codify" Roe is based on Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. Now, any sane person who looks at any actual facts related to abortion would recognize that interstate commerce is hugely involved, but a majority of this Court would absolutely say otherwise. No fucking question about it.

Would you break that down for the non-sane among us then? 

Edited May 10, 2022 by Saint Austin
syntax

[Brisketexan 105383]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

No. I don't think political or legislative actions will produce viable solutions to the issue. 

Hint -- no, not a hint, an open, loud statement: the draft Dobbs opinion is not about abortion.  Abortion is a stalking horse for what the opinion really does, and for what the right has openly declared it wants to do and is already actively working to do: control your private life, now that the right to privacy no longer exists.

So, "the issue" is not abortion.  The "issue" is whether a person has a right to control their own body, and make their own decisions, whether it be to continue a pregnancy, use contraception, engage in gay sex, engage in oral sex, engage in any sexual activity not approved by the Committee of Church Ladies Who Run the Senate, etc.  Dobbs  is about control, because that's what the right wants: total control over the country, and everyone in it.  Remember "every accusation is a confession?"  Read the rhetoric about how they freaked out about any and all public health actions and regulations during COVID.....and then realize the level of control they were screaming about (which largely didn't even exist and wasn't exercised) is exactly what they want for THEM to have.

This is what a terrified former-majority does.  When they feel themselves losing control, they reflexively assert it in the most draconian way possible.  Not because they actually care about the outcome; rather, because that's the most effective way to send us the message that they still have control, and they will use the fuck out of it.  It's human nature.  Abusive spouses do the same thing -- when the battered spouse threatens to leave, thus depriving the abuser of further control, THAT'S when the real beating starts.  "I'll show YOU who's boss!"  We are watching a minority party and minority movement cruelly reminding us all that THEY are boss, and don't you forget it.

And Ana wants to make it about statistics on abortion terms and rates, functionally excusing the real truth -- that the "conservative" movement is the greatest threat to personal and human liberty in American history since slavery was abolished.

[elfenix 34334]

9 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I think Roberts place in history will be that of a butcher of rights. His court has consistently issued opinions that rarely completely overturn a precedent or law, and prefer to gut them so there's still the facade of voting rights or privacy. It's a pretty clever trick, and entirely characteristic with the intellectual dishonesty that is the standard for conservative legal theory

corporations have all the rights, people have none.

[wildcat09 29410]

7 minutes ago, Saint Austin said:

Would you break that down for those the non-sane among us then? 

Tens of thousands of women cross state lines each year to obtain abortions. Every abortion clinic in America uses drugs and equipment that cross state lines.  Hell, Texas even recently argued in Court that SB8 stimulates interstate commerce. We don't even have to get into an analysis of whether federal regulation of abortion might be acceptable as part of an essential part of a larger regulatory scheme that includes regulation of intrastate commerce (this is the conservative legal justification for federal drug laws). Abortion inarguably involves interstate commerce, but that won't stop five or six justices from saying otherwise.

Edited May 10, 2022 by wildcat09

[gmr548 16617]

Yes it has. It absolutely has. See the recent OSHA vaccine mandate case or any of the cases on pandemic restrictions against religious gatherings.
The proposed law that would effectively "codify" Roe is based on Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. Now, any sane person who looks at any actual facts related to abortion would recognize that interstate commerce is hugely involved, but a majority of this Court would absolutely say otherwise. No fucking question about it.

Even accepting for argument’s sake that they’re not necessarily beyond that and acting in purely partisan interest (and we probably agree more than we don’t here, in general), I don’t think they would because they’d be taking the possibility of a federal abortion ban off the table when there’s a very real possibility that one could be enacted by the GOP in 2025-26.

Knowing that’s the GOP’s goal, if the court is an arm of the party, then you’d expect them to recognize congressional authority here because they’d rather the GOP be able to repeal and reverse it with full control than slam the door on a federal ban.

What a fun hypothetical this is. And it is of course a hypothetical, because the Democrats don’t even have 50 votes on this, let alone the balls to kill the filibuster.

[wildcat09 29410]

5 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

Even accepting for argument’s sake that they’re not necessarily beyond that and acting in purely partisan interest (and we probably agree more than we don’t here, in general), I don’t think they would because they’d be taking the possibility of a federal abortion ban off the table when there’s a very real possibility that one could be enacted by the GOP in 2025-26.

Knowing that’s the GOP’s goal, if the court is an arm of the party, then you’d expect them to recognize congressional authority here because they’d rather the GOP be able to repeal and reverse it with full control than slam the door on a federal ban.

What a fun hypothetical this is. And it is of course a hypothetical, because the Democrats don’t even have 50 votes on this, let alone the balls to kill the filibuster.

Alito has already said in his draft opinion that when it comes to abortion the Court can just wave an "it's different" magic wand. I see no reason Alito +4 wouldn't be happy to say that the federal government can't protect abortion rights and then turn right around and say it can prohibit them.

Edited May 10, 2022 by wildcat09

[Saint Austin 745]

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Tens of thousands of women cross state lines each year to obtain abortions. Every abortion clinic in America uses drugs and equipment that cross state lines.  Hell, Texas even recently argued in Court that SB8 stimulates interstate commerce. We don't even have to get into an analysis of whether federal regulation of abortion might be acceptable as part of an essential part of a larger regulatory scheme that includes regulation of intrastate commerce (this is the conservative legal justification for federal drug laws). Abortion inarguably involves interstate commerce, but that won't stop five or six justices from saying otherwise.

But abortion still isn't economic in nature, which is why I still don't find the argument convincing, but fair enough.

[Poe It Up 126]

30 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Once Roe is gone federal courts will have no say. Are you willfully ignorant or just stupid?

Have you read the bill? It’s poorly written and, hell, even the committee that passed it thinks it will be struck down. The bill is losing support by the day because it allows in vitro and birth control to possibly be criminalized. This is all moot because the governor will strike it down first anyway. 

[Foosters 17889]

Don't worry about the laws my party is trying to pass because they're so deplorable reasonable minds will prevail isn't the defense you think it is.

[David Dennison 18948]

1 minute ago, Poe It Up said:

Have you read the bill? It’s poorly written and, hell, even the committee that passed it thinks it will be struck down. The bill is losing support by the day because it allows in vitro and birth control to possibly be criminalized. This is all moot because the governor will strike it down first anyway. 

I'd like to hear from pro-lifers why IVF should not be outlawed along with abortion.

[Nivek 16987]

25 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This is what a terrified former-majority does.  When they feel themselves losing control, they reflexively assert it in the most draconian way possible.  Not because they actually care about the outcome; rather, because that's the most effective way to send us the message that they still have control, and they will use the fuck out of it.  It's human nature.  Abusive spouses do the same thing -- when the battered spouse threatens to leave, thus depriving the abuser of further control, THAT'S when the real beating starts.  "I'll show YOU who's boss!"  We are watching a minority party and minority movement cruelly reminding us all that THEY are boss, and don't you forget it.

I think it could be argued that it is shitty humans' nature.   Non-shitty humans have a different set of values.  

Edited May 10, 2022 by Nivek

[wildcat09 29410]

9 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Don't worry about the laws my party is trying to pass because they're so deplorable reasonable minds will prevail isn't the defense you think it is.

"Don't worry about my party doing unpopular things, obviously they're unpopular so they won't happen. Just ignore this incredibly unpopular thing we're doing right now and the fact that we're trying to destroy democracy in every state we can gain the tiniest sliver of power in!"

You're not convinced?

[Brisketexan 105383]

15 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Alito has already said in his draft opinion that when it comes to abortion the Court can just wave an "it's different" magic wand. I see no reason Alito +4 wouldn't be happy to say that the federal government can't protect abortion rights and then turn right around and say it can prohibit them.

Two problems with that.  1) He's lying.  He and the majority intend to use the reasoning of Dobbs to crush the right of privacy as to any and all personal decisions.  2) Even if he wasn't lying, you can't put the genie back in the bottle.  Once the right to privacy isn't a thing, then it isn't a thing.  Griswold is dead, it's just a matter of time.  Lawrence is dead, it's just a matter of time.  Etc.

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I'd like to hear from pro-lifers why IVF should not be outlawed along with abortion.

It will be.  There is already legislation being proposed to do just that.  The right of Americans to control their reproductive decisions just got erased, completely and totally -- well, except for the right to avoid reproduction by abstaining from all sexual activity.  That's about it.

[Poe It Up 126]

6 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Don't worry about the laws my party is trying to pass because they're so deplorable reasonable minds will prevail isn't the defense you think it is.

Im not defending them, I’m explaining why all this panicking is unnecessary.

[wildcat09 29410]

Just now, Poe It Up said:

Im not defending them, I’m explaining why all this panicking is unnecessary.

Y'all said the same shit about Roe for decades. We don't believe you.

[Brisketexan 105383]

3 minutes ago, Nivek said:

I think it could be argued that it is shitty humans' nature.  Not all of us are shitty.

Enough of us are.  And the "humans motivated by shitty impulses" motivation to assert power is a lot stronger than the "humans' motivated by basic decency and respect for others" motivation.  So, they've got enough numbers, and they sure as shit have the motivation.  

TLDR; we're fucked.

[Poe It Up 126]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Y'all said the same shit about Roe for decades. We don't believe you.

Look, if you want to believe women are going to be imprisoned for abortions, that’s fine. I just don’t think it’s very healthy. 

[Brisketexan 105383]

4 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

Im not defending them, I’m explaining why all this panicking is unnecessary.

 

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Y'all said the same shit about Roe for decades. We don't believe you.

THAT'S.  BECAUSE.  THEY.  ARE.  LYING.

Lying isn't just all they do -- it's all they are.  It is the essence of their existence.  If you took it away, all that would remain would be an empty cloak, like Obi-Wan's after he let Vader slice him.

[Brisketexan 105383]

2 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

Look, if you want to believe women are going to be imprisoned for abortions, that’s fine. I just don’t think it’s very healthy. 

You are lying.  You are literally lying right now, in real-time.  Perfectly on-brand.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/10/21/oklahoma-woman-convicted-of-manslaughter-miscarriage/6104281001/

[Poe It Up 126]

13 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I'd like to hear from pro-lifers why IVF should not be outlawed along with abortion.

The only argument I’ve heard that even carried some water was that they are trying to create life vs extinguish it. 

[Foosters 17889]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

I've compared them to the Washington Generals frequently in the past, but I'm starting to think that that's unfair to the Washington Generals. There's something deeply, psychologically wrong with Democratic leadership.

I have an old friend that helped start and runs a progressive "media" outlet. Think "NowThis" but different company. Most of their content is video. A few years ago, they started up a side business - a production company to develop political videos, ads, and related content for political campaigns. They produced a few slick campaign videos for some of the more progressive house candidates. Some likely got posted here during the runup to 2020. When Pelosi got wind that the candidates were using this outside company, and not the ones with the official party approval, a message went out that if any other candidates used this shop, they would be cut off from support from the national party. And that was that.

[Poe It Up 126]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You are lying.  You are literally lying right now, in real-time.  Perfectly on-brand.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/10/21/oklahoma-woman-convicted-of-manslaughter-miscarriage/6104281001/

Um, that wasn’t an abortion. She was sentenced because of her meth use during her pregnancy that played a role in the miscarriage. 

[jimmyjazz 46189]

1 minute ago, Poe It Up said:

The only argument I’ve heard that even carried some water was that they are trying to create life vs extinguish it. 

Until we can grow a fertilized egg into a viable human being in the laboratory, then the act of placing that egg in a woman's body does not represent some threshold event.  Should that woman die in a car accident on the trip home after implantation, then that fertilized egg will die.

The judiciary routinely deals with the balance of individual's rights and the balance of individual rights with the common good.  The law and individual rights have never been black and white.  This simplistic concept that Day One in the uterus is the only possible dividing line completely ignores the fact that, at that point in time, the fertilized egg is not viable, and won't be for months.  The rights of that pre-human must be balanced with those of the woman, which is why viability is the most reasonable line in the sand.

[Foosters 17889]

Private Citizen Beto O'Rourke 3 years ago during a speech "Hell yes we're going to take your AR-15."

Conservatives here: "That comment rightfully torpedoed any political future for him."

Multiple GOP legislators today "we believe the State should execute a woman if they have an abortion."

Conservatives here: "oh please, calm down. you're being hysterical. That will never happen."

One conservative here: "mods, please remove me from this forum. People are mean to me and I lack the self-control to stay away."

[Brisketexan 105383]

1 minute ago, Poe It Up said:

Um, that wasn’t an abortion. She was sentenced because of her meth use during her pregnancy that played a role in the miscarriage. 

Correct.  And the legal difference between "causing the death of a fetus by X vs. Y" is functionally zero.  And Texas currently has candidates for the legislature CAMPAIGNING on the basis of supporting murder charges for abortion.

Stop telling us "X is too extreme, and won't happen," when the GQP has spent years doing X after X after X after "voices of reason" told us "that's too extreme, it won't happen."  YOU.  ARE.  LYING.

[CooterBrown 18031]

26 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It will be.  There is already legislation being proposed to do just that.  The right of Americans to control their reproductive decisions just got erased, completely and totally -- well, except for the right to avoid reproduction by abstaining from all sexual activity.  That's about it.

You think women will get to keep their right to say no to their husbands?

 

[Poe It Up 126]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Correct.  And the legal difference between "causing the death of a fetus by X vs. Y" is functionally zero.  And Texas currently has candidates for the legislature CAMPAIGNING on the basis of supporting murder charges for abortion.

Stop telling us "X is too extreme, and won't happen," when the GQP has spent years doing X after X after X after "voices of reason" told us "that's too extreme, it won't happen."  YOU.  ARE.  LYING.

So, I’m not lying. At least you backed off the “they’re imprisoning women for abortion as we speak!!!” Nonsense. 

[wildcat09 29410]

12 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

Um, that wasn’t an abortion. She was sentenced because of her meth use during her pregnancy that played a role in the miscarriage. 

This is disingenuous bullshit.

[Brisketexan 105383]

Just now, Poe It Up said:

So, I’m not lying. At least you backed off the “they’re imprisoning women for abortion as we speak!!!” Nonsense. 

No, I didn't back off of it at all.  Oklahoma literally imprisoned a woman for ending her pregnancy.  That was the charge, and she is in prison because of it.  Whether she ended the pregnancy by illegal drug use or legal drug use (drug-induced abortion) was a distinction that only mattered so long as Roe  is law.  Roe is no longer law (or it won't be, once Dobbs goes final).  The distinction will disappear.  Legally, in Oklahoma, there will be no difference between a woman ending her pregnancy via illegal drugs (which guess what....all abortion drugs will be illegal now) or via a formerly legal medical procedure.  All of those actions are the same.  That's the entire fucking point, you fucking disingenuous piece of dick.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33900]

4 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

So, I’m not lying. At least you backed off the “they’re imprisoning women for abortion as we speak!!!” Nonsense. 

please stop sullying Mr Poe's good name.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19146]

11 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

So, I’m not lying. At least you backed off the “they’re imprisoning women for abortion as we speak!!!” Nonsense. 

No, you are just gaslighting.  You are just as bad as Ana, Ag with Kids, and Johnny Sack.  Please do lecture us more on why we shouldn't be angry and terrified?