The elephant is the room (Roe)

[Phishfan]

I can't believe no one has brought it up yet. Maybe people are trying to think of what to say? It's inevitable we are going to have a thread so I might as well start it. I'm curious to see how it all shakes out but 13 states effectively have banned abortion.

[stinkfish]

Lol. Yeah, I just didn’t want to be first to enter the terror dome. I’d say I’m pro life with exceptions. Abortion isn’t black and white. There’s a lot of gray there.
Abortion is acceptable to me if:
A woman is a victim of rape
Incest
Carrying a baby to term will cause the death or severe disease or illness to the mother
If the baby has some horrendous condition that will cause it to be still born or die a horrendous death shortly after birth.
Abortion is not ok with me if a couple fucked up and were irresponsible and doesn’t want to deal with it or are afraid of what their parents might do think or say, assuming that there is no health threat to mother or baby. Just a normal pregnancy. In that case drop the baby off at a fire station. No questions asked. There are lots of people that would love to raise and love  your baby for you.
And I hate the idea of an MD being criminally prosecuted for carrying out an abortion, particularly if there is an absolute known risk to either mother or child.
And just as a reminder. Abortions aren’t disallowed universally. If you live in some backwards thinking state that doesn’t allow abortions at all for any reason, you can travel to a state that will do it. Your reproductive rights have not been entirely compromised.
But remember kids, condoms are cheaper than babies, and medical procedures, and having to travel out of state to get an abortion. Everything will be just fine.

[Spider-Dan]

Just a couple of points:

There is no magic signal that lights up when a pregnancy is "putting the mother's life in danger."  Like most medical procedures, it requires the subjective judgement of a doctor.  And in states that have outlawed abortion, any doctor that authorizes such a procedure is now potentially facing prosecution for murder.  So now you will see fewer doctors authorizing life-saving abortions, because if the mother dies, they won't catch a murder case.

Also, the idea that you can just travel to a blue state to get an abortion is not accurate.  In several of these states, there are laws either on the books already or in the works saying that the women can be held responsible when they come back home to their anti-abortion state.  So you cannot merely "travel to" another state to get an abortion; you have to MOVE there.

[ArtieChokePhin]

Lol. Yeah, I just didn’t want to be first to enter the terror dome. I’d say I’m pro life with exceptions. Abortion isn’t black and white. There’s a lot of gray there.
Abortion is acceptable to me if:
A woman is a victim of rape
Incest
Carrying a baby to term will cause the death or severe disease or illness to the mother
If the baby has some horrendous condition that will cause it to be still born or die a horrendous death shortly after birth.
Abortion is not ok with me if a couple fucked up and were irresponsible and doesn’t want to deal with it or are afraid of what their parents might do think or say, assuming that there is no health threat to mother or baby. Just a normal pregnancy. In that case drop the baby off at a fire station. No questions asked. There are lots of people that would love to raise and love  your baby for you.
And I hate the idea of an MD being criminally prosecuted for carrying out an abortion, particularly if there is an absolute known risk to either mother or child.
And just as a reminder. Abortions aren’t disallowed universally. If you live in some backwards thinking state that doesn’t allow abortions at all for any reason, you can travel to a state that will do it. Your reproductive rights have not been entirely compromised.
But remember kids, condoms are cheaper than babies, and medical procedures, and having to travel out of state to get an abortion. Everything will be just fine.

I am Catholic but I totally agree with this stance.  The first four instances are not the mother's fault.  Being irresponsible, on the other hand, is. 

Now for those who are irresponsible, it turns out that for every baby that is born that the mother can't afford to keep, there are 36 women out there who want a baby but can't conceive.   What the government needs to do is stop charging these exorbitant fees to adopt a child.

[Dave Gray]

This decision is so immensely tragic.

Pro-life is an awful position.  You're here talking about "a mother's fault" like a woman having sex is shameful and punishable.  What in the actual fuck is wrong with you?

In addition to it being horrific policy that has proved harmful around the world -- countries just function better when women have bodily autonomy....but this decision is terribly unpopular with the populace an the seats gained to make the choice were done so illegally.  And the judges lied UNDER OATH to get seated to make the change.

It's a horrible policy, but in this case, it's also an illegal policy AND one that people don't want.  Abortion rights are popular.

With all the bulshit with gun control -- AT LEAST....AT FUCKING LEAST it's under the guise of keeping a right.  So, at least I get that.  No matter how bad the outcome, at least it's to keep a right.  This is removing a right.  Illegally.  And against the will of the people.

This is how political violence starts.  You can't have a government where people can't elect the people they actually want because of a broken, archaic system based on norms that nobody is following.

All of this is completely fucked.

[Dave Gray]

Just to say....

Most of this political stuff, I have an opinion, but I kinda am in the gray or I don't think it's such a huge, huge deal.


This is the 2nd maddest I've ever been, about stuff like this.  I'm so goddamn angry that I'm seeing red.  I don't want to associate with pro-lifers, honestly.  It's such a grotesque indefensible position that is anti-women.  I weep for my daughters that a bunch of men are slut shaming them in 2022.

The maddest I've ever been is the Capitol Riots where a violent overthrow of the government was attempted and everyone just looked around and did nothing.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

To me this already happened in May. 

Time to end the filibuster and balance the court.

The number one objection to doing this is nonsensical.  "Won't the Republicans just add seats to swing the balance if/when they have a majority in both houses and the presidency?" Probably, in which case we will be back to the exact same situation we are in now.  But in the interim the anti-democracy forces won't be able to enact voter suppression laws (decreasing the likelihood of the Republican taking full control), abortion will once again becomes legal, gay rights will be safe, gun control can move forward, etc. 

This will also act as a check on the supreme court becoming too extreme.  As extremely unpopular decisions places the party in control of the S Ct at risk of sweeping losses in the next election. 

As for "we don't want to make the court political"  That ship sailed on March 16, 2016 when McConnel announced hearing would not be held on Garland. 

[Spider-Dan]

To me this already happened in May.  

Time to end the filibuster and balance the court.

The number one objection to doing this is nonsensical. "Won't the Republicans just add seats to swing the balance if/when they have a majority in both houses and the presidency?"

My number one objection is that it won't work.  Republican states will simply ignore an expanded Supreme Court that makes decisions they don't like, and we'll be in a hot civil war.

Consider the contrast between how Democrats responded to 2000/2016, and how Republicans responded to 2020.  Democrats did not send a violent mob to seize the Capitol, nor did Democratic state legislatures pass a bunch of laws allowing them to overturn the next election.  When Republicans prevented Obama from filling a seat on SCOTUS, "the rules are the rules, snowflake"... but if those same rules say that Congress can add seats to the Court (as they have multiple times in the past), Republicans will just grab some guns and head to the closest seat of government.  This is why they are always obsessed with "Second Amendment remedies": if they lose at the ballot box, it's time to grab the bullet box.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

My number one objection is that it won't work.  Republican states will simply ignore an expanded Supreme Court that makes decisions they don't like, and we'll be in a hot civil war.

Consider the contrast between how Democrats responded to 2000/2016, and how Republicans responded to 2020.  Democrats did not send a violent mob to seize the Capitol, nor did Democratic state legislatures pass a bunch of laws allowing them to overturn the next election.  When Republicans prevented Obama from filling a seat on SCOTUS, "the rules are the rules, snowflake"... but if those same rules say that Congress can add seats to the Court (as they have multiple times in the past), Republicans will just grab some guns and head to the closest seat of government.  This is why they are always obsessed with "Second Amendment remedies": if they lose at the ballot box, it's time to grab the bullet box.

If we are going to have a civil war, then let's have it before the facisist party GOP corrupts the one institution that so far has remained immune, the Joint Chiefs.  It wasn't Mike Pence that ended the coup attempt, it was the letter from the joint chiefs.  NRA vs 101st Airborne, my money is on 101.

[ArtieChokePhin]

If we are going to have a civil war, then let's have it before the facisist party GOP corrupts the one institution that so far has remained immune, the Joint Chiefs.  It wasn't Mike Pence that ended the coup attempt, it was the letter from the joint chiefs.  NRA vs 101st Airborne, my money is on 101.

If there's a civil war, it will be left vs right.   It's obvious which side will win.... the side that believes in the right to carry guns and knows which bathroom to use.

[Spider-Dan]

If there's a civil war, it will be left vs right.   It's obvious which side will win.... the side that believes in the right to carry guns and knows which bathroom to use.

I think this guy would say otherwise:



See, in the last civil war, when it was the rugged individualist conservatives fighting against the soft liberal city slickers from the north, them good 'ol boys got their asses whooped.  As you guys inadvertently point out every time you gleefully insist we don't live in a democracy: there are a lot more of us than there are of you.  (And this is before we get to the fact that you're not likely to have many black Southerners joining the Army of the New Confederacy.)  Seems to me that if there's another civil war, whichever side the South is on is the side that's going to lose.

That all being said: even though it's pretty clear that conservatives would lose another civil war, it would still be bad for everyone, and we should avoid it if possible.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

If there's a civil war, it will be left vs right.   It's obvious which side will win.... the side that believes in the right to carry guns and knows which bathroom to use.

If there is a second civil war it won’t be BLM vs Proud Boys. 

It will either be the US Military vs insurrectionists not happy with an election (something similar to Jan 6). or it will be the US Military vs a state police force/ guard unit.  ( what would have happened if Orval Faubus hadn’t backed down when Eisenhower sent the 101). Either way the US will win.

[Spider-Dan]

If we are going to have a civil war, then let's have it before the facisist party GOP corrupts the one institution that so far has remained immune, the Joint Chiefs.  It wasn't Mike Pence that ended the coup attempt, it was the letter from the joint chiefs.  NRA vs 101st Airborne, my money is on 101.

Even if you are open to another civil war, the point is that expanding the Court won't achieve your intended goal of protecting abortion.  The left cannot out-escalate the right because the right is far more shameless; if we add 4 seats to the Supreme Court to make it 7-6, the next time they get in control, they won't add 2... they'll add 20.

Now, there are events in progress that would warrant any and all escalation necessary.  Republicans in several state legislatures are currently advancing bills that would allow them to simply throw out the votes and choose their own presidential electors (at the legislative level) if a Democrat wins their state.  If this happens, all bets are off.

But Roe being overturned?  Same-sex marriage being outlawed again?  The end of the right to access contraception?  These are all predictable, expected outcomes from the results of the 2016 election.  And all the idiots on the so-called left who insisted that Hillary is just as bad as Trump and it's immoral to vote for someone who is merely a lesser evil as they downplayed the importance of SCOTUS... well, now we are reaping what they sowed.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Even if you are open to another civil war, the point is that expanding the Court won't achieve your intended goal of protecting abortion.  The left cannot out-escalate the right because the right is far more shameless; if we add 4 seats to the Supreme Court to make it 7-6, the next time they get in control, they won't add 2... they'll add 20.

Now, there are events in progress that would warrant any and all escalation necessary.  Republicans in several state legislatures are currently advancing bills that would allow them to simply throw out the votes and choose their own presidential electors (at the legislative level) if a Democrat wins their state.  If this happens, all bets are off.

But Roe being overturned?  Same-sex marriage being outlawed again?  The end of the right to access contraception?  These are all predictable, expected outcomes from the results of the 2016 election.  And all the idiots on the so-called left who insisted that Hillary is just as bad as Trump and it's immoral to vote for someone who is merely a lesser evil as they downplayed the importance of SCOTUS... well, now we are reaping what they sowed.

We need to rebalance the court BEFORE the states start throwing out election results, because with this court once they do it it because the end of democracy. 

[Spider-Dan]

Why do you think SCOTUS even matters in that instance?  In that scenario we are headed for a civil war, regardless of who controls the Court.

Suppose Dems don't expand the Court, and Republicans throw out the vote to install Trump in 2024.  Would you be at all placated by the current SCOTUS ruling that it's OK?  Of course not, and neither will they in the opposite scenario.  It's a civil war, regardless.