SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Mekh]

I don't think you'll win any arguments presuming all parents to be uncompassionate and deputizing government employees to kick them out of the loop of important life and health decisions.

The state robbing parents of good information to help parent their children is a very chilling opinion. You might as well raise a big sign saying, "I think your parenting is abuse, therefore the state should make your parenting decisions for you, and without informing you." I can't force you to acknowledge all the ill effects of turning teenage distrust of authority into cutting parents out of informed parenting of their children.

I am very disturbed that reporting abuse has turned to presuming abuse, and reacting to the presumption. What do people suppose will happen when the default becomes hiding abortions and changes in sexuality or gender identity from those closest concerned with their children's welfare? How is this debate supposed to proceed when parental notification and parental responsibility is conflated with rape and the beating of children?

NED, these are actual questions, because I don't see these opinions confined to these internet hinterlands.

Forcing your kid to go through with a pregnancy is abuse.

[Flarelaine]

The state robbing parents of good information to help parent their children is a very chilling opinion. You might as well raise a big sign saying, "I think your parenting is abuse, therefore the state should make your parenting decisions for you, and without informing you."

Wait, is the state suddenly not the best to make any and all decisions?

[Endus]

I don't think you'll win any arguments presuming all parents to be uncompassionate and deputizing government employees to kick them out of the loop of important life and health decisions.

All parents? Of course not.

Parents who won't let their child get the abortion they desperately want and which medical professionals approve of? Absolutely.

You keep forgetting that there's context, here. This isn't just a situation where the parents should be "kicked out of important life and health decisions", this is a situation where this child would have solid grounds to plea for emancipation due to parental abuse, if they weren't on such a tight biological schedule (since by the time emancipation works through the legal system, it's likely to be too late).

Yes, parents forcing their kids to bear a pregnancy to term are being abusive. That shouldn't be a difficult concept. It's literally an expression of their personal lack of compassion or basic respect for their child. That's why we judge them accordingly. That doesn't apply to all parents, just these kinds.

The same way it would if we were talking about why parents can't beat their kids bloody with a belt any more. You'd be making the same bullshit arguments there, and they'd be just as horrifyingly pro-abuse.

The state robbing parents of good information to help parent their children is a very chilling opinion. You might as well raise a big sign saying, "I think your parenting is abuse, therefore the state should make your parenting decisions for you, and without informing you." I can't force you to acknowledge all the ill effects of turning teenage distrust of authority into cutting parents out of informed parenting of their children.

Again, we're applying the same kinds of standards we would to beating your kids, or molesting them, or any number of other execrable parental abuses. The same horseshit arguments were made in those cases, too, and sorry, but "I really want to be an abusive shithead to my vulnerable children" is never gonna be a valid justification. Yes; when parents are abusive, their parental rights should be taken away from them. Often, permanently. They're demonstrating that they are unfit. This is why we have laws against parents beating their kids or any number of other abuses.

I am very disturbed that reporting abuse has turned to presuming abuse, and reacting to the presumption.

That's how all things work. If you're accused of a crime, the police investigate and determine if the evidence supports the accusation. It's no different with CPS and parental abuse. That's what you're complaining about. The investigatory process, and protecting potential victims in the meantime.

What do people suppose will happen when the default becomes hiding abortions and changes in sexuality or gender identity from those closest concerned with their children's welfare?

Why would that ever be the default? Most parents are supportive of their kids' needs.

And to repeat a point; if you're denying your child an abortion, or denying them gender-affirming medical care, you're not concerned with your child's welfare. You're an abuser.

How is this debate supposed to proceed when parental notification and parental responsibility is conflated with rape and the beating of children?

What's conflated is the act of denying access to needed medical care, for harmful religious reasons. Same reason the kid of a Jehovah's Witness can't be denied a surgery because their parents refuse to let them get blood transfusions. Where Canadian courts, at least, absolutely will step in and appoint a guardian to make such choices and deny their parents any control of the process. Because the interests of the child are far more important to the State than the harmful intent of their parents.

If parents will further abuse the child if they find out they had the treatment, sure, they won't be told. Because of the abuses they'd level upon the child. If you don't want to be cut out of your child's life, stop being an abusive dingbat. It's not that frickin' hard.

[Dontrike]

The state robbing parents of good information to help parent their children is a very chilling opinion.

Weren't you one of those "the states should decide"?

[Captain N]

Weren't you one of those "the states should decide"?

"The states should decide as long as it hurts the people I want it too."

[Lenonis]

I am very disturbed that reporting abuse has turned to presuming abuse

And I'm very disturbed you seem to have more of an issue with the state intervening where abuse is suspected rather than with the abuse itself.

Conservatives are really terrible at articulating their views in ways that just don't sound awful.

[tehdang]

Forcing your kid to go through with a pregnancy is abuse.

My how parental notification has morphed.

Wait, is the state suddenly not the best to make any and all decisions?

Just in case people need refreshing, this was about a judge complying with Florida State Law.

Weren't you one of those "the states should decide"?

I'm happy to have the legislation preserving parent's rights enacted at the state level.

And I'm very disturbed you seem to have more of an issue with the state intervening where abuse is suspected

In this case, where abuse is suspected was really just parents ought to be suspected of abuse. Substitute your own standards for suspicion if you're not in league with the abysmal standards evidenced by the other posters I was responding to. I can't read your mind.

[Mekh]

My how parental notification has morphed.

If it was just about notifying the parents, they'd do it after the procedure.

[Blur4stuff]

Anecdotal: a female friend of mine for over twenty years just registered to vote for the first time in her life because of this issue. Having this right taken away is causing her to vote for the first time ever.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Let's hope this Roe vs Wade decision royally fucks Republicans for a long time to come.


https://twitter.com/tbonier/status/1560597119009955841

Wow. I've been sharing data showing a huge surge in women registering to vote since the 6/24 Dobbs decision. I just started to look at some age and party breakdowns of those new registrants, and the numbers are jaw-dropping.

Starting in PA, where women have accounted for >56% of new registrants in that time period. Those women new registrants are 62%D to 15% R and 54% are under the age of 25. Compare that to men new registrants at 41% <25 and 43% D, 28% R.

So there's a huge population of new women registering to vote, and most of the majority are both women and Democrat. The numbers are overall a drop in the bucket, but there's higher engagement/registration among Democrat women than there has been in a long long time. I'm not holding my breath but one can hope.

[s_bushido]

Let's hope this Roe vs Wade decision royally fucks Republicans for a long time to come.

Yeah, it remains to be seen, but there is every possibility that they shot themselves in the foot with this one. On one hand, it takes the wind out of the sails of the single-issue "vote against the Satanic baby-murdering Demoncrats!!!" demographic. On the other, it gives Dems and Dem voters (or just people who...you know...like the idea of people having basic human rights) something to rally around.

Which is why I figured it wouldn't be repealed anytime soon to begin with.

[Glorious Leader]

Yeah, it remains to be seen, but there is every possibility that they shot themselves in the foot with this one. On one hand, it takes the wind out of the sails of the single-issue "vote against the Satanic baby-murdering Demoncrats!!!" demographic. On the other, it gives Dems and Dem voters (or just people who...you know...like the idea of people having basic human rights) something to rally around.

Which is why I figured it wouldn't be repealed anytime soon to begin with.

In one sense it becomes a bit less polarizing for rebulucans because they can chalk this up as a win so maybe some of them are complacent now. They're usually pretty good at firm mongering though.

[s_bushido]

In one sense it becomes a bit less polarizing for rebulucans because they can chalk this up as a win so maybe some of them are complacent now. They're usually pretty good at firm mongering though.

I guarantee that they'll find something new to fearmonger about. "They™ are coming for Trump, so they're coming for you too!" seems a popular one currently, but I doubt that will have legs in local races, or with persist much beyond when/if his legal issues catch up to him.

[Winter Blossom]

Anecdotal: a female friend of mine for over twenty years just registered to vote for the first time in her life because of this issue. Having this right taken away is causing her to vote for the first time ever.

I just did the same. Haven’t ever voted, but we recently moved and my driver’s license was expiring, so I got a new one and registered to vote at the same time.

[Xyonai]

I guarantee that they'll find something new to fearmonger about. "They™ are coming for Trump, so they're coming for you too!" seems a popular one currently, but I doubt that will have legs in local races, or with persist much beyond when/if his legal issues catch up to him.

It looks like 'Woke' issues will be their rallying cry this year, focusing on LGBT (Emphasis on T) communities. Because stupid culture war bullshit is all these people can run on anymore.

[Rasulis]

Coincidence? Probably coincidence. Out of the blue, women suddenly started to register to vote for no particular reason. They just felt like it.

[Edge-]

Coincidence? Probably coincidence. Out of the blue, women suddenly started to register to vote for no particular reason. They just felt like it.

Man, no wonder Republicans like Glenn Youngkin (Virginia governor) are so afraid of repeating Kansas's "mistake" and putting abortion access up to a popular vote, instead saying that it should be decided in the legislature. It's way easier to deny women a voice on that issue by going through the Legislature.

I just hope it forces a lot of these conservative women to start asking how much their political party of choice is actually looking out for their interests. I don't pretend that every woman registering to vote suddenly is pro-bodily autonomy, especially in each one of those states, but I do imagine that they likely make up an overall majority of the new registered voters across the board in those states.

[Xyonai]

In more 'The Forced-Birth Folks in Kansas are sore fucking losers' news, we've got a twofer:

Unsurprisingly, the guys who funded the previous recount refuses to pay for portions of it but also want to waste everyone's time and force yet another recount. (important bit quoted below)

Kansas law requires a recount if those who ask for it prove they can cover the counties’ costs. The counties pay only if the outcome changes.

Leavitt and Gietzen provided credit cards to pay for the nearly $120,000 cost, according to the secretary of state’s office. Leavitt has an online fundraising page. Gietzen also said he is getting donations from a network built over three decades in the anti-abortion movement.

Gietzen said Sunday he doesn’t accept the results of the Sedgwick County recount because of the discrepancy about the way the ballots were sorted and because some of the recount happened Saturday without outside observers present to watch.

“We still don’t know what happened in Sedgwick County. I won’t pay for Sedgwick County,” he said.

He said he’s also concerned about the results statewide because of a report out of Cherokee county in southeast Kansas about the results of one county election being transposed between two candidates when the results were transferred on a thumb drive from one voting machine to a tabulating machine.

Gietzen said he plans to file a lawsuit Monday seeking a full statewide recall.

Gietzen said he won’t publicly report the names of private donors helping him finance the recount, even though a state ethics official says it’s required. Gietzen, who leads a small GOP group, the Kansas Republican Assembly, argues that he’s not campaigning for the anti-abortion measure but is instead promoting election integrity.

In addition to that, Gietzien is threatening to send out Anti-Abortion activists to carry out a door-to-door investigation in countries where the provision lost because these people are sore losers.

“The next step is to check the registrations of the people who they say voted,” Gietzen said. “I don’t care whether they voted yes or no, it doesn’t make any difference to me. I want to know if a human being voted. So we’ll be visiting homes to see if anyone lives there – maybe 10 out of every precinct.”

[Rasulis]

In addition to that, Gietzien is threatening to send out Anti-Abortion activists to carry out a door-to-door investigation in countries where the provision lost because these people are sore losers.

Isn't Kansas a "stand your ground" state? Time to put the doctrine to good use.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Only reminder #90879012342 that Republicans hate Democracy when it isn't in their favor.