SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[StillMcfuu]

If Biden wants to be remembered as anything other than the shit tier, Woodrow Wilson style president he is, he'll start the ball rolling/get a new amendment ratified for abortion.

Granted I'm no fool, and I know modern politics will mean bloating that legislation with all kinds of superfluous crap guaranteeing it will be torpedoed even quicker than a women's autonomy abortion legislation would get down voted by states' rights republicans anyway.

[Edge-]

If Biden wants to be remembered as anything other than the shit tier, Woodrow Wilson style president he is, he'll start the ball rolling/get a new amendment ratified for abortion.

This isn't how Amendments work, and it also ignores how polarization has made the possibility of further Amendments almost impossible.

[VMSmith]

Republicans call to cancel Senate’s Citibank contract over ‘abortion tourism’



This will be a major contention issue between anti-abortion states and many companies with offices in their states. Apple has the same policy on abortion as Amazon and it pretty much has offices in every single US states. Even Dell which has a TX headquarter has the same abortion policy.

Short list from a quick search of companies with expanded abortion benefits - Apple, Amazon, Citigroup, HP, Levi's, Match, Dell, Yelp, Salesforce, Uber, Lyft, GoDaddy, Bumble, etc.

Uber and Lyft said they would work with healthcare providers in Texas and Oklahoma to offer free rides to clients seeking out-of-state reproductive healthcare. They have also pledged to pay the legal fees of any drivers fined for transporting a customer to an out-of-state abortion clinic in both states.

IMO, if the decision goes through as it currently looks then this "abortion tourism", as they want to call it, should absolutely be prevented. Not because I want to stop people from getting abortions, but if people with even some small degree of power/finance are able to dodge the consequences of Republican rule then what is their motivation to change things? It's just another example of "fuck you, I'm ok" when the people in those states who aren't fortunate enough to have an employer that will do this for them get screwed. It's that kind of thinking that got us Trump, in the first place, and this whole mess. People need to actually suffer from the consequences of not working to remove Republicans from government if we're ever going to, y'know, remove Republicans from government. Otherwise it's jam today and jam tomorrow.

[StillMcfuu]

This isn't how Amendments work, and it also ignores how polarization has made the possibility of further Amendments almost impossible.

I'm aware of how it works, but as President and essentially leader of his party and he needs to stand up and get this going. He's done nothing with the responsibilities he has been entrusted.

[cubby]

This isn't how Amendments work, and it also ignores how polarization has made the possibility of further Amendments almost impossible.

Exactly. No way any even mildly divisive Amendments will get passed in this new United States.

[Fugus]

IMO, if the decision goes through as it currently looks then this "abortion tourism", as they want to call it, should absolutely be prevented. Not because I want to stop people from getting abortions, but if people with even some small degree of power/finance are able to dodge the consequences of Republican rule then what is their motivation to change things? It's just another example of "fuck you, I'm ok" when the people in those states who aren't fortunate enough to have an employer that will do this for them get screwed. It's that kind of thinking that got us Trump, in the first place, and this whole mess. People need to actually suffer from the consequences of not working to remove Republicans from government if we're ever going to, y'know, remove Republicans from government. Otherwise it's jam today and jam tomorrow.

The problem with that is it just hurts the poor, those of any means will just go out on their own and do it regardless without their employers help.

If you want this addressed like that, you need to find a way where the rich and well off ALSO can't dodge them and are forced to carry to term. No Senators paying to get their mistress an abortion while publicly against it, no CEO doing or any of that.

But having it where they can just spend their own money on it while the poor are stuck too broke to take care of the unplanned pregnancy and too broke to abort it as well won't help anything but make it worse where the rich get to ignore it while the poor end up dying in back ally abortions or in even more financial strife from a pregnancy they hadn't planned on with the child being brought up in that stress which will get even worse if he finds out he wasn't wanted to being with or worse, treated unwanted while growing up.

Still wondering how the military will react as the states that exploit this WILL impact how the military reacts with them potentially making sure to avoid stationing women in those states and even having priority of moving families out of them like they might already have to do with the trans bills with the air force already leading the way in that.

[szechuan]

This isn't how Amendments work, and it also ignores how polarization has made the possibility of further Amendments almost impossible.

The Democrats made a mistake by not Codifying Roe v Wade. Republicans seem to be better at propaganda and consolidating power.

[Edge-]

The Democrats made a mistake by not Codifying Roe v Wade.

When was the last time they had 60+ votes in the Senate to bypass the filibuster and do so?

[Fugus]

@cubby

You seem like the best person to ask this, I have been looking through the opinion some. I heard it was worded so broadly that it theoretically could also be used as a basis to attack gay marriage and potentially sodomy laws as well.

I read it some, little by little, trying to go back to the whole "The constitution does not call out abortions directly" as an excuse. But is that really broad enough to be expanded into that or did they read too much into it?

I know the GOP would put them on the chopping block in short order if they can, but is this really worded to be a step in that direction already?

[Ivanstone]

When was the last time they had 60+ votes in the Senate to bypass the filibuster and do so?

2009/10. Although I’m sure Ben Nelson would’ve torpedoed it just like he tried to do with the ACA.

[jonnysensible]

IMO, if the decision goes through as it currently looks then this "abortion tourism", as they want to call it, should absolutely be prevented. Not because I want to stop people from getting abortions, but if people with even some small degree of power/finance are able to dodge the consequences of Republican rule then what is their motivation to change things? It's just another example of "fuck you, I'm ok" when the people in those states who aren't fortunate enough to have an employer that will do this for them get screwed. It's that kind of thinking that got us Trump, in the first place, and this whole mess. People need to actually suffer from the consequences of not working to remove Republicans from government if we're ever going to, y'know, remove Republicans from government. Otherwise it's jam today and jam tomorrow.

so all the people there who vote dem, do the right thing should suffer. please engage your brain.

[Nurasu]

@cubby

You seem like the best person to ask this, I have been looking through the opinion some. I heard it was worded so broadly that it theoretically could also be used as a basis to attack gay marriage and potentially sodomy laws as well.

I read it some, little by little, trying to go back to the whole "The constitution does not call out abortions directly" as an excuse. But is that really broad enough to be expanded into that or did they read too much into it?

I know the GOP would put them on the chopping block in short order if they can, but is this really worded to be a step in that direction already?

Alito mentioned the respective cases for those explicitly in the opinion. He stated they were outside of the scope of this case, but should fail based on the same merits. There's no interpretation needed, but they do rely on the same principle of privacy.

[Fugus]

Alito mentioned the respective cases for those explicitly in the opinion. He stated they were outside of the scope of this case, but should fail based on the same merits. There's no interpretation needed, but they do rely on the same principle of privacy.

Yeah, messed up. Told me friend about it and how they are basically using this to set the framework to outlaw blowjobs from his wife in an attempt to attack gay guys.

[Nurasu]

Yeah, messed up. Told me friend about it and how they are basically using this to set the framework to outlaw blowjobs from his wife in an attempt to attack gay guys.

Here's a good thread on the subject: https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/15...0zImyY0Eyh4Usw

[Edge-]

I just love Alito's appeal to tradition, as if that's literally any kind of argument that's not inherently regressive.

Like sure...but traditionally we owned Black people. And traditionally "spousal rape" wasn't a thing because you can't rape your wife, you silly billy!

#MAKETRADTIONALAMERICATRADTIONALAGAINSOWECANRAPEOURWIVESANDOWNBLACKPEOPLE

Again, doesn't quite roll off the tongue so I don't think they'll use this as a 2024 campaign slogan, either.

- - - Updated - - -

Here's a good thread on the subject: https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/15...0zImyY0Eyh4Usw

Oh fuck off, I hope Alito genuinely gets the most awful, malignant cancer there is. Jesus fucking christ on a stick, the "aBorTIon Is acuTuaLlY EugeNIcS" bullshit is such a bad-faith trop of pro-lifers to weaponize minorities when it suits them.

[Grapemask]

I'm sorry, I just can't stop eyerolling at conservative response to this right now.

Imagine what shit must be in your skull to say the leak is the scandal here. "The real bad guy is the one who alerted us to what the bad guys were doing." Like just imagine how much it must disgust anyone to be around that kind of person, because of the rancid odor pouring out of their earholes from the giant mount of festering dog shit where a brain ought to be.

[bladeXcrasher]

I drew the direct line between the literal "constitutional originalism" of Alito's opinion here) and his opinion on same sex marriage and interracial marriage) to the second amendment and it's lack of explicitly stating that it provides the right for the individual to bear arms for personal self defense. The "libertarian" that I drew this line for has yet to process that shit. I don't know if it's a case of "not my fucking problem" or what, but idiots like him are either oblivious to the consequences of such actions or so comfortable in their privilege they have convinced themselves this shit could never happen to them.

[Logwyn]

When was the last time they had 60+ votes in the Senate to bypass the filibuster and do so?

I believe the 95th Congress in 1977-1979.

[postman1782]

LOL have they been relevant since 2015?

Anyway, send the issue back to the states where it belongs. Abortion will still be legal in many states. Federalism is great, embrace it.

Not when states like Oklahoma are even making that illegal to go to other states to get an abortion.

[Fugus]

Not when states like Oklahoma are even making that illegal to go to other states to get an abortion.

At which point I am open to states implementing laws in their states that allows them to arrest and put politicians on trial from other states for attempting to subvert their laws within their own borders or any officers attempting to enforce such laws.

If it is legal to get an abortion in my state and you create a law that attempts to undermine it and outlaw it while in my state, you are in violation of the law and will be arrested when captured. Start making it where the politicians passing the laws have to walk on eggshells when they travel the country because of their actions.

Then the Supreme Court would be stuck between striking down both laws or allowing those politicians it stew in prison for violating the sovereignty of another state within the union. This isn't like what Matt Gaetz tried crossing state lines and you can split hairs sharp enough to splice atoms and that won't change.