SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Levelfive]

Honestly from the posts of his that were really hitting the 'Humans -need- to procreate, it's the only thing that matters!' point, I think the dude just has a breeding/pregnancy fetish.

Which is really of a piece with so many overlapping pathologies right now--white supremacy / great replacement nonsense, evangelical patriarchal nonsense / the targeting of LGBTQ / enforcing rigid gender roles / openly lamenting that women have political power (you know, because we're allowed to vote and speak and book learn and have our own money and such), the hysteria over women not marrying because they have the economic independence not to be consigned to and trapped in marriages with terrible men, particularly as more and more research shows women are happier (and wealthier) single and childless / and obviously now forcing pregnancy and birth on unwilling women. There's no better way to control women and get them out of the public sphere, hobble their economic independence, etc., than to force them to become mothers. And people on the right are convinced if they can just get women (the younger the better! right, Matt Walsh?) married off, eternally pregnant and dependent, we'll all just fall in line and vote Republican. Barring that: "The political power of single women, especially single mothers, must be diminished in order to regain traditional values, traditional family, and to reestablish social order." https://twitter.com/JeffYoungerTX/st...983839744?s=20

Here he is having a full on divorced dad sad expounding on the "problem" of single, childless women who have opinions he doesn't like: https://www.realclearinvestigations....le_875047.html

[Edge-]

https://newrepublic.com/post/170271/...on-6-week-bans

After re-electing Ronna McDaniel as its leader, the Republican National Committee has passed an anti-choice resolution instructing the party to “go on offense” against abortion rights and pass legislation including six-week bans.

In the resolution passed Monday, the RNC pushes the party apparatus—candidates, consultants, and committees—to “go on offense in the 2024 election cycle,” with regards to abortion. It further urges Republicans in state legislatures and Congress to pass the “strongest” anti-choice legislation possible, using language previously used to justify so-called “heartbeat” bills that would ban abortions at six weeks, before many even know they are pregnant.

By passing such a resolution, the RNC is both directing the party to pursue extreme legislation that would strip away significant bodily autonomy from women and gender minorities, and doubling down on a radical strategy that helped the party’s projected midterm red wave fizzle away.

Despite every vote put to the people being a LOUD AND CLEAR signal that people do not want extremist restrictions on girl's and women's bodily autonomy, recently re-elected RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel is announcing that the Republican party is doubling down on the subject.

Republicans have learned nothing, and I hope this focus on a deeply unpopular issue continues to lead to women abandoning the party and Republicans losing over and over again.

Really though, I don't think the Republican party has had a good, or original, idea in their heads this entire millennia.

[Xyonai]

The self-distructive focus on the culture war is just a result of the base electing gradually more socially regressive policy makers (Or electing folks who pander the most to regressive social policy, same dif) and a turn away from Economic or National Policy positions that could be more easily argued and debated for.

Sure railing against this stuff might work in Pockets of Red states or sway the occasional concerned centrist (folks notorious for being afraid of their own shadows), but as we saw with the abysmal mid-terms performance: Doubling down on social issues doesn't cut it for them on a national scale. Most folks are Pro Abortion. Most folks are Pro Gay. Most folks are Pro Trans (Or at least they don't see a point in legislating against them). Most folks want CRT in higher education and/or don't want history to be whitewashed by sore losers.

And yet they double down because as soon as they -stop- their carefully cultivated reactionaries and the lunatics they elect will turn on them. They're stuck in this self-perpetuating cycle of increasingly unhinged hate until they either assume control and Gilead the country or collapse under the weight of their own bigotry. They will -not- to quietly into the night, as much as we wish they'd acquire even an ounce of introspection and just shut the fuck up and leave people alone.

[Edge-]

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...abortion-drug/

Republicans in the Iowa state legislature introduced a bill on Monday that would make it a felony to manufacture or prescribe mifepristone, one of two drugs used in medication abortions.

The bill would make it illegal to “manufacture, distribute, prescribe, dispense, sell or transfer” generic or brand name mifepristone in the state, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The bill text notes that it “should not be construed” as imposing liability on a woman who receives an abortion or as limiting the use of contraceptives.

In Iowa, abortion is currently legal up to 20 weeks of pregnancy. The Republican-controlled legislature passed a law in 2018 banning abortions at around six weeks of pregnancy that was subsequently signed into law by Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds. However, the law was blocked by a permanent injunction in 2019.

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade last June, Reynolds has sought to overturn the injunction. Her effort was rejected by a state court in December, which the governor has promised to appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court.

I swear, Republicans are going to ride this issue until the party collapses, causing untold harm to girls and women along the way. Much of which we've already seen as women suffering from miscarriages in these states are left to risk more severe complications or death as the prescribed treatment to end their suffering and the risk to their life is illegal in the state, even if there is no other "person" or entity at risk, just clump of dead tissue and cells.

[s_bushido]

The question is, do they really think it's a good idea to take on Big Pharma™? After spending the past couple years convinced that goons in lab coats are nefariously plotting to inject [insert deranged vaccine conspiracy here] into their veins...and it amounting to a fat steaming pile of nothing, surely they understand that this isn't a fight they want to pick.

[Edge-]

The question is, do they really think it's a good idea to take on Big Pharma™? After spending the past couple years convinced that goons in lab coats are nefariously plotting to inject [insert deranged vaccine conspiracy here] into their veins...and it amounting to a fat steaming pile of nothing, surely they understand that this isn't a fight they want to pick.

Less a fight over big pharma and more just empty virtue signaling.

The whole "manufacture" bit is dumb unless there are actual production facilities in the state, so that bit is irrelevant. So functionally they're going after doctors who may prescribe this which is limited to doctors practicing within the state. Conceivably a woman could get prescribed the medication by a doctor in another state and have it sent through the US federal mail system and there's nothing that the state can do about it without opening her mail - which is a federal offense. At least I think.

So it's exactly what Republicans rage against: A worthless bill that just adds a new law that doesn't do anything, expanding the size of government needlessly.

[Flarelaine]

Less a fight over big pharma and more just empty virtue signaling.

The whole "manufacture" bit is dumb unless there are actual production facilities in the state, so that bit is irrelevant. So functionally they're going after doctors who may prescribe this which is limited to doctors practicing within the state. Conceivably a woman could get prescribed the medication by a doctor in another state and have it sent through the US federal mail system and there's nothing that the state can do about it without opening her mail - which is a federal offense. At least I think.

Then you may have missed the speculations about Republicans using the Comstock Act.

[Edge-]

Then you may have missed the speculations about Republicans using the Comstock Act.

Very, very likely I did. It's hard keeping track of all the different state-level and federal Republicans proposing batshit crazy stuff.

[Flarelaine]

Very, very likely I did. It's hard keeping track of all the different state-level and federal Republicans proposing batshit crazy stuff.

The essence is (iirc) Comstock prohibits sending anything "immoral" through the federal mail. They only need to stamp abortion pills as immoral. If you don't agree, you are welcome to sue it all the way to the Supreme Court. Their Supreme Court.

[Darththeo]

The essence is (iirc) Comstock prohibits sending anything "immoral" through the federal mail. They only need to stamp abortion pills as immoral. If you don't agree, you are welcome to sue it all the way to the Supreme Court. Their Supreme Court.

And even if you get a lower court to agree with you, they'll take it to the Supreme Court anyway.

[Levelfive]

And even if you get a lower court to agree with you, they'll take it to the Supreme Court anyway.

there's also this: https://www.npr.org/2023/02/01/11535...ess-nationwide

"A case before a federal judge in Texas could dramatically alter abortion access in the United States – at least as much, some experts say, as the U.S. Supreme Court's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision last year, which overturned decades of abortion-rights precedent.

A decision is expected soon in the case challenging the Food and Drug Administration's approval more than 20 years ago of the abortion drug mifepristone, which a growing number of patients use to terminate pregnancies.

Jenny Ma, senior counsel with the Center for Reproductive Rights, says the outcome of the suit brought by a coalition of individuals and groups opposed to abortion - could amount to a "nationwide ban on medication abortion" with a greater impact than Dobbs."

ETA: Courtesy of judge shopping in Texas, btw.

[Kathandira]

I love this approach. Rather than pointing out hypocrisies as a 'gottem'. offering additional measures to lower the potential of needing an abortion that actually helps people.

I also appreciate that there is a measure of balance in the results, and not simply edited down to show only the most outrageous opinions (Staring at you Jordan Klepper).

[Edge-]

Weird that whenever people keep talking to these "pro-life" folks that say they care so much about children are asked if they support all kinds of policies or proposals that would actually take care of and/or help real children, they suddenly have extensive concerns.

Or have a really urgent meeting they need to go to in a few minutes.

I'm still beginning to think that for most of them, while they may honestly believe it themselves, it's not actually about da keeds.

[Rasulis]

there's also this: https://www.npr.org/2023/02/01/11535...ess-nationwide

"A case before a federal judge in Texas could dramatically alter abortion access in the United States – at least as much, some experts say, as the U.S. Supreme Court's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision last year, which overturned decades of abortion-rights precedent.

A decision is expected soon in the case challenging the Food and Drug Administration's approval more than 20 years ago of the abortion drug mifepristone, which a growing number of patients use to terminate pregnancies.

Jenny Ma, senior counsel with the Center for Reproductive Rights, says the outcome of the suit brought by a coalition of individuals and groups opposed to abortion - could amount to a "nationwide ban on medication abortion" with a greater impact than Dobbs."

ETA: Courtesy of judge shopping in Texas, btw.

It would be a hard climb for the anti-abortion side. As the article noted, it is very unusual to pull a drug from the market after more than two decades of widespread safe and effective use. Especially since the lawsuit is based on safety. Should be noted that mifepristone is also used to treat severe rheumatism and PTSD, and Type 2 Diabetes in adults with Cushing Syndrome.

[Levelfive]

It would be a hard climb for the anti-abortion side. As the article noted, it is very unusual to pull a drug from the market after more than two decades of widespread safe and effective use. Especially since the lawsuit is based on safety. Should be noted that mifepristone is also used to treat severe rheumatism and PTSD, and Type 2 Diabetes in adults with Cushing Syndrome.

Here's more about the judge on the case:

Trump’s worst judge is now a dangerous threat to press freedom https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...ashington-post

Who Is Matthew Kacsmaryk? Trump Judge Challenging Right to Birth Control https://www.newsweek.com/who-matthew...ontrol-1767296

More on the birth control decision: A notorious Trump judge just fired the first shot against birth control https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...deanda-becerra

"But Kacsmaryk isn’t like most other judges. In his brief time on the bench — Trump appointed Kacsmaryk in 2019 — he has shown an extraordinary willingness to interpret the law creatively to benefit right-wing causes.

This behavior is enabled, moreover, by the procedural rules that frequently enable federal plaintiffs in Texas to choose which judge will hear their case — 95 percent of civil cases filed in Amarillo, Texas’s federal courthouse are automatically assigned to Kacsmaryk. So litigants who want their case to be decided by a judge with a history as a Christian right activist, with a demonstrated penchant for interpreting the law flexibly to benefit his ideological allies, can all but ensure that outcome by bringing their lawsuit in Amarillo.

And so, last Thursday, the inevitable occurred. Kacsmaryk handed down a decision claiming that “the Title X program violates the constitutional right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children.”

Kacsmaryk’s decision is riddled with legal errors, some of them obvious enough to be spotted by a first-year law student. And it contradicts a 42-year-long consensus among federal courts that parents do not have a constitutional right to target government programs providing contraceptive care. So there’s a reasonable chance that Kacsmaryk will be reversed on appeal, even in a federal judiciary dominated by Republican appointees."

So I think (hope?) it's likely it would be reversed eventually (though it would first go to the 5th Circuit, which is pretty consistently partisan and awful), but I think there's a very good chance he'll follow through in the meantime. We'll know soon enough.

[RampageBW1]

I love this approach. Rather than pointing out hypocrisies as a 'gottem'. offering additional measures to lower the potential of needing an abortion that actually helps people.

I also appreciate that there is a measure of balance in the results, and not simply edited down to show only the most outrageous opinions (Staring at you Jordan Klepper).

Some parts of this video reminds me of George Carlin's bit on Abortion.

"If you're preborn, you're fine. If you're Preschool you're fucked."

But some of those people seem reasonable enough to want to support children in need.

There should be a litmus test for the "Pro-Life" crowd: if you call yourself pro-life; you can't just stop when the child is born, you have to want to care for those children after they are born so that those children don't go without. But they won't do that, will they? Because that would involve using money to buy those children food and child care.

Yes, in an ideal world, parents should be able to support their children on their own. But this is anything but an ideal world, so if we're gonna tell people that sex is only for procreation and nothing but procreation then the government should implement policies that pick up the slack for parents that would be struggling on account of this whole "No abortions" narrative.

[Kathandira]

Some parts of this video reminds me of George Carlin's bit on Abortion.

"If you're preborn, you're fine. If you're Preschool you're fucked."

But some of those people seem reasonable enough to want to support children in need.

There should be a litmus test for the "Pro-Life" crowd: if you call yourself pro-life; you can't just stop when the child is born, you have to want to care for those children after they are born so that those children don't go without. But they won't do that, will they? Because that would involve using money to buy those children food and child care.

Yes, in an ideal world, parents should be able to support their children on their own. But this is anything but an ideal world, so if we're gonna tell people that sex is only for procreation and nothing but procreation then the government should implement policies that pick up the slack for parents that would be struggling on account of this whole "No abortions" narrative.

I couldn't agree more. I would love to see more of this sort of surveying to better understand the different levels of 'pro-choice' people there are. Perhaps if each flavor of pro-lifer were to watch these videos, they may see that they don't really agree with the very people the march/protest with. If the extremists were culled out, the debates and decisions might have different results.

[Twdft]

Yes, in an ideal world, parents should be able to support their children on their own.

Quite easily solved, just double or maybe triple the minimum wage. Can't imagine the lady who says parents are responsible to feed their kids object to that.

[Darththeo]

Quite easily solved, just double or maybe triple the minimum wage. Can't imagine the lady who says parents are responsible to feed their kids object to that.

They'll just say it isn't their responsibility to insure that people can feed their kids.

[Glorious Leader]

They'll just say it isn't their responsibility to insure that people can feed their kids.

Worse they'll turn it on its head make it a moral issue. They always turn poverty into a character flaw and never a systemic concern. Their must be something wrong with those people. They need Jesus.