SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Taifuu]

So you're agreeing with me that she might as well join the opposite party, since every alternative option still gets the flak.

That statement only makes sense if she isn't getting flak for joining the Republican party, but she is. So the correct statement, the one that multiple people have consistently pointed out and that you, the swell person always posting in good faith seem to just have a rough time grasping, is that "All options lead to the same result, so if she were principled, she would have become an Independent." You're welcome.

[Mekh]

Hence, when you call me upset and roundabout ask for my opinion on multiple subjects going around with other people in the thread, I declined. You don't have to get sore at people for not entering into every related topic you wish I'd cover.

You call me sore but don't seem to have it in you anymore to defend your own party's ghoulish policies anymore. Instead you are sidetracking the whole thread with this other thing. If you want to discuss the traitor-grifter, make a new topic about her. Please post constructively.

[Paranoid Android]

Rep. Tony Gonzales on CNN: "I have 6 children. I'm a prolific pro-lifer."

Psst! Conservatives think of women as baby receptacles.

Rep. Tony Gonzales: "Women have a whole lot more other issues than just abortion. Let's have those real conversations. And let's talk about the other things that are happening in this world."

You see women I'm going to tell you what you should be thinking about. Don't think women, just listen. Plus women can't have multiple issues is what this guy is saying.

[Endus]

Rep. Tony Gonzales on CNN: "I have 6 children. I'm a prolific pro-lifer."

Psst! Conservatives think of women as baby receptacles.

Hilariously, the implication there is he didn't want any of those 6 kids, but because he's a "prolific pro-lifer", he couldn't push to have them aborted, so now he's stuck with kids he never wanted.

If he wanted the kids, his position on abortion rights would never have been relevant.

"Look, I hate my fuckin' kids and having to put up with their shit, right? But I'm a pro-lifer; my only alternative was aborting 'em, and I'd rather have my useless goddamned spawn bleed me dry than respect women."

[Rasulis]

Hilariously, the implication there is he didn't want any of those 6 kids, but because he's a "prolific pro-lifer", he couldn't push to have them aborted, so now he's stuck with kids he never wanted.

If he wanted the kids, his position on abortion rights would never have been relevant.

"Look, I hate my fuckin' kids and having to put up with their shit, right? But I'm a pro-lifer; my only alternative was aborting 'em, and I'd rather have my useless goddamned spawn bleed me dry than respect women."

This is the insane part of the interview.

"The House Republicans have the power of the purse, and if the administration wants to not heed this ruling, not live up to this ruling, then we're going to have a problem, and it may be a come to a point where House Republicans on the appropriation side have to defund FDA programs that don't make sense."

I truly want to see the GOP do this and see how it will play in the 2024 elections.

[Nymrohd]

Sinema just switched to an Independent last year, for which she has gotten a lot of flak. She also stated that she would still largely be voting alongside Democrats. That was still a terrible move since she did it after she ran for election and she should have resigned. She still didn't do a complete 180.

Manchin ran on a platform that followed the majority of the Democratic platform and some things that went against it, like his support for the coal industry. Those are issues that he openly ran on. He also gets a lot of flak from his fellow Democrats. The Republican party at this time goes out of its way to be on the opposite side of pretty much any issue that the Democratic party platforms on. I know you're already aware of the information presented in these articles, but your arguments are so easy to refute I'll post them anyway:

https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...joe-manchin-k/

The thing is, if certain important bills are never brought forward for a vote because the Dems know they will fail since those two have clearly stated they will not vote for them, then they would technically not count, would they? While a Senator voting against a pro-corporate bill that would get support from multiple Republican Senators will be counted as breaking party unity.

[Edge-]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rep...-simple-expert

Linking just so it's here: According to the Heritage Foundation (or one of their employees), RBG officiating a same-sex wedding is literally no different than Clarence accepting upwards of millions of dollars in gifts and trips for free from his politically activist good buddy.

Watching conservatives desperately and frantically try to pretend Clarence's obvious and major conflict of interest/ethical compromise is anything but isn't even fun or interesting. It's just more boring modern fiction from these folks.

[Taifuu]

The thing is, if certain important bills are never brought forward for a vote because the Dems know they will fail since those two have clearly stated they will not vote for them, then they would technically not count, would they? While a Senator voting against a pro-corporate bill that would get support from multiple Republican Senators will be counted as breaking party unity.

It is not uncommon for politicians to have a couple of disagreements policy-wise with their affiliated parties. For example, there may be 10 core issues that a party is running under, and a politician might only agree with 7/10. Those 3 issues might be deal breakers, in which case it would make sense to switch to an Independent. It doesn't make sense, however, to switch to a party where you only agree with 3 of their core issues and are opposed to the other 7.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rep...-simple-expert

Linking just so it's here: According to the Heritage Foundation (or one of their employees), RBG officiating a same-sex wedding is literally no different than Clarence accepting upwards of millions of dollars in gifts and trips for free from his politically activist good buddy.

Watching conservatives desperately and frantically try to pretend Clarence's obvious and major conflict of interest/ethical compromise is anything but isn't even fun or interesting. It's just more boring modern fiction from these folks.

So when executive A invites executive B to play golf and they discuss business; what is that to these people? Just two friends talking about their hobbies? Are we now supposed to pretend that rich people don't spend a ton of money trying to influence potential partners or investors? Are we at the point where only a direct monetary contribution is being counted as a bribe? I feel the only way to really test this is if Clarence spent a year voting alongside his liberal counterparts and then see if he still gets a "personal invitation from a good friend".

[Captain N]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rep...-simple-expert

Linking just so it's here: According to the Heritage Foundation (or one of their employees), RBG officiating a same-sex wedding is literally no different than Clarence accepting upwards of millions of dollars in gifts and trips for free from his politically activist good buddy.

Watching conservatives desperately and frantically try to pretend Clarence's obvious and major conflict of interest/ethical compromise is anything but isn't even fun or interesting. It's just more boring modern fiction from these folks.

Didn't you know being able to officiate a wedding for those evil gays is the same as taking millions in potential bribes? Gotta keep the base riled up about that "LGBTQ Agenda".

[Edge-]

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...csp=apple-news

The Iowa Attorney General's Office has put on hold its longstanding practice of paying for emergency contraception, and in rare cases abortions, for victims of sexual assault.

Iowa law and federal regulations require the state to pay for many of the expenses facing assault survivors who seek medical help, including the costs of forensic examinations and treatments for sexually transmitted infections. Under Attorney General Tom Miller, a Democrat, the state's victim compensation fund also picked up the tab for Plan B ― the so-called "morning after" pill ― and similar treatments to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

A spokeswoman for Republican Attorney General Brenna Bird, who defeated Miller's bid for an 11th term last fall, confirmed to the Des Moines Register that payment for such costs is on hold as part of a larger review of victim services.

"While not required by Iowa law, the victim compensation fund has previously paid for Plan B and abortions. As a part of her top-down, bottom-up audit of victim assistance, Attorney General Bird is carefully evaluating whether this is an appropriate use of public funds," Bird Press Secretary Alyssa Brouillet said in a statement. "Until that review is complete, payment of these pending claims will be delayed."

Victim advocates say they weren't informed of the pause on payments, and said they hope the state will eventually resume them to ensure the victims, already dealing with the trauma of their attacks, are not left holding the bill.

Again, it's not about punishing or hurting women, that's just very very frequently the result of Republican policy decisions.

Also fun - https://www.thedailybeast.com/manspl...ristone-ruling

Abortion access has been a political issue for decades since Roe v. Wade was passed, with its precarious position taking various levels of prominence in American politics before the bombshell that was Roe’s reversal last year.

But for Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-TX), women who may now lack life-changing access to abortion should just move on from the issue entirely.

In an appearance on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, Gonzales was asked about a Texas federal judge’s decision late Friday to suspend the FDA’s 23-year-old approval of the common abortion drug mifepristone. Gonzales tried to paint the decision as a states’ rights issue, despite a federal judge dictating it, and warned Democrats against allowing the FDA to ignore the court’s ruling.

Host Dana Bash, however, noted that the drug was also prescribed for women who suffer miscarriages, which can affect millions of women a year. (A National Library of Medicine study last year estimated that as many as 26 percent of pregnancies end in miscarriages.) That, though, did not matter to Gonzales.

“It’s important that we have real discussions on women’s healthcare and get off the abortion,” he said. “Get off the abortion conversation. Women have a whole lot more other issues than just abortion. Let’s have those real conversations, and let’s talk about—let’s talk about the other things that are happening in this world.”

...does anyone want to remind him which political party has made abortion a central tentpole policy area for their party and pushed for the recent SCOTUS ruling this thread is discussing and continue to get owned on the topic every time it comes up?

Damn man, I hope Republicans do start talking about other health care issues related to women's health. Let's talk about better access to pre and post-natal care. Let's talk about more access to preventative care including various cancer screenings. Let's talk about the lack of access to quality health care or coverage in general, which impacts girls and women just as much as men.

Shame Republicans don't seem to want to talk about those issues much, either.

- - - Updated - - -

https://newrepublic.com/post/171761/...-abortion-pill

The bombshell ruling that could take abortion pills off the national market was based in part on a “study” of anonymous posts on an anti-abortion website.

Texas federal Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled Friday that mifepristone, one of the medications used to induce an abortion, had been improperly approved and should be yanked from the U.S. market. Two other judges have already filed dueling injunctions to keep the drug available.

The lawsuit was filed in November by a coalition of anti-abortion groups and individuals, who specifically chose Kacsmaryk for his history of anti-abortion decisions, arguing that the Food and Drug Administration had improperly approved mifepristone for widespread use more than 20 years ago. More than 100 scientific studies show that mifepristone is safe.

In his ruling, Kacsmaryk cites a study that posits “fourteen percent of women and girls reported having received insufficient information” about the side effects of having an abortion. The study also says that “eighty-three percent of women report that chemical abortion ‘changed’ them—and seventy-seven percent of those women reported a negative change.”

That study analyzed anonymous posts on an anti-abortion website called “Abortion Changes You,” which runs a blog with stories from people who regret having abortions. The sample size is 98 blog posts, but the study authors only analyzed 54 posts and then just cherry-picked quotes from the rest.

“Perhaps this sample might not be reflective of the entire universe of women who have abortions?” suggested legal expert Adam Unikowsky, who clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in his Substack “Adam’s Legal Newsletter.”

“This is roughly like reporting a statistic that ‘83% of people are fans of Judge Kacsmaryk’ without mentioning that the entire sample consisted of posters on JudgeKacsmarykFanClub.com.”

What’s even more dangerous is the fact that both the website and the Institute of Reproductive Grief Care, the organization that runs the site, couch themselves in reasonable-sounding language. Founder Michaelene Fredenburg talks repeatedly about the need for a better support system for the men and women grieving pregnancy loss.

This is true. An abortion is a deeply personal choice, and it does not come without an emotional toll. There still seems to be a social taboo about discussing abortions and miscarriages, and people who experience them are often left without a network to support them.

But it should still be a choice. And one man has used a biased study to try to take that away.

Just a reminder how deeply dishonest all these fucks are. Deeply, asoundingly intellectually dishonest. Any judge taking a source like that seriously should be questioned and potentially removed from the bench, because that's indicative of some serious lack of critical thinking skills on the part of the judge.

Or that the judge knows the study cited is garbage but doesn't care because he was trained with a partisan goal in mind and will deliver partisan, activist victories for Republicans who have complained for decades about "activist judges" as they trained and installed an army of their own.

[Rasulis]

Abortion is a losing issue for Republican party. Even their voters for the most part disagree with its position.

Vast majority of Republican voters think that abortion should be legal in case of a woman’s health. Only 1 or 2 anti-abortion states allow for that. The rest only allow exceptions in cases of medical emergency where a woman’s life is threatened. PA does not allow abortion under any circumstances.

Vast majority of Republican voters are of the opinion that abortion should be legal in cases of incest and rape. Again only 1 or 2 states allow for that.

Vast majority of Republican voters think that abortion should be legal in cases where a fetus is not viable outside the womb. Only 1 or 2 states allow for that.

Around 50% of Republican voters think abortion should be legal in the first trimester. We know where most anti-abortion states are heading with that.

The reality is there is very little appetite for strict abortion ban.

Even rabid GOP pundit, Ann Coulter, know that.

One of their own politician, Nancy Mace, says FDA should ignore judge’s decision blocking abortion pill approval.

Wisconsin is very telling. Biden won 16 counties in 2020. Protasiewicz won 23.

Every single counties with at least 1 mid-size cities or 1 college/university shifted left. That include counties which are typically GOP strongholds. Protasiewicz on average did 4% better than Tony Evers in 2022 in GOP stronghold counties.

In the special election for Wisconsin State Senate District 8, GOP won by over 1% margin. Whereas in 2020, it won the district by over 10%.

[Xyonai]

Abortion is a losing issue for Republican party. Even their voters for the most part disagree with its position.

Vast majority of Republican voters think that abortion should be legal in case of a woman’s health. Only 1 or 2 anti-abortion states allow for that. The rest only allow exceptions in cases of medical emergency where a woman’s life is threatened. PA does not allow abortion under any circumstances.

Vast majority of Republican voters are of the opinion that abortion should be legal in cases of incest and rape. Again only 1 or 2 states allow for that.

Vast majority of Republican voters think that abortion should be legal in cases where a fetus is not viable outside the womb. Only 1 or 2 states allow for that.

Around 50% of Republican voters think abortion should be legal in the first trimester. We know where most anti-abortion states are heading with that.

The reality is there is very little appetite for strict abortion ban.

Even rabid GOP pundit, Ann Coulter, know that.

One of their own politician, Nancy Mace, says FDA should ignore judge’s decision blocking abortion pill approval.

Wisconsin is very telling. Biden won 16 counties in 2020. Protasiewicz won 23.

Every single counties with at least 1 mid-size cities or 1 college/university shifted left. That include counties which are typically GOP strongholds. Protasiewicz on average did 4% better than Tony Evers in 2022 in GOP stronghold counties.

In the special election for Wisconsin State Senate District 8, GOP won by over 1% margin. Whereas in 2020, it won the district by over 10%.

Not to derail too much, or discredit your point, but the Culture War in general is a losing issue for Republicans. Like they ran as hard as they could with their Anti-Woke nonsense and made absolutely no gains in a Midterm Race where they should've statistically crushed it. A lot of that might just be echos of folks voting against the Trump GOP - even if he wasn't running his influence was still there - but it goes to show that, by and large, Republican Social policy is either incredibly unpopular or not popular enough to win them large races.

Like their big national presidential front runners is the Last guy who lost (and is currently on trial in NY for money crimes) and DeSantis who has the personality of a bowl of split pea soup without any of the flavor, the latter of whome's entire political career has been banging on the unpopular culture war drum and he gets to bring 'cucked by Disney because no one in his administration can read' to the national stage. Oooh, scary.

[s_bushido]

Oooh, scary.

Thing is...as worthless as the GOP is, it's not a good idea to simply write them off. Everyone did that in 2016, and we're still dealing with the consequences 7 years later.

[masterhorus8]

Thing is...as worthless as the GOP is, it's not a good idea to simply write them off. Everyone did that in 2016, and we're still dealing with the consequences 7 years later.

Yeah, it's unfortunate. Combo of too many ignorant/malicious people and too many complacent people.

[unfilteredJW]

You can't ignore cancer. That's how it kills you.

[tehdang]

Vast majority of Republican voters are of the opinion that abortion should be legal in cases of incest and rape. Again only 1 or 2 states allow for that.

Vast majority of Republican voters think that abortion should be legal in cases where a fetus is not viable outside the womb. Only 1 or 2 states allow for that.

Citation needed, particularly in the definition of "anti-abortion state." And can "1 or 2" mean "6 or 7?" That's a difference between 1 or 2 and a full 25%+ of states with pre-28week general ban. Call this, seeking clarity.

[unfilteredJW]

Citation needed, particularly in the definition of "anti-abortion state." And can "1 or 2" mean "6 or 7?" That's a difference between 1 or 2 and a full 25%+ of states with pre-28week general ban. Call this, seeking clarity.

Why? You'll ignore it.

[Rasulis]

Citation needed, particularly in the definition of "anti-abortion state." And can "1 or 2" mean "6 or 7?" That's a difference between 1 or 2 and a full 25%+ of states with pre-28week general ban. Call this, seeking clarity.

You are correct. For example, six states with abortion bans currently have exceptions for incest & rape. However, getting the exceptions is a pretty steep hill to climb. The exceptions require proof of police report and/or doctor's notes. Which are not always available. Then there is the matter of practicality. Out of the six, with the exception of UT and WY, there are no abortion providers left in the other 4 states. There is no point to having exceptions if the service is not available. So, "1 or 2."

[Paranoid Android]

Riffing off my Clarence Thomas post.

Matthew Kacsmaryk, the Federal judge and only judge in Amirillo Texas was hired directly out of law school by far-right, conservative think places and eventually groomed ( I said it) by Federalist Society. He was twice denied for Senate approval to Federal judge status eventually making it in 2019. An oh btw if you kept up with Trump this happened to very many of judges and flat out being denied as unqualified.

Our judicial is so effed up. First by milking one district with one judge for Federal rules. Oh, kind of saw an incompetent judge in Trump Top Secret Document. A point made that if you want the slippery slope argument that now over 600 Fed judges can turn this into chaos by ruling whenever and however they want. Also grooming, yeah I said it.

[Cthulhu 2020]

"You will stay in the party or you're defrauding voters" - The Best News to party corruption. She was a swing vote on some issues before, I'm sure she will be after. I don't think she's going to suddenly discover that a decade of pro-choice was just an extremely disciplined con.

You do realize why our federal and state houses are called the "House of Representatives" right? Because a candidate is chosen by the people to REPRESENT their interests. I realize these kinds of connections might be difficult to tie together for people with a political agenda against Democrats, but it's really not difficult. Sinema was elected to represent Democrat interests in a heavily Democrat district. If she votes against those interests, her district can and will oust her. You're so hyper focused on wagging your finger at people at "betraying the Democratic party" that you forgot about the actual betrayal: The people whom elected her based on the platform she ran on. If she 180's on that platform she ran on, it is a betrayal of her constituents, and we should rightly have laws on the books to allow constituents to oust people who do this sort of thing.

If she helps Republicans pass anti abortion legislation, she just threw away her career. Why do you think I said follow the money? Because I was upset or had no reason to? Naw man, if she throws away her career (or more than likely, becomes a Republican grifter selling Testosterone supplements and comforting lies to insecure men) it's for money.