SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Rasulis]

I have said it before and I will say it again, the moment the Republicans ban this stuff, whether it be Plan B or Birth Control, every drug dealer on every street corner will have a new best selling product.

And as an extension to that, they will also have more police willing to look the other way when they are selling these things while the police as a whole will make themselves into even bigger enemies to the general public when they arrest someone selling them.

I just don't know. Mifepristone has more than one use. It is regularly prescribed for Endometriosis (which affect 1 in 10 women), miscarriages, cushing syndrome, various cancers, depression, etc. The VA is in Phase II trial of using Mifepristone to treat PTSD. After Phase III, it will be used nationwide to treat PTSD. Hard to imagine that it would end up classified as controlled substance.

[Twdft]

The only way to do that is to turn the US into a police state not unlike China.

Well, looking at Republican initiatives over the last decades that might just have been the plan all along.

[Fugus]

I just don't know. Mifepristone has more than one use. It is regularly prescribed for Endometriosis (which affect 1 in 10 women), miscarriages, cushing syndrome, various cancers, depression, etc. The VA is in Phase II trial of using Mifepristone to treat PTSD. After Phase III, it will be used nationwide to treat PTSD. Hard to imagine that it would end up classified as controlled substance.

These are the same people who are cutting people off for treatments to cancer and rheumatoid arthritis in the states that have banned abortion, I know the FDA wouldn't classify it as such unless the GOP get to appoint a new head to it, but I can definitely see them banning it from being delivered to anyone and everyone they can.

As has been said too many times, the suffering is the point.

Edit: The ONLY thing holding the Supreme Court in check right now is the fact they know that each time they get what they want they bury the GOP in the next election even more and increase the odds that they be replaced or expanded as well undoing their damage.

[beanman12345]

I just don't know. Mifepristone has more than one use. It is regularly prescribed for Endometriosis (which affect 1 in 10 women), miscarriages, cushing syndrome, various cancers, depression, etc. The VA is in Phase II trial of using Mifepristone to treat PTSD. After Phase III, it will be used nationwide to treat PTSD. Hard to imagine that it would end up classified as controlled substance.

Aren't benzo's classified as controlled substance? Those are prescribed for a bunch of stuff too. If it's something they can churn campaigns and funnel money into DEA, Police etc etc to hype up more "war on drugs" crap, nothing is hard to imagine with the current GQP anymore.

[Rasulis]

Aren't benzo's classified as controlled substance? Those are prescribed for a bunch of stuff too. If it's something they can churn campaigns and funnel money into DEA, Police etc etc to hype up more "war on drugs" crap, nothing is hard to imagine with the current GQP anymore.

Those are highly addictive mind-altering drugs. My wife refused to take Xanax when it was prescribed to manage her Chiari Malformation headaches in 2008.

Mifepristone does neither. I guess I am trying to reign my cynicism of the process.

[Muzjhath]

No one take this the wrong way.
But if SCOTUS gets behind this? (The pill ban).

It's time to for Americans to stop being Polite.

Get out into the streets, throw some rocks through windows. Learn from the French how to protest (not build barricades). The GOP will never give these rights back without violence.

[Nymrohd]

Basically. The biggest problem for them will be enforcement. If the US can't stop the flow of illegal drugs across the border. How do they expect to stop 5 small pills (1 mifepristone and 4 misoprostol are required for the protocol) mailed in plain brown envelopes from EU, India, Mexico and Canada. The same with blocking access to abortion care information and sale through the internet.

The only way to do that is to turn the US into a police state not unlike China.

The simple act of making something illegal dissuades many people from doing it, however unreasonable the law and however unlikely its enforcement.

[LilSaihah]

No one take this the wrong way.
But if SCOTUS gets behind this? (The pill ban).

It's time to for Americans to stop being Polite.

Get out into the streets, throw some rocks through windows. Learn from the French how to protest (not build barricades). The GOP will never give these rights back without violence.

>No one take this the wrong way
>Directly incites violent protests

What's the 'right' way to take it?

[Cthulhu 2020]

>No one take this the wrong way
>Directly incites violent protests

What's the 'right' way to take it?

America didn't move forward through peaceful protest. If you know your history at all, the only time things actually changed was when people got violent. People like to retcon the civil rights era as a bunch of peaceful protests, but seem to forget that there was in fact a lot of violence (especially from police) but civil rights people fought back.

We won our independence through a war. We freed the slaves through a war. Workers got rights by striking and sometimes burning down factories.

I'm also personally growing tired of this finger wagging about violence never being okay. But my opinion is that exploitative corporate property is fair game for destruction. Especially with how fashy and oppressive the right is becoming. Of course the right clutches its pearls over destruction of property, but think shooting unarmed black people is okay.

Also, just a friendly reminder that a lot of the destruction we see from black lives matter and other anti fascist protests has been from cops. A video surfaced the other day of a police line literally destroying cars during one of the bigger clashes of the last few years, vandalism that was later blamed on the protestors but we now know was police creating a reason to get violent with the people. People are becoming increasingly aware that police are part of the oppressive state, and are not there to protect you or your family, but to protect capital owners.

[Muzjhath]

>No one take this the wrong way
>Directly incites violent protests

What's the 'right' way to take it?

Don't go kill people. Go be nuances and cost economies money.

- - - Updated - - -

America didn't move forward through peaceful protest. If you know your history at all, the only time things actually changed was when people got violent. People like to retcon the civil rights era as a bunch of peaceful protests, but seem to forget that there was in fact a lot of violence (especially from police) but civil rights people fought back.

We won our independence through a war. We freed the slaves through a war. Workers got rights by striking and sometimes burning down factories.

I'm also personally growing tired of this finger wagging about violence never being okay. But my opinion is that exploitative corporate property is fair game for destruction. Especially with how fashy and oppressive the right is becoming. Of course the right clutches its pearls over destruction of property, but think shooting unarmed black people is okay.

Also, just a friendly reminder that a lot of the destruction we see from black lives matter and other anti fascist protests has been from cops. A video surfaced the other day of a police line literally destroying cars during one of the bigger clashes of the last few years, vandalism that was later blamed on the protestors but we now know was police creating a reason to get violent with the people. People are becoming increasingly aware that police are part of the oppressive state, and are not there to protect you or your family, but to protect capital owners.

Don't forget that Pride started because of a literal riot and without Stonewall marriage equality wouldn't be a thing.

[Jastall]

>No one take this the wrong way
>Directly incites violent protests

What's the 'right' way to take it?

Not lying down and hoping the people who clearly want to curtail your rights will stop at this particular right and then leave you alone.

Violence against people is not acceptable and I'm not saying to burn your neighbor's house down, but this American timidity towards any sort of protest is IMO a big reason why its political system is so flawed. People would rather complain about things online or over a beer than actually show they're angry and that there's a line they do not want crossed.

[Endus]

>No one take this the wrong way
>Directly incites violent protests

What's the 'right' way to take it?

Violence.

Literally no civil rights movement has been successful demanding their equitable treatment without at least the threat, and in almost all cases the actual targeted use, of violence. Hand-wringing that "resorting to violence means you're wrong" is not just historically bullshit, it's deeply un-American just in principle.

When the State attempts to dehumanize you as a group, the ethical response is to burn that State down until it gives it up.

[PosPosPos]

>No one take this the wrong way
>Directly incites violent protests

What's the 'right' way to take it?

It's given that you supporters of authoritarianism would decry justified self-defense against authoritarians. No tyrant ever wants to be deposed.

[Rasulis]

Ohio will be the next proving battle ground in the abortion issue. The pro-choice has been collecting signatures since March to put an initiative on the ballot for November 2023 election to enshrine the right to abortion in the state constitution. They need 414,000 signatures by July and is well on the way to surpassing 700,000.

GOP legislators tried to throw a wrench into their effort by holding an August special election to vote on constitutional amendment to require 60% of voters to enact constitutional amendments, instead of a simple majority.

If the pro-choice can win in a GOP trifecta state like Ohio, then GOP is in deep trouble in 2024.

[Jastall]

Ohio will be the next proving battle ground in the abortion issue. The pro-choice has been collecting signatures since March to put an initiative on the ballot for November 2023 election to enshrine the right to abortion in the state constitution. They need 414,000 signatures by July and is well on the way to surpassing 700,000.

GOP legislators tried to throw a wrench into their effort by holding an August special election to vote on constitutional amendment to require 60% of voters to enact constitutional amendments, instead of a simple majority.

If the pro-choice can win in a GOP trifecta state like Ohio, then GOP is in deep trouble in 2024.

Especially if abortion is kept in the news by continued efforts to curtail it like the whole pill thing. SCOTUS really has opened the legal floodgates on this one haven't they.

[Rasulis]

Especially if abortion is kept in the news by continued efforts to curtail it like the whole pill thing. SCOTUS really has opened the legal floodgates on this one haven't they.

Not to worry. GOP politicians are hell-bent on keeping abortion foremost on voters' mind for the next 18 months.

I'm pro-life. I don't apologize for it. I, uh, I think the fact the Biden administration allowed mifepristone to be made available on a mail-order basis was a, a fundamental change. Uh, even in states that have limited abortion. I'd like to see this medication off the market to protect the unborn, but also I, I, I have deep concerns about the way the FDA went about approving mifepristone twenty years ago.

I, I, I'm, uh, that action is being taken in the courts to hold the FDA accountable to what the law requires in reviewing any medication that's made on the marketplace. So for the sake of protecting the unborn, but also, uh, for the health and safety of women, uh, I, I'm looking forward to this, uh, this litigation continuing, uh, and holding the manufacturers of mifepristone accountable and ultimately, and putting the interests of women first.

Mike Pence on CBS Face the Nation with Bob Costa.

[Jastall]

Not to worry. GOP politicians are hell-bent on keeping abortion foremost on voters' mind for the next 18 months.


Mike Pence on CBS Face the Nation with Bob Costa.

Ah, to have to please a base of fanatics while knowing full well it means getting destroyed electorally.

No pity for them of course. They made their bed, they can lie in it, same with them hitching a ride on the Trump train. They had their victory in 2016 that allowed them to stack SCOTUS for years to come, let's see just how much it costs them.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Violence.

Literally no civil rights movement has been successful demanding their equitable treatment without at least the threat, and in almost all cases the actual targeted use, of violence. Hand-wringing that "resorting to violence means you're wrong" is not just historically bullshit, it's deeply un-American just in principle.

When the State attempts to dehumanize you as a group, the ethical response is to burn that State down until it gives it up.

Peaceful protests are the first step of any demonstration for desires for rights. When peaceful protests fail (Which they often do) it's your civic duty to commit civil disobedience.

I only learned after my high school education that the narrative of the civil rights era being won by peaceful protests was a clever subversion in our education system to make future generations laud peace and be against violence. But as we know, rights are not won through peaceful protests. Politicians will laugh their way to the bank if all you do is stand outside the state building with a sign chanting slogans. You need to be a serious threat to them for them to take you seriously.

- - - Updated - - -

And for all the people whining about abortions happening up to birth or even viability, (@tehdang) you can fuck right off with your things that don't happen. At least not when there's anything short of an absolute medical emergency.

[Endus]

Peaceful protests are the first step of any demonstration for desires for rights. When peaceful protests fail (Which they often do) it's your civic duty to commit civil disobedience.

I only learned after my high school education that the narrative of the civil rights era being won by peaceful protests was a clever subversion in our education system to make future generations laud peace and be against violence. But as we know, rights are not won through peaceful protests. Politicians will laugh their way to the bank if all you do is stand outside the state building with a sign chanting slogans. You need to be a serious threat to them for them to take you seriously.

The anti-violence rhetoric, fundamentally, is propaganda used to defend and protect the status quo from change. It's an emotionally empty plea to the ethics and morals of the civil rights advocates, which they must have or they wouldn't care about civil rights in the first place, knowing full well that those in charge of the status quo absolutely share no such ethics on this issue and will, absolutely, engage in brutal violence against protestors to maintain that status quo. It's a manipulation tactic, not an honest position.

As much as these people like to selectively quote Martin Luther King Jr. on nonviolence, they're well aware and deliberately concealing that later in his life, he came to recognize his earlier idealism as naive and incomplete, and that violence, deplorable as it may be, is both often necessary for civil reform, and something used freely against civil reform without societal disavowment of that use of violence. I'll just quote one of those later speeches here in part, because he phrased it much more poetically than I could;

Urban riots must now be recognized as durable social phenomena. They may be deplored, but they are there and should be understood. Urban riots are a special form of violence. They are not insurrections. The rioters are not seeking to seize territory or to attain control of institutions. They are mainly intended to shock the white community. They are a distorted form of social protest. The looting which is their principal feature serves many functions. It enables the most enraged and deprived Negro to take hold of consumer goods with the ease the white man does by using his purse. Often the Negro does not even want what he takes; he wants the experience of taking. But most of all, alienated from society and knowing that this society cherishes property above people, he is shocking it by abusing property rights. There are thus elements of emotional catharsis in the violent act. This may explain why most cities in which riots have occurred have not had a repetition, even though the causative conditions remain. It is also noteworthy that the amount of physical harm done to white people other than police is infinitesimal and in Detroit whites and Negroes looted in unity.

A profound judgment of today's riots was expressed by Victor Hugo a century ago. He said, 'If a soul is left in the darkness, sins will be committed. The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but he who causes the darkness.'


The policymakers of the white society have caused the darkness; they create discrimination; they structured slums; and they perpetuate unemployment, ignorance and poverty. It is incontestable and deplorable that Negroes have committed crimes; but they are derivative crimes. They are born of the greater crimes of the white society. When we ask Negroes to abide by the law, let us also demand that the white man abide by law in the ghettos. Day-in and day-out he violates welfare laws to deprive the poor of their meager allotments; he flagrantly violates building codes and regulations; his police make a mockery of law; and he violates laws on equal employment and education and the provisions for civic services. The slums are the handiwork of a vicious system of the white society; Negroes live in them but do not make them any more than a prisoner makes a prison. Let us say boldly that if the violations of law by the white man in the slums over the years were calculated and compared with the law-breaking of a few days of riots, the hardened criminal would be the white man. These are often difficult things to say but I have come to see more and more that it is necessary to utter the truth in order to deal with the great problems that we face in our society.

Full speech here; https://www.apa.org/monitor/features/king-challenge

[Fugus]

I remember something a video said a long time ago but actually made sense and was correct. It was talking about the non-violent protests.

He said non-violent protest only work with the implied threat of potential violence if things aren't addressed. If your protests aren't capable of violence, then you aren't non-violent, you are harmless, there is a difference.