SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Endus]

Again, I'm not talking about "worrying about the precious feelings of the victimizers", I'm talking about redeeming those who can be redeemed. OBVIOUSLY we try to help the people who need to be helped first and we keep at it until things are better, but part of that process can be winning over the few people who CAN BE won over and converting them to our side.

EDIT: To clarify, again, I'm not trying to protect these people. I am simply aware of the fact that if all you do is ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK one side of an issue without allowing them an out, instead of changing their ways and becoming a better person, they're more likely to double down and keep doing heinous shit. There has to be an escape route. Not to say changing will absolve them of their sins, but it's a hell of a lot better than letting them continue as they are. So that's where all this came from, that's why I said, "Show this to all of them and maybe you'll convince some of them to change."

I've been explicitly allowjng them an out. I'm just not willing to waste my time and effort trying to "save" them. If they want to drop the act and come back to reaity and give up being hateful, abusive shitheads, we can start that process. If they're not volunteering of their own free will, malice is presumed and we should act accordingly.

Imagine you were making this argument about Nazis. Because it's the same damned thing. No, we can safely presume they're terrible people just for what they stand for. We don't have to "save" them. We have to protect the vulnerable from them.

I could not care less about the hardships the victimizers might face as society rejects their positions wholesale. They've earned that reprobation. I have no interest whatsoever in "saving" any of them, not unless they come to me (figuratively) admitting fault first.

[The Stormbringer]

-SNIP-
I could not care less about the hardships the victimizers might face as society rejects their positions wholesale. They've earned that reprobation. I have no interest whatsoever in "saving" any of them, not unless they come to me (figuratively) admitting fault first.

That... yeah, that's fair. I can agree with that. Seems like we're in the same chapter if not on the same page. Certainly, them admitting fault first before you try to offer an olive branch makes sense to me. Thank you for clarifying on your end as well.

[gondrin]

I wasn't defending anyone. My point was that maybe if we show them, expose them to the awful things that have come about because of their actions, some of them will be horrified and willing to try to improve things by not voting for Republicans anymore.

It needs to happen directly to them. Right now, for a lot of those people, it is happening to people they don't like to begin with so they are fine with it.

[Jester Joe]

It needs to happen directly to them. Right now, for a lot of those people, it is happening to people they don't like to begin with so they are fine with it.

I mean, that was the major lesson I feel like that came out of COVID alone. People thinking it wasn't that bad until it's their loved ones.

In an ideal world, yeah it would be lovely if people can just be shown what the major issues are of their idea, but we also live in a world where if you truly care about these topics you can just look it up and do some research at least.

[Edge-]

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-...urt-rcna103612

This week, a court hearing in Alabama exposed a new constitutional landmine in the abortion conflict: whether prosecutors from conservative states can punish people for abortions that take place in progressive ones. And the deep ambiguities raised in this case may ultimately be settled by a conservative U.S. Supreme Court.

After the Supreme Court decimated abortion rights last year, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall proclaimed that organizations that helped Alabama abortion seekers access services out of state could face criminal conspiracy charges in Alabama. In July, two reproductive health centers and the Yellowhammer Fund, which provides support to low-income abortion seekers, sued Marshall, arguing that the prosecutions he outlined would be plainly unconstitutional. A conspiracy prosecution, they argued, could threaten speech protected under the First Amendment; it could curtail the constitutional right to travel; and it could violate the full faith and credit clause, which requires that state courts respect other states’ laws and court judgments.

Republican extremism on this subject continues, with Republican officials in states continuing to push to police peoples actions and activities in other states.

Absolutely petty authoritarian nonsense.

And don't worry, Texas is getting in on the action too, it's not going to let Alabama have all the fun - https://abc13.com/texas-abortion-law...-the/13740276/

More than a year after Roe v. Wade was overturned and abortion was mostly outlawed in Texas, anti-abortion groups are getting more aggressive -- and creative -- in trying to stop women from getting the procedure out of state. New laws currently on the table in many smaller Texas towns would make it illegal to even drive through the city or county for the purpose of an abortion.

Two cities and counties in Texas have already passed the measure, and many more are set to vote on a similar version soon, according to the Texas Tribune. The strategy, engineered by Right to Life group architects of SB 8, a.k.a. the heartbeat bill, comes amidst growing frustrations about the number of women who are going out of state to circumvent the ban. There are questions about what would be enforced: private citizens can sue any group or party they believe to be in violation of the law. But abortion law expert Mary Ziegler with the University of California at Davis says the creators of SB8 are specifically using these ordinances as legal testers.

Some towns in Texas want to make it illegal to drive through the town if your ultimate destination is to get reproductive health care in another state.

Again, for wanting a "small government", Republicans keep pushing to greatly expand the power of state governments well beyond their borders. Almost like they're all ultimately a bunch of petty authoritarians that want to control what people can do with their bodies.

It's a wonder that when the issue is actually presented to voters that Republicans consistently get their asses kicked up and down the courts, even when they try to dishonestly misrepresent the issue.

[Twdft]

some towns in texas want to make it illegal to drive through the town if your ultimate destination is to get reproductive health care in another state.

papers, citizen!

[RampageBW1]

Pretty soon, they'll want to try to stop women from moving out of their state because they think the women might need to have an abortion.

[Edge-]

Pretty soon, they'll want to try to stop women from moving out of their state because they think the women might need to have an abortion.

Maybe they'll need a chaperone if a woman wants to travel? You know, her fiance/husband or an adult male within her family like a brother or cousin or even nephew or something.

[The Stormbringer]

Maybe they'll need a chaperone if a woman wants to travel? You know, her fiance/husband or an adult male within her family like a brother or cousin or even nephew or something.

And to make fertile women--I mean, potential flight risks easily identifiable, they'll have them wear red clothes and a white hat! It'll be illegal for them to wear anything else, and you can whip them--I mean, apply physical punishment if they don't comply.

[Edge-]

He's the same AG that just argued in front of a federal court, that the newly created Alabama congressional map the Alabama GOP created should be upheld because...giving black people a 2nd majority district like the Supreme Court demanded would be "affirmative action in redistricting."

Goes back to the first time this issue was brought in front of the SCOTUS and they had to decide whether they'd enter the political scene by ruling on it or remain neutral by leaving it up to the states. For better or worse they dove into politics (much to the chagrin of some of the Justices at the time) because Black folk were being intentionally disenfranchised in the state (I believe TN but I'll have to try to find the case again). And the states argument was very much, "Why yes they are, and that's our right and that's up to us to solve and you can't tell us to stop disenfranchising these folk."

Conservatives continue to really, really, really hate it when democracy happens.

- - - Updated - - -

So apparently conservatives have made the phrase "pro-life" incredibly toxic and unpalatable to Americans who know what they really mean by it. Also that they're not, usually, actually pro-life as they support the death penalty and largely are pretty unconcerned about human life outside of the narrow boundaries of the topic of abortion - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...ses-rcna103924

At a closed-door meeting of Senate Republicans this week, the head of a super PAC closely aligned with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., presented poll results that suggested voters are reacting differently to commonly used terms like “pro-life” and “pro-choice” in the wake of last year’s Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, said several senators who were in the room.

The polling, which NBC News has not independently reviewed, was made available to senators Wednesday by former McConnell aide Steven Law and showed that “pro-life” no longer resonated with voters.

“What intrigued me the most about the results was that ‘pro-choice’ and ‘pro-life’ means something different now, that people see being pro-life as being against all abortions ... at all levels,” Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., said in an interview Thursday.

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said the polling made it clear to him that more specificity is needed in talking about abortion.

“Many voters think [‘pro-life’] means you’re for no exceptions in favor of abortion ever, ever, and ‘pro-choice’ now can mean any number of things. So the conversation was mostly oriented around how voters think of those labels, that they’ve shifted. So if you’re going to talk about the issue, you need to be specific,” Hawley said Thursday.

“You can’t assume that everybody knows what it means,” he added. “They probably don’t.”

The "confusion" is likely because those are policies that Republicans keep pushing for on state and national levels and keep talking about. So I guess they're trying out some new marketing language -

Sen. Todd Young, R-Ind., summarized Wednesday’s meeting as being focused on “pro-baby policies.”

Asked whether senators were encouraged to use a term other than “pro-life,” Young said his “pro-baby” descriptor “was just a term of my creation to demonstrate my concern for babies.”

Now whether Young and other Republicans will start actually supporting "pro-baby" policies including better coverage for post-natal care and other policies is yet to be seen.

But given that Republicans keep arguing against programs like free school meals, I'm not inclined to think that they actually believe this.

[s_bushido]

Yes, I'm sure it's totally the messaging that's the issue, and not the dogshit policies they're constantly proposing and implementing.

But the "pro-baby" thing is pretty funny. You know...just to make it clear to everyone that they couldn't care less about the people they plan on forcing to carry those babies to term.

[Nymrohd]

Oh they are pro-baby? I am looking forward to all the policies about supporting babies.

[Poopymonster]

OMG please use pro-baby now. I need some laughs.

How long until pedophilia is "Pro-child"?

[Deianeira]

Funny if some Dems make a "Pro-Baby Act" with lots of policies for supporting babies after they are born. lol

[Edge-]

Funny if some Dems make a "Pro-Baby Act" with lots of policies for supporting babies after they are born. lol

Most are policies generally supported by Democrats. Would be a good way to see if Republicans will put their money where their mouth is.

(We know they absolutely will not)

[Captain N]

Most are policies generally supported by Democrats. Would be a good way to see if Republicans will put their money where their mouth is.

(We know they absolutely will not)

"We are Pro-Baby but the mother should have just crossed her legs. It is not up to the hard-working American tax payer to fund the egregious failure of responsibility of a woman getting pregnant. " --Republican Male Politicians....most likely.--

[Egomaniac]

I really want to start a "day trip to Canada for no particular reason at all" travel agency.

[Edge-]

I really want to start a "day trip to Canada for no particular reason at all" travel agency.

Or Mexico, too.

[Egomaniac]

Or Mexico, too.

Someone from Mexico can do that one. I want the "abortion vacation travel for no particular reason" boom to go to the Canadian Economy :P

[Surfd]

Just curious, but how exactly does that legislation square with the Constitutionally enshrined right to freedom of movement?

I mean, I'm a little hazy on the details, since apparently while freedom of movement is a constitutional right it's not federally enforceable, but rather left to the states to enforce, but even still, one would think that threatening to arrest people for travelling to other states would be considered a direct violation of their Constitutional rights?