SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Milchshake]

The silver lining of the Kansas vote.
Watching the copium from pro-lifers and anti-feminists...

[Ghost of Cow]

Minority rights should never be subject to popular votes. This is a principle of (modern) democracy, but i get that for some people democracy is waving and saluting a flag, and to beat up/imprison everyone not showing devotion to aforementioned flag. So my expectations aren't that high to begin with...

No, I agree. I see what you're saying.

I'm just happy this particular vote happened, but that doesn't mean I actually WANT all big issues to be up for direct vote.

[Pannonian]

No, I agree. I see what you're saying.

I'm just happy this particular vote happened, but that doesn't mean I actually WANT all big issues to be up for direct vote.

That's more or less my point - the vote wasn't to enshrine a protection, it was to remove it. And i'm glad it turned out the way it did, but the fact the vote was happening in the first place isn't something that should be lauded.

Especially not with this braindead "leave it to states" bullshit.

I'm just sick of people regurgitating some quasi-religious wisdom about democracy without ever thinking about what it actually means. Why is it bad if the federal government is restricting something, but if states do it it is a-ok. This doesn't make sense, and it speaks to a very childlike view of politics in general, where it is more important to say the right things "States rights" "honor the flag" and similar bullshit, instead of actually thinking what it means.

And just to clarify something: This is not so much against people in this thread, you're all (well, at least the people i responded to) not the ones i'm ranting about, but this sentiment has always baffled me. Especially if you get some people that sprout drivel how the US is the pinnacle of democracy, and then you contrast it with sentiments like these.

[DarkTZeratul]

A few problems we aren't really a democracy so our votes don't all count the same, that's how the GOP is able to wield power even though they haven't won an election by popular vote in decades.

Stop buying into their whole "we're not a democracy, we're a republic" nonsense. We're a democracy. We're a real democracy. We're a representative democracy, but we're still a democracy nonetheless. Full stop. The particulars of our voting systems do not change that.

[Endus]

Stop buying into their whole "we're not a democracy, we're a republic" nonsense. We're a democracy. We're a real democracy. We're a representative democracy, but we're still a democracy nonetheless. Full stop. The particulars of our voting systems do not change that.

Specifically, nowhere in "democracy" is it mandated that votes be exactly evenly distributed. That's just flatly not a thing. Ancient Athens was a democracy, the classical democracy, and the franchise wasn't even universal then.

Republics are often democratic. The distinction isn't one. The two terms refer to different aspects of government's structure; it makes as much sense to say "we're a republic, not a democracy" as it is to describe your car as an "automatic, not a sedan".

[Draco-Onis]

Stop buying into their whole "we're not a democracy, we're a republic" nonsense. We're a democracy. We're a real democracy. We're a representative democracy, but we're still a democracy nonetheless. Full stop. The particulars of our voting systems do not change that.

Joe Biden defeated Trump by 80 million votes but in reality he won by 75-100k ish vote (going by memory) similar thing happened with Hillary. Also be self aware here we are in a thread discussing how 6 religious extremists just removed rights from millions of Americans and they had no say in it. The "representative" part is a joke and no one with an ounce of logic should believe in it anymore.

[Polyxo]

That would be a massive seizure of power by religious groups. Marriage has always been primarily a legal structure, first and foremost, not a religious one. Where religions have had strong influence and control over it have been in times and regions where the local religious power had strong control over legal systems, like the ecclesiastical law codes of medieval Europe that existed alongside secular laws, or in Sharia law systems. It's still, always, a legal structure first and foremost, the question is if your laws are based on religion. If they aren't, religion has no business being involved in marriage whatsoever.

Which is the status quo in the Western world. If your faith group holds a marriage ceremony, it doesn't mean dick unless you fill out the appropriate legal document and file it with the government with the appropriate signatures. You can get married with that document alone. None of the religious trappings matter. They might have personal meaning, but they're like a birthday party; you might enjoy that celebration, but it isn't a requirement of your age advancing another year legally speaking. Which is all that matters.

Not to mention, trying to make marriage religious means you're going to run into chaos when people who were married in other societies want their marriages recognized, legally speaking. Because without that legal recognition, marriages matter about as much as communion does. In other words, not at all. You could marry a child, you could divorce anyone just by saying so and without any penalty unless your faith enforces such, and even then, only by the loose enforcement methods of your faith group. You know those scenes where someone "marries" a tree or something? That's what you're turning all marriage into.

Thanks, but the rest of us are fine with marriage being a foundational and internationally-recognized legal arrangement.

Didn't that mostly just have to do with literacy and record keeping anyway?

[DarkTZeratul]

Joe Biden defeated Trump by 80 million votes but in reality he won by 75-100k ish vote (going by memory) similar thing happened with Hillary. Also be self aware here we are in a thread discussing how 6 religious extremists just removed rights from millions of Americans and they had no say in it. The "representative" part is a joke and no one with an ounce of logic should believe in it anymore.

Great. Literally none of that makes us "not really a democracy."

[Draco-Onis]

Great. Literally none of that makes us "not really a democracy."

Hey by definition Hungary and Belarus are also still a "democracy" so we can go that direction and you can still be right.

[Muzjhath]

Joe Biden defeated Trump by 80 million votes but in reality he won by 75-100k ish vote (going by memory) similar thing happened with Hillary. Also be self aware here we are in a thread discussing how 6 religious extremists just removed rights from millions of Americans and they had no say in it. The "representative" part is a joke and no one with an ounce of logic should believe in it anymore.

First Past the Post districted democracy.

Same as the UK.

The fact that this makes vote counting weird as fuck? Same as everywhere.

Sweden is proportional voting but also districted. So *technically one district can send people only from one party. And that party can not be represented at all from the rest of the country.

All democracies have some weird funky rules. The rules in FPTP systems just discourage voters more as there isn't really room for more than 2 parties or when there are there will be parties that win a seat by getting 1/4th of the vote (see the UK)

[Draco-Onis]

First Past the Post districted democracy.

Same as the UK.

The fact that this makes vote counting weird as fuck? Same as everywhere.

Sweden is proportional voting but also districted. So *technically one district can send people only from one party. And that party can not be represented at all from the rest of the country.

All democracies have some weird funky rules. The rules in FPTP systems just discourage voters more as there isn't really room for more than 2 parties or when there are there will be parties that win a seat by getting 1/4th of the vote (see the UK)

The UK doesn't have the electoral college where states with significantly lower population get more representation not to mention gerrymandering where politicians pick their voters giving themselves lifetime appointments. That's not even going into voter disenfranchisement and voter suppression.

[Forogil]

The UK doesn't have the electoral college where states with significantly lower population get more representation not to mention gerrymandering where politicians pick their voters giving themselves lifetime appointments. That's not even going into voter disenfranchisement and voter suppression.

Not since the reform act of 1832 (I know it didn't fully solve the problem). Previously it had rotten boroughs that combined the best of gerrymandering and electoral college.

Will the US be able follow in the footsteps of the UK within 200 years or less?

- - - Updated - - -

Stop buying into their whole "we're not a democracy, we're a republic" nonsense. We're a democracy. We're a real democracy. We're a representative democracy, but we're still a democracy nonetheless. Full stop. The particulars of our voting systems do not change that.

The problem here is that people use the same word with different meanings.

When the US was started they talked about 'democracy' meaning 'direct democracy', so the meaning of the old quote was then "we're not a direct democracy, we're a non-monarchical representative democracy". So the UK and Sweden to take two recently mentioned examples aren't called "republics" even if they have representative democracy. But Germany, Turkey and Russia are republics. (Switzerland is the closest to an actual direct democracy today - and it is still far from it.)

However, when we today speak of democracy we often mean more than just a vote, sometimes that's called "liberal democracy" (the name may be confusing due to liberal parties).

That's why the Economist (Intelligence Unit) have their Democracy Index and Freedom house their democracy score etc. The Economist has, since 2016, given the US a score below 8 - i.e., a "Flawed Democracy". Sweden, the UK, and Germany are still at "Full Democracy", but the UK is on the brink of sliding down (as the US has already done). Turkey is a Hybrid regime and Russia Authoritarian.

Freedom House still classifies the US as "Free" - but on a shared 7th place in America, so far from the top even on its continent. However, some claim that their score is flawed and more focused on the formalities than on practical matters (which would mean that the US has a too favorable score).

But the quote didn't originally mean "we're not a full (liberal) democracy, we're a flawed democracy", and it certainly didn't mean "we're not democrats, we're republicans" as one of the original US parties was the "Democratic-Republican Party".

[Edge-]

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/...s/65391546007/

House Republicans attempted to remove exceptions for rape and incest from the state's proposed near-total abortion ban on Thursday, but just like Republicans in the Senate, they were unsuccessful.

The vote failed 39-61 with all Democrats and some Republicans voting no. However, a majority of Republicans voted to remove the exceptions from the bill that bans most abortions at zero weeks. Of Republicans in the House, 39 lawmakers voted to remove those exceptions, while 32 voted with Democrats to keep exceptions for rape and incest in the bill.

The House is poised to vote on the bill on Friday.

Some slightly good news as Indiana tries to outlaw abortion. Ghoulish Republicans, again, want to force girls and women who are the victims of rape or incest, even if they're 10 years old and the pregnancy poses a serious risk to the health of the girl.

It's not about "protecting life". It's about controlling girls and women and forcing them to be babymakers regardless of how they're impregnated. Sure, a 10 year old may be violently and brutally raped by her family and be impregnated with a child of incest, but that's no excuse to protect her health by terminating a pregnancy!

I mean, the Republicans probably think that little harlot "deserved" the rape, what dressing all sexy by...wearing normal clothes.

[david0925]

some parts of me just want the Bible to be banned.

[gondrin]

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/...s/65391546007/



Some slightly good news as Indiana tries to outlaw abortion. Ghoulish Republicans, again, want to force girls and women who are the victims of rape or incest, even if they're 10 years old and the pregnancy poses a serious risk to the health of the girl.

It's not about "protecting life". It's about controlling girls and women and forcing them to be babymakers regardless of how they're impregnated. Sure, a 10 year old may be violently and brutally raped by her family and be impregnated with a child of incest, but that's no excuse to protect her health by terminating a pregnancy!

I mean, the Republicans probably think that little harlot "deserved" the rape, what dressing all sexy by...wearing normal clothes.

Honestly, I would love to see a bill pass that would make any politician financially responsible for requiring a person to come to term if it is from rape/incest due to abortion being banned. I figure if they want to tell others that they have to, they can help pay for all costs involved. If it takes them to not getting a paycheck, so be it. This would be along with the person who also committed the assault.

I know it wouldn't happen but one can dream.

[s_bushido]

some parts of me just want the Bible to be banned.

You know, the icing on the cake for all of this is that the only time the bible talks about anything resembling abortion, it's to specifically lay out a reason and method for it to be performed: When a husband thinks his wife cheated on him. So any of the fuckers using that ridiculous book as a justification for what they're doing here have literally nothing to stand on.

[Endus]

some parts of me just want the Bible to be banned.

It's unnecessary. All you need to do is reinforce a really simple maxim; your religious views can reflect on decisions you make about your own choices and actions, but the second you try and implement those religious views, in any respect, on any other human being, you should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity.

If you deny a woman an abortion, crime against humanity.
If you refuse to sell a morning-after pill, crime against humanity.
If you won't serve a mixed-race or same-sex couple, crime against humanity.

I literally do not care what anyone's religious views might be, if they keep those views to themselves and only hold themselves to those standards. I'll respect the shit out of whatever you want to do, for your own spiritual benefit, I don't care if it's wearing a burqa, self-flagellation, self-disfiguration, whatever. You try and inflict/enforce that shit on anyone else who doesn't want it? You should be facing jail time.

[Edge-]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/05/u...on-kansas.html

Republican candidates, facing a stark reality check from Kansas voters, are softening their once-uncompromising stands against abortion as they move toward the general election, recognizing that strict bans are unpopular and that the issue may be a major driver in the fall campaigns.

In swing states and even conservative corners of the country, several Republicans have shifted their talk on abortion bans, newly emphasizing support for exceptions. Some have noticeably stopped discussing details at all. Pitched battles in Republican-dominated state legislatures have broken out now that the Supreme Court has made what has long been a theoretical argument a reality.

In Pennsylvania, Doug Mastriano, the Republicans’ ardently anti-abortion candidate for governor, has lately taken to saying “the people of Pennsylvania” will “decide what abortion looks like” in the state, not the governor. In Minnesota, Scott Jensen, a family physician who said in March that he would “try to ban abortion” as governor, said in a video released before the Kansas vote that he does support some exceptions: “If I’ve been unclear previously, I want to be clear now.”

Republican consultants for Senate and House campaigns said Thursday that while they still believe inflation and the economy will drive voters to the G.O.P., candidates are going to have to talk about abortion to blunt Democratic attacks that the party’s position is extreme. They have started advising Republicans to endorse bans that allow exceptions for pregnancies from rape or incest or those that threaten the life of the mother. They have told candidates to emphasize care for women during and after their pregnancies.

“If we are going to ban abortion, there are things we’ve got to do to make sure the need for abortion is reduced, and that women are not endangered,” said Representative Nancy Mace, Republican of South Carolina, who won an exemption for rape and incest in her state’s abortion law as a state representative. Now, she says Republicans need to press to expand access to gynecological and obstetrics care, contraception, including emergency contraception, and even protect the right of women to leave their states to get an abortion without fear of prosecution.

Messaging alone cannot free the G.O.P. from the drumbeat of news after the Supreme Court’s decision, including the story of a 10-year-old rape victim who crossed state lines to receive an abortion, and headlines about women who confronted serious health problems under new, far-reaching restrictions or bans.

On Thursday, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, who has recently avoided talking about abortion, suspended a state attorney from Hillsborough County who refused to prosecute people who try to provide abortions prohibited by the state’s new 15-week ban, prompting angry recriminations from Democrats.

Editors’ Picks

20 Years at 30,000 Feet: A Flight Attendant Answers Readers’ Questions

In ‘A League of Their Own,’ Abbi Jacobson Makes the Team

Retouched and Revitalized, Washington Looks Forward
The recalibration for some began before voters of deeply Republican Kansas voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday against removing abortion rights from the state’s constitution. Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, retracting the constitutional right to the procedure, many Republicans were slow to detail what would come next. As they rush to enact long-promised laws, Republican-led legislatures have learned how difficult banning abortion can be.

“Not just the pro-choice movement but the pro-life movement was caught by surprise” by the Supreme Court, said Brandon Steele, a West Virginia delegate who pressed for an abortion ban without exceptions in a special session of the legislature that ended this week with the Republican supermajority stymied. “Without having the talking points, without being told what to do, legislators had to start saying what they were actually going to do. You could see the confusion in the room.”

“We’re finding out who is really pro-life and who is pro-life only to get elected, not just in West Virginia but across the country,” Mr. Steele said.

In Indiana, a special session of the state legislature to consider a near-total abortion ban has had brutal debates over whether to include exemptions and how far those exemptions should go.

“For some it’s very black and white: if you’re pro-life with no exceptions or if you’re pro-choice with no restrictions,” said State Senator Kyle Walker, an Indiana Republican who said abortion should be legal during at least the first trimester of pregnancy. “When you are in the gray area, you are forced to reconcile in your own mind where your own limits are.”

For months, Republicans have maintained that abortion rights would be a footnote in a midterm campaign driven by the worst inflation in 40 years, crime, immigration and a Democratic president whose approval ratings are mired around 40 percent.

That is still the public line, even after the Kansas referendum, where voters faced a single issue, not the multiplicity of factors they will be considering in November.

But the reality on the campaign trail is different. Sarah Longwell, a Republican pollster, said in her focus groups that swing voters do bring up inflation and the economy when asked what issues are on their minds. But when prompted to discuss abortion, real passion flares. That indicates that if Democrats can prosecute a campaign to keep the issue front and center, they will find an audience, she said.

Ms. Mace agreed, saying that abortion is rising fast and that Republicans have to respond.

In Minnesota, Dr. Jensen, the Republican candidate expected to take on Gov. Tim Walz, suggested it was interactions with voters after the fall of Roe that, he said, prompted him to clarify his position on abortion.

“Once the Roe v. Wade decision was overturned, we told Minnesota, and basically told everybody that we would engage in a conversation,” he said. “During that conversation, I learned of the need for me to elaborate on my position.”

That elaboration included embracing a family and maternity leave program, promoting a $2,500-per-child adoption tax credit, and improving access to birth control, including providing oral contraceptives over the counter with a price ceiling. And, like Adam Laxalt, the G.O.P. Senate nominee in Nevada, Dr. Jensen pointed to abortion protections already in place in Minnesota to cast the matter as settled rather than on the ballot this year.

Mr. Walz said he would stay on offense, and not accept any softening of the Republican line.

“I take them at their first word,” he said of Dr. Jensen and his running mate, Matt Birk, a former N.F.L. player and anti-abortion rights advocate. “If they get the opportunity they will criminalize this while we’re trying to protect it. So it’s become a central theme, obviously, I think that flip on their part was in response to that.”

The Kansas vote implies that around 65 percent of voters nationwide would reject rolling back abortion rights, including a majority in more than 40 of the 50 states, according to a New York Times analysis.

Republicans believe their party can grab the mantle of moderation from Democrats, in part by conveying empathy toward pregnant women and offering exemptions to abortion bans, and casting Democrats as the extremists when it comes to regulating abortion. If Democrats insist on making abortion the centerpiece of their campaigns, they argue, they risk looking out of touch with voters in an uncertain economy.

But Republicans who moderate their views must still contend with a core base of support that remains staunchly anti-abortion. Abortion opponents said Thursday that Republican candidates should not read too much into the Kansas vote, a single-issue referendum with language that was criticized by voters on both sides as confusing.

“Regardless of what the consultant class is telling the candidates, they would be wise to recognize that the right-to-life community is an important constituency and an important demographic of voters,” warned Penny Nance, chief executive and president of Concerned Women for America, a conservative organization that opposes abortion rights.

After the Kansas vote, Democrats stepped up efforts to squeeze their opponents between a conservative base eager for quick action to ban all abortions and a broader electorate that wants no such thing. Representative Elaine Luria, a moderate Democrat running in a Republican-leaning district in southeastern Virginia, released a new advertisement against her Republican opponent, Jen Kiggans, painting her as “too extreme” on abortion. Ms. Luria had initially said she would campaign on her work for the district and her support for the Navy, a big force in the region, but the landscape has shifted. Ms. Kiggans’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

A group aligned with the Democratic Governors Association is already advertising off abortion-related remarks made by Tudor Dixon of Michigan, who won the Republican nomination for governor this week.

“If you take Tudor Dixon at her word when it comes to outlawing abortion, she’s told us exactly who she is,” the spot, titled “No Exceptions,” intones, featuring clips of Ms. Dixon highlighting her opposition to a range of abortion-related exceptions. Ms. Dixon was unambiguous about her position earlier this summer, writing on Twitter, “My only exception is to protect the LIFE of the mother.”

In a lengthy statement that highlighted her opposition to an expected ballot measure in Michigan intended to protect abortion rights, Ms. Dixon also insisted that her race would be defined by jobs, schools, crime and being “able to afford your gas and groceries.”

For Republicans, one problem might be the extensive trail on the issue they left during the primary season.

In May, Mr. Mastriano was unequivocal in Pennsylvania as he courted Republican primary voters: “That baby deserves a right to life whether it is conceived in incest or rape or there are concerns otherwise for the mom.”

Last month, he said it was not up to him. “You decide on exceptions. You decide on how early. And that’s in the hands of the people,” he said on Philadelphia talk radio. “That’s a fact. That’s not a dodge.”

In which Republicans, who have had access to the same data that everyone else has which shows that Americans, including Republicans, overwhelming support women's bodily autonomy, and that even those that would like to outlaw abortion still broadly support exceptions for rape and incest, realize that maybe the extremist position against bodily autonomy for girls and women isn't a winning issue following the attempted amendment getting absolutely destroyed in Kansas.

Man, now, are either just not talking about the topic anymore or are backpedaling and no longer taking a clear position, throwing the responsibility on the voters within their state.

Because as a reminder, Republicans don't just consistently support unpopular policies and legislation, they're also spineless cowards.

[s_bushido]

Because as a reminder, Republicans don't just consistently support unpopular policies and legislation, they're also spineless cowards.

The slime may be cowards, but I think all but the most brain-dead extremists (read: MTG) can see the writing on the wall: They can't win elections if only 30% of the electorate views them as anything other than an existential threat to half the fucking population. Well...I guess they can if they continue to gerrymander their asses of so that only those 30% actually get to have their voices heard.

[Poopymonster]

Dog catches car. Confused on what to do next.