SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[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.

[tehdang]

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."

So one or two in the sense of six or seven, representing 25% to 29% of states in the category I mentioned. I do expect both numbers to increase once the pro-aborts start to seek compromise in the middle in states where they can't realistically pass no abortion restrictions until third trimester and beyond. The field belongs to the furthest pro-life interests, because the pro-aborts got too lazy pointing to Roe vs Wade and not passing backup laws in the meantime. Also, the Democrats can seek and gain seats in states with 6-week bans simply because the pro-life side has not convinced people of the humanity of the unborn child and cruelty of the procedure at that early stage of life.

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'll just note that you say "REPRESENT their interests" and not "REPRESENT their party." I have several posts disparaging the thought that switching parties necessarily means dropping pro-choice campaign promises.

[Edge-]

I do expect both numbers to increase once the pro-aborts

Reminder: Nobody is pro-abortion. They're pro-bodily autonomy and pro-access to medical care.

start to seek compromise in the middle in states where they can't realistically pass no abortion restrictions until third trimester and beyond.

Spoilers: They're not the ones fighting right now. It's Republican extremists that are pushing for more restrictions and fewer/no exceptions. And they keep getting their asses kicked whenever voters get any chance to weigh in on it.

The field belongs to the furthest pro-life interests, because the pro-aborts got too lazy pointing to Roe vs Wade and not passing backup laws in the meantime.

Also not "pro-life" as this thread quite accurately chronicles the absolute suffering and potential death that these girls and women are faced with as a result of Republican policies.

That aside, it's not "lazy" that they didn't pass more strict legislation. It largely wasn't necessary, and the states where the more draconian restrictions are in place are gerrymandered and controlled by Republicans. Which you knew, but you decided to offer this fiction all the same.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I'll just note that you say "REPRESENT their interests" and not "REPRESENT their party." I have several posts disparaging the thought that switching parties necessarily means dropping pro-choice campaign promises.

I guess we'll see. I have no problem with her dropping the Democratic party as long as she maintains the values she ran on. If she suddenly starts voting with Republicans, time to start investigating her income and campaign contributions.

[tehdang]

Reminder: Nobody is pro-abortion. They're pro-bodily autonomy and pro-access to medical care.

Let me know when that doesn't involve advocacy for less restrictions on abortion.

Spoilers: They're not the ones fighting right now. It's Republican extremists that are pushing for more restrictions and fewer/no exceptions. And they keep getting their asses kicked whenever voters get any chance to weigh in on it.

Literally said Dems can gain seats from it two sentences later...

Also not "pro-life" as this thread quite accurately chronicles the absolute suffering and potential death that these girls and women are faced with as a result of Republican policies.

Another reason why I say pro-abort, since they deign to contradict the pro-life label. Fair's fair.

That aside, it's not "lazy" that they didn't pass more strict legislation. It largely wasn't necessary, and the states where the more draconian restrictions are in place are gerrymandered and controlled by Republicans. Which you knew, but you decided to offer this fiction all the same.

Both unnecessary and futile! What a mix! With this attitude, I might have to add "self-defeating" to "lazy." You'll never win political fights that you determine to be unwinnable. Here's a reminder that pro-life side took 40 years to defeat Roe, and they had their legions of people that never expected the effort to ever yield fruit. If they'd worked even half that amount of time to craft exceptions and less restrictions, you'd see a much different landscape today!

I guess we'll see. I have no problem with her dropping the Democratic party as long as she maintains the values she ran on. If she suddenly starts voting with Republicans, time to start investigating her income and campaign contributions.

Yes, we'll see.

[Edge-]

Let me know when that doesn't involve advocacy for less restrictions on abortion.

It involves telling people to mind their own fuckin business and make their own health care decisions without the state stepping in. That's it.

Literally said Dems can gain seats from it two sentences later...

...and? That doesn't really help the girls and women who are objectively suffering under these policies now. I care more about that than the political score for one team or another.

Another reason why I say pro-abort, since they deign to contradict the pro-life label. Fair's fair.

No, because the "pro-life" side does so by their own very actions and arguments. I am referencing specific laws, specific inactions, specific policy initiatives for notable individuals and organizations (vs. just random Twitter person with colored hair and a podcast but actually no political influence).

Can you do that in arguing your "pro-abort" framing? I'd be very curious to read how you came to such a conclusion based off of rhetoric, policy pushes, and actions. This thread is a pretty good summary of quite a few citations supporting my assertion that "pro-life" is an inaccurate framing.

Both unnecessary and futile! What a mix! With this attitude, I might have to add "self-defeating" to "lazy." You'll never win political fights that you determine to be unwinnable. Here's a reminder that pro-life side took 40 years to defeat Roe, and they had their legions of people that never expected the effort to ever yield fruit. If they'd worked even half that amount of time to craft exceptions and less restrictions, you'd see a much different landscape today!

There's this "win political fights" thing. Why are Republicans and conservatives so seemingly obsessed with winning/losing rather than you know, good legislation that helps people?

Yes, if there's a long enough, concerted, bad-faith effort to weaponize the judiciary and bend the government to your will, backed by enough powerful and extremely wealthy people, you can accomplish a lot. That's not exactly a good argument to be making as a positive thing.

[unfilteredJW]

I wonder who recently used the term "pro-abort" that our forum parrot is sqwaking about.

[Edge-]

I wonder who recently used the term "pro-abort" that our forum parrot is sqwaking about.

Knowing it's just shortened "pro-abortion" is obvious enough, at least. Quick search shows this to be a long-used term in right wing circles, just can't say I remember seeing this shortened version of it until recently. Not that it would change my response or anything, it's an equally balderdash, made up term without evidence to support its existence. Like "groomers", despite recent news reports related to fairly large-scale law enforcement operations or legal proceedings against individuals and organizations relating to child sexual abuse.

[diller]

Just an observation, but the term 'pro-life' annoys me it's such a loaded term and basically just a spin word that only American christian extremists could come up with it.

Normal people would just say 'anti-abortion' because that is what it is.

[Captain N]

Just an observation, but the term 'pro-life' annoys me it's such a loaded term and basically just a spin word that only American christian extremists could come up with it.

Normal people would just say 'anti-abortion' because that is what it is.

It's why a lot of the Choice crowd labels them as Pro-Fetus. It's more fitting since they don't give a damn about the life of the mother and they definitely don't give a shit about the kid once it's born.

[Endus]

Another reason why I say pro-abort, since they deign to contradict the pro-life label. Fair's fair.

No, it's not.

Pro-lifers legitimately don't give a shit about that "life". They know a zygote's not a person, and don't treat it as if it were one in any other way. They don't want to increase social spending to support kids and young parents in need, either, because they couldn't give a shit about that "life" once it's born. They're anti-abortion, and their goal is attacking women's basic human rights. That's it. That's the entire movement. Every single one of them.

And no pro-choice people are pro-abortion. Nobody is trying to encourage people who don't want an abortion to seek one. That's just 100% not part of the movement. Maybe you can dig up some radical crazy nobody who has no support who says crazy shit, but not anyone relevant, or any significant movement.

You're just being actively dishonest and malicious. Admitting that you're using "pro-abort" just to troll the thread.

[Rasulis]

So one or two in the sense of six or seven, representing 25% to 29% of states in the category I mentioned. I do expect both numbers to increase once the pro-aborts start to seek compromise in the middle in states where they can't realistically pass no abortion restrictions until third trimester and beyond. The field belongs to the furthest pro-life interests, because the pro-aborts got too lazy pointing to Roe vs Wade and not passing backup laws in the meantime. Also, the Democrats can seek and gain seats in states with 6-week bans simply because the pro-life side has not convinced people of the humanity of the unborn child and cruelty of the procedure at that early stage of life.

I am not seeing any attempts by legislators in abortion ban states to moderate their stance.

Florida Senate just passed 6-week abortion ban which DeSantis is expected to sign. The last oasis for legal abortion in the south will be gone soon.

The only reason there are still abortion providers in Utah is because ACLU/Planned Parenthood sued the law that ban abortion provider.

A bill introduced in Idaho's House of Representatives would criminalize the transportation of a minor within the state or across state lines to seek an abortion.

Louisianna and South Carolina lawmakers are trying to advance bills that seek to classify abortion as homicide and could result in death penalty for women who have abortions.

Culture warrior, Texas State Rep. Steve Toth, introduced a bill that would ban online access to abortion medication and information on abortion care.

Just not seeing it.

[Nymrohd]

It's why a lot of the Choice crowd labels them as Pro-Fetus. It's more fitting since they don't give a damn about the life of the mother and they definitely don't give a shit about the kid once it's born.

They don't give a shit about the fetus too. They force them to stick around until birth even when they are in pain and distress and will painfully die at or before birth. The only thing they are pro is pro-forced birth.

[Dontrike]

Let me know when that doesn't involve advocacy for less restrictions on abortion.

What a dumb fucking way to ignore facts because you like the idea of 10 year olds giving birth.

[Mekh]

What a dumb fucking way to ignore facts because you like the idea of 10 year olds giving birth.

Regularly scheduled reminder @tehdang 's avatar shows a sex offender and Putin friend.

[tehdang]

It involves telling people to mind their own fuckin business and make their own health care decisions without the state stepping in. That's it.

Thank you for agreeing that your position involves advocacy for less restrictions on abortion. You may classify it to yourself as just another health care issue if that really does something for you.

...and? That doesn't really help the girls and women who are objectively suffering under these policies now. I care more about that than the political score for one team or another.

The political score involved doing jack shit up until Roe was overturned. So you get a term of the pro-life proponents a little more extreme than me having full run in many states. This is the logical counterpoint to your previous "They keep getting their asses kicked whenever voters get any chance to weigh in on it." And in 2022 midterms, well, you rely on the gerrymandering arguments to supplement the populist arguments when the voters don't actually vote in pro-aborts.

No, because the "pro-life" side does so by their own very actions and arguments. I am referencing specific laws, specific inactions, specific policy initiatives for notable individuals and organizations (vs. just random Twitter person with colored hair and a podcast but actually no political influence).

Can you do that in arguing your "pro-abort" framing? I'd be very curious to read how you came to such a conclusion based off of rhetoric, policy pushes, and actions. This thread is a pretty good summary of quite a few citations supporting my assertion that "pro-life" is an inaccurate framing.

Fair's fair if you want to label your opponents, but dislike them labeling you. You can always switch to group self-identification if that makes thing better for you.

There's this "win political fights" thing. Why are Republicans and conservatives so seemingly obsessed with winning/losing rather than you know, good legislation that helps people?

Yes, if there's a long enough, concerted, bad-faith effort to weaponize the judiciary and bend the government to your will, backed by enough powerful and extremely wealthy people, you can accomplish a lot. That's not exactly a good argument to be making as a positive thing.

It's hardly about winning political fights. Remember, this legislation was enacted because the Democrats lost political fights. I don't accept this weird double-vision where if you win, it's because of principled stands and popular voice, but when you lose, it's a bad-faith effort and obsession with winning. Pro-life advocates love protecting the unborn baby. Yes, enacting protections where adoption and safe surrender are the humane options enforced by rule. You know, good legislation that helps people and protects the innocent. That's just the pro-life position. And now it's up to the people's representatives to decide, instead of nine justices clothed in black robes.

I am not seeing any attempts by legislators in abortion ban states to moderate their stance.

Florida Senate just passed 6-week abortion ban which DeSantis is expected to sign. The last oasis for legal abortion in the south will be gone soon.

The pro-abort side hasn't really shown the political power to push abortion restrictions back yet. I wager the rhetoric, where no nationally recognizable Democrat ever vocally supports restrictions based on weeks/months of pregnancy, will have to change in the local context and campaigns to actually swing the issue. It could last even longer if it's a choice between 6-week and woman-and-doctor-only restrictions.

I am noting the pendulum swing (past an equilibrium) and predict it will swing back hard in the other direction.

[Endus]

Fair's fair if you want to label your opponents, but dislike them labeling you. You can always switch to group self-identification if that makes thing better for you.

What you continue to misrepresent is that the issue isn't about labelling. It's about the honesty of that labelling.

Namely, that "pro-life" is inherently and deeply dishonest in its framing of the movement, as is "pro-abortion", whereas "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion" are just plainly objectively accurate framings of the two positions.

I get that you don't care about facts and truth because they fall against your ideological preferences, but you're really just demanding the right to be dishonest and baity because you're annoyed people see what you're actually about.

[Edge-]

Thank you for agreeing that your position involves advocacy for less restrictions on abortion. You may classify it to yourself as just another health care issue if that really does something for you.

On reproductive health care*

As we've seen that it's far more than "just abortions", and that these vaguely written laws potentially criminalize much more than "just abortion", resulting in girls and women either needing to flee their state to access potentially life-saving care or they're forced to suffer needlessly because hospitals do not want to deal with the liability.

The political score involved doing jack shit up until Roe was overturned. So you get a term of the pro-life proponents a little more extreme than me having full run in many states. This is the logical counterpoint to your previous "They keep getting their asses kicked whenever voters get any chance to weigh in on it." And in 2022 midterms, well, you rely on the gerrymandering arguments to supplement the populist arguments when the voters don't actually vote in pro-aborts.

Because it was unnecessary. Because every Justice had gone up and many lied and said Roe was settled law. For a party that complains about unnecessary legislation, you sure seem to wish there was some unnecessary legislation.

I mean, gerrymandering does exist and is a problem. Also, most of the "pro aborts" as you call it win their races or win the ballot measure.

Fair's fair if you want to label your opponents, but dislike them labeling you. You can always switch to group self-identification if that makes thing better for you.

Not at all! Show your work to the class. We've shown our work, maybe you're hesitant to show yours because it's pure fiction?

Yeah, I'm thinking that's likely it given your fairly consistent reluctance to support your augments with evidence. I have no such hangup.

It's hardly about winning political fights. Remember, this legislation was enacted because the Democrats lost political fights. I don't accept this weird double-vision where if you win, it's because of principled stands and popular voice, but when you lose, it's a bad-faith effort and obsession with winning. Pro-life advocates love protecting the unborn baby. Yes, enacting protections where adoption and safe surrender are the humane options enforced by rule. You know, good legislation that helps people and protects the innocent. That's just the pro-life position. And now it's up to the people's representatives to decide, instead of nine justices clothed in black robes.

Weird that they hold these positions that they theoretically care about the girl/woman and the child after birth but like...never do anything to show that like pass legislation to that affect?

The pro-abort side hasn't really shown the political power to push abortion restrictions back yet. I wager the rhetoric, where no nationally recognizable Democrat ever vocally supports restrictions based on weeks/months of pregnancy, will have to change in the local context and campaigns to actually swing the issue. It could last even longer if it's a choice between 6-week and woman-and-doctor-only restrictions.

I am noting the pendulum swing (past an equilibrium) and predict it will swing back hard in the other direction.

Well yes, because political parties exist and Republican controlled states, despite being very upset that voters don't endorse their extremism on the issue, aren't going to suddenly flip their position.

Honestly, you've managed to pearl clutch and bat at strawman with a lot of words that say nothing, but as usual there's not really much to really discuss in your post. To adopt a phrase, it's all hat and no cattle.

[Milchshake]

Regularly scheduled reminder @tehdang 's avatar shows a sex offender and Putin friend.

I remember pointing this as well. Got some weaselly explanation.

I think then the Deprideau himself has become so insufferably dishonest that he had to move on from Putin's realm.