SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[Person Man]

Jesus Christ, just say "people". "Birthing bodies" appeals to no one.

Or just say women.

I actually have a funny story about something like this.

Go on, tell us more. I'm trying to see if we get 50 pages by the weekend.

Well, we didn't make it, but we got close. Good work, Atlas.

This is post 1059. That’s a good number.

You could say “biological women” versus “trans women” to make a distinction. There’s no need to reduce women to “birthing bodies”.

As for abortion: Mixed opinions on this all.

I’m in NY, so abortion rights will never be restricted here. So Roe being overturned is kind of irrelevant to me locally. In general, I don’t see why we need abortions when we have birth control, condoms, and the morning after pill. If someone is so irresponsible that they dont bother to try to prevent a pregnancy….

I support abortion if someone is raped, or if the life of the mother is at risk, or in cases of incest. But in general, if you don’t want a child, have safe sex.

So, to you, abortion isn’t murder but it’s some mixture of adultery and child neglect.

[It’s so Joever]

Say there was someone on life support at the moment with a 99% chance of full recovery within a year at most, would it be ethical to take them off because someone has to pay for it?

[Person Man]

Say there was someone on life support at the moment with a 99% chance of full recovery within a year at most, would it be ethical to take them off because someone has to pay for it?

They lived before. Not the same.

[The Dowager Mod]

“domestic supply of infants” JFC these people are insane.
https://twitter.com/DrGJackBrown/status/1522737305710067715

[Person Man]

“domestic supply of infants” JFC these people are insane.
https://twitter.com/DrGJackBrown/status/1522737305710067715

What are We, the people, going to do with unelected tyrants literally treating us like dogs/puppies? This isn’t like some foreign enemy conquering us, this is a trial run on how we would handle a literal extraterrestrial invasion.

[The Dowager Mod]

There is a term for living creatures who are not permitted to control their own reproduction. That term is "livestock."

[Person Man]

There is a term for living creatures who are not permitted to control their own reproduction. That term is "livestock."

We’re not even slaves to them, we’re animals.

[7,052,770]

So if Republicans are going to play the "overturn Obergefell doesn't really mean overturn Obergefell" card, surely they'll never criticize "defund the police" again, right?

(Not that defunding the police was ever in the Democratic platform or anything, but the analogy still works I think)

[Badger]

Despite this I'll admit that unlike Loving there is a small possibility of Obergefell being challenged because there might still be just enough opposition to same-sex marriage in some state to actually see a state attempt to challenge it. However it's also worth noting that no state has made any serious push to do so in the past two years, like I haven't heard of any bills even being proposed, despite this abortion bills being proposed left and right.

Bunch of that Republican so-called support for gay marriage was viewing it as a fait accompli. That's clearly no longer the case. Besides, I submit the Republican legiators are tangibly more radical nowadays than most of their constituents.

At 55% support, it's really really easy to see Deep South State or someplace like Idaho voting to prohibit gay marriage within the next couple years.

Think about it. After this ruling what's the likelihood that some Ultra conservative state house rep or state senator introduces such a bill. At that point, what are the odds that the Republican legislative leadership are going to bow to religious right pressure to permit a vote on the bill? At that point, how many of these GOP legislators want to risk a primary challenge by voting no? Anywhere near enough to keep a bill from passing even with unanimous Democratic opposition? I doubt it.

What would scare off Republican leaders and Governors is the economic threat of what would happen if they passed such a bill and all the boycotts and opposition from big business.

Like look at those anti-trans "bathroom bills." They used to be proposed everywhere. Then North Carolina passed one and paid a huge economic price for it. Now they all disappeared.

Bathroom bills were considered a low payoff high-risk Venture politically and economically. It didn't satisfy that many people for the amount of economic loss being inflicted.

Abortion is completely different. Most Atlas Blue States would readily tolerate Iran or Russia level International sanctions in lieu of not outlawing abortion.

I'm talking about same-sex marriage. Yes there's enough push in the Republican base to ban abortion despite the economic consequences, but not for banning same-sex marriage today.

But there's nowhere near enough push among the Republican party to stop the issue from going to the Supreme Court, where it is all too likely the Hobbs majority will engage in conservative judicial activism yet again.

[Badger]

THIS DOESN'T HELP, PLEASE SHUT THE F[INKS] UP WITH THIS TYPE OF LANGUAGE AT A TIME LIKE THIS

https://twitter.com/StateRepHong/status/1521298873859334145

The language is dumb, but acting like it's going to do any meaningful damage to the pro-choice cause is laughable. The internet isn't real life.

Sorry to dredge this up, I know this post is a couple days old, but I just had a conversation this afternoon with the least online person I know, and her exact words were, "You can't even say 'mothers' anymore". I don't know where she heard it, but we're way past the point of this being a Twitter only thing. Everybody knows that the left talks like this.

My friends and Associates are overwhelmingly liberal and pro-choice. Anecdote is not evidence, but I do not know a single person on the left, even acquaintances level, who talks like this. Not one. I refuse to believe that I am somehow the exception to the rule and my circle of friends are likewise.

Sorry, but I am firmly convinced you are wrong and that in fact nearly no one on the left actually talks like this, let alone almost everyone as you facetiously claim.

[Person Man]

Despite this I'll admit that unlike Loving there is a small possibility of Obergefell being challenged because there might still be just enough opposition to same-sex marriage in some state to actually see a state attempt to challenge it. However it's also worth noting that no state has made any serious push to do so in the past two years, like I haven't heard of any bills even being proposed, despite this abortion bills being proposed left and right.

Bunch of that Republican so-called support for gay marriage was viewing it as a fait accompli. That's clearly no longer the case. Besides, I submit the Republican legiators are tangibly more radical nowadays than most of their constituents.

At 55% support, it's really really easy to see Deep South State or someplace like Idaho voting to prohibit gay marriage within the next couple years.

Think about it. After this ruling what's the likelihood that some Ultra conservative state house rep or state senator introduces such a bill. At that point, what are the odds that the Republican legislative leadership are going to bow to religious right pressure to permit a vote on the bill? At that point, how many of these GOP legislators want to risk a primary challenge by voting no? Anywhere near enough to keep a bill from passing even with unanimous Democratic opposition? I doubt it.

What would scare off Republican leaders and Governors is the economic threat of what would happen if they passed such a bill and all the boycotts and opposition from big business.

Like look at those anti-trans "bathroom bills." They used to be proposed everywhere. Then North Carolina passed one and paid a huge economic price for it. Now they all disappeared.

Bathroom bills were considered a low payoff high-risk Venture politically and economically. It didn't satisfy that many people for the amount of economic loss being inflicted.

Abortion is completely different. Most Atlas Blue States would readily tolerate Iran or Russia level International sanctions in lieu of not outlawing abortion.

I'm talking about same-sex marriage. Yes there's enough push in the Republican base to ban abortion despite the economic consequences, but not for banning same-sex marriage today.

But there's nowhere near enough push among the Republican party to stop the issue from going to the Supreme Court, where it is all too likely the Hobbs majority will engage in conservative judicial activism yet again.

People don’t know what slippery slopes are and we are on a slippery slope to potentially revisit everything. Whether or not it all happens is unlikely but conservatives legalizing segregation is more likely than liberals legalizing child molestation.

[DaleCooper]

THIS DOESN'T HELP, PLEASE SHUT THE F[INKS] UP WITH THIS TYPE OF LANGUAGE AT A TIME LIKE THIS

https://twitter.com/StateRepHong/status/1521298873859334145

The language is dumb, but acting like it's going to do any meaningful damage to the pro-choice cause is laughable. The internet isn't real life.

Sorry to dredge this up, I know this post is a couple days old, but I just had a conversation this afternoon with the least online person I know, and her exact words were, "You can't even say 'mothers' anymore". I don't know where she heard it, but we're way past the point of this being a Twitter only thing. Everybody knows that the left talks like this.

My friends and Associates are overwhelmingly liberal and pro-choice. Anecdote is not evidence, but I do not know a single person on the left, even acquaintances level, who talks like this. Not one. I refuse to believe that I am somehow the exception to the rule and my circle of friends are likewise.

Sorry, but I am firmly convinced you are wrong and that in fact nearly no one on the left actually talks like this, let alone almost everyone as you facetiously claim.

I'm referring to the left that everybody sees on the news and in politics. And if nearly no one on the left actually talks like this, then why is it a hill the Democrats want to die on? Why not oppose this kind of talk since it obviously turns people away?

[Badger]

Despite this I'll admit that unlike Loving there is a small possibility of Obergefell being challenged because there might still be just enough opposition to same-sex marriage in some state to actually see a state attempt to challenge it. However it's also worth noting that no state has made any serious push to do so in the past two years, like I haven't heard of any bills even being proposed, despite this abortion bills being proposed left and right.

Bunch of that Republican so-called support for gay marriage was viewing it as a fait accompli. That's clearly no longer the case. Besides, I submit the Republican legiators are tangibly more radical nowadays than most of their constituents.

At 55% support, it's really really easy to see Deep South State or someplace like Idaho voting to prohibit gay marriage within the next couple years.

Think about it. After this ruling what's the likelihood that some Ultra conservative state house rep or state senator introduces such a bill. At that point, what are the odds that the Republican legislative leadership are going to bow to religious right pressure to permit a vote on the bill? At that point, how many of these GOP legislators want to risk a primary challenge by voting no? Anywhere near enough to keep a bill from passing even with unanimous Democratic opposition? I doubt it.

What would scare off Republican leaders and Governors is the economic threat of what would happen if they passed such a bill and all the boycotts and opposition from big business.

Like look at those anti-trans "bathroom bills." They used to be proposed everywhere. Then North Carolina passed one and paid a huge economic price for it. Now they all disappeared.

Bathroom bills were considered a low payoff high-risk Venture politically and economically. It didn't satisfy that many people for the amount of economic loss being inflicted.

Abortion is completely different. Most Atlas Blue States would readily tolerate Iran or Russia level International sanctions in lieu of not outlawing abortion.

I'm talking about same-sex marriage. Yes there's enough push in the Republican base to ban abortion despite the economic consequences, but not for banning same-sex marriage today.

But there's nowhere near enough push among the Republican party to stop the issue from going to the Supreme Court, where it is all too likely the Hobbs majority will engage in conservative judicial activism yet again.

People don’t know what slippery slopes are and we are on a slippery slope to potentially revisit everything. Whether or not it all happens is unlikely but conservatives legalizing segregation is more likely than liberals legalizing child molestation.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, to me, it all comes down to basically two equations.

First, in the wake of the hob decision and it's implicit assault on the rationale  of Obergefell, what are the odds that some ultraconservative Gob State Legislature, safe from Alabama, Mississippi, or Idaho, 6 pass a probation on gay marriage in order to challenge that decision? I would put the odds at somewhere between at least 60 to 70%.

Second, assuming that occurs what are the odds that Justice corsets will not distinguish Bostock, especially given that it was decided on heavily textualist grounds and the Hobbs decision arguably implicates Obergefell more strongly than boss talk and his write-up gorsuch's original intent nonsense alley, gun to my head I'd say the odds are better than 50/50, albeit not much more so, that he rejoins there Hobbes majority for a rights destroying reunion.

Open to contrary explanations, and I will agree that at least loving vs Virginia is certainly save it for no other reason that even the most hardcore Republican legislature in the south couldn't warrant a majority and would not want the political backlash even if they secretly despise miseducation of there pretty white daughters and granddaughters. But because hear about gay marriage is extremely concerning without the slightest bit of Doomer mode.

And as a chaser, if Obergefell is reversed, you can bet your bottom dollar that Lawrence is next for the exact same reasons I described above.

[DaleCooper]

THIS DOESN'T HELP, PLEASE SHUT THE F[INKS] UP WITH THIS TYPE OF LANGUAGE AT A TIME LIKE THIS

https://twitter.com/StateRepHong/status/1521298873859334145

The language is dumb, but acting like it's going to do any meaningful damage to the pro-choice cause is laughable. The internet isn't real life.

Sorry to dredge this up, I know this post is a couple days old, but I just had a conversation this afternoon with the least online person I know, and her exact words were, "You can't even say 'mothers' anymore". I don't know where she heard it, but we're way past the point of this being a Twitter only thing. Everybody knows that the left talks like this.

Politics as physics with equal and opposite reactions.

Republicans are actively trying to overthrow the republic, but on the other hand a random state rep is too sensitive in her language.
So both sides really.

Because seeming political and well informed without actually having to have an opinion is a drug allot of people can't quit.

That's beautiful. But you need to win votes to take power in this country, so unless the left has figured out a way to win elections without persuading voters then I suggest it start speaking to the voters in a way they actually understand.

Umm, a State Rep from Wisconsin's twitter post may not be indicative of Democratic party messaging writ large?

Okay great, then the Democrats have absolutely nothing to change. Just keep doing exactly what they're doing and then complain about how unfair it is that nobody voted for them every time they lose.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Despite this I'll admit that unlike Loving there is a small possibility of Obergefell being challenged because there might still be just enough opposition to same-sex marriage in some state to actually see a state attempt to challenge it. However it's also worth noting that no state has made any serious push to do so in the past two years, like I haven't heard of any bills even being proposed, despite this abortion bills being proposed left and right.

Bunch of that Republican so-called support for gay marriage was viewing it as a fait accompli. That's clearly no longer the case. Besides, I submit the Republican legiators are tangibly more radical nowadays than most of their constituents.

At 55% support, it's really really easy to see Deep South State or someplace like Idaho voting to prohibit gay marriage within the next couple years.

Think about it. After this ruling what's the likelihood that some Ultra conservative state house rep or state senator introduces such a bill. At that point, what are the odds that the Republican legislative leadership are going to bow to religious right pressure to permit a vote on the bill? At that point, how many of these GOP legislators want to risk a primary challenge by voting no? Anywhere near enough to keep a bill from passing even with unanimous Democratic opposition? I doubt it.

What would scare off Republican leaders and Governors is the economic threat of what would happen if they passed such a bill and all the boycotts and opposition from big business.

Like look at those anti-trans "bathroom bills." They used to be proposed everywhere. Then North Carolina passed one and paid a huge economic price for it. Now they all disappeared.

Bathroom bills were considered a low payoff high-risk Venture politically and economically. It didn't satisfy that many people for the amount of economic loss being inflicted.

Abortion is completely different. Most Atlas Blue States would readily tolerate Iran or Russia level International sanctions in lieu of not outlawing abortion.

I'm talking about same-sex marriage. Yes there's enough push in the Republican base to ban abortion despite the economic consequences, but not for banning same-sex marriage today.

But there's nowhere near enough push among the Republican party to stop the issue from going to the Supreme Court, where it is all too likely the Hobbs majority will engage in conservative judicial activism yet again.

They can't send it to the Supreme Court without a state trying to ban it and taking the economic consequences.

Here's a question: despite all the abortion bills popping up everywhere why haven't we heard of any bills to relimit marriage to just heterosexual couples again anywhere?

[Badger]

Despite this I'll admit that unlike Loving there is a small possibility of Obergefell being challenged because there might still be just enough opposition to same-sex marriage in some state to actually see a state attempt to challenge it. However it's also worth noting that no state has made any serious push to do so in the past two years, like I haven't heard of any bills even being proposed, despite this abortion bills being proposed left and right.

Bunch of that Republican so-called support for gay marriage was viewing it as a fait accompli. That's clearly no longer the case. Besides, I submit the Republican legiators are tangibly more radical nowadays than most of their constituents.

At 55% support, it's really really easy to see Deep South State or someplace like Idaho voting to prohibit gay marriage within the next couple years.

Think about it. After this ruling what's the likelihood that some Ultra conservative state house rep or state senator introduces such a bill. At that point, what are the odds that the Republican legislative leadership are going to bow to religious right pressure to permit a vote on the bill? At that point, how many of these GOP legislators want to risk a primary challenge by voting no? Anywhere near enough to keep a bill from passing even with unanimous Democratic opposition? I doubt it.

What would scare off Republican leaders and Governors is the economic threat of what would happen if they passed such a bill and all the boycotts and opposition from big business.

Like look at those anti-trans "bathroom bills." They used to be proposed everywhere. Then North Carolina passed one and paid a huge economic price for it. Now they all disappeared.

Bathroom bills were considered a low payoff high-risk Venture politically and economically. It didn't satisfy that many people for the amount of economic loss being inflicted.

Abortion is completely different. Most Atlas Blue States would readily tolerate Iran or Russia level International sanctions in lieu of not outlawing abortion.

I'm talking about same-sex marriage. Yes there's enough push in the Republican base to ban abortion despite the economic consequences, but not for banning same-sex marriage today.

But there's nowhere near enough push among the Republican party to stop the issue from going to the Supreme Court, where it is all too likely the Hobbs majority will engage in conservative judicial activism yet again.

They can't send it to the Supreme Court without a state trying to ban it and taking the economic consequences.

Here's a question: despite all the abortion bills popping up everywhere why haven't we heard of any bills to relimit marriage to just heterosexual couples again anywhere?

I believe you severely underestimate how much some deeply conservative GOP dominated state legislatures will gladly undergo International sanctions on the long the lines of a ran or Russia, let alone nearly being boycotted by many American Tech firms and the like, overturn gay marriage.

Remember, it's only going to take one state to pass such a law to get it before The Supremes and for us to kneel down and pray that Gorsuch doesn't distinguish gay marriage from his ruling in Bostock.

As to your second point, there hasn't been a bunch of jumping up and down about repealing gay marriage until the last couple weeks because everyone, right-wing social conservatives included, fully believe that it was a fait accompli. However, as I'm sure you've noticed that since the Hogs decision was leaked Republicans haven't torn off their masks and unquestionably put gay marriage in the crosshairs. They see an opening, and by God they're absolutely going to take it.

I would place better than fifty-fifty odds that by the end of the year. at least one or more state legislatures will have bills introduced to Outlaw gay marriage. And considering how many state Republican caucuses are dominated by folks whose mindset are close to fuzzy bear, extreme republican, and other Usual Suspects on this list, I have a hard time seeing it not getting passed.

[Person Man]

Despite this I'll admit that unlike Loving there is a small possibility of Obergefell being challenged because there might still be just enough opposition to same-sex marriage in some state to actually see a state attempt to challenge it. However it's also worth noting that no state has made any serious push to do so in the past two years, like I haven't heard of any bills even being proposed, despite this abortion bills being proposed left and right.

Bunch of that Republican so-called support for gay marriage was viewing it as a fait accompli. That's clearly no longer the case. Besides, I submit the Republican legiators are tangibly more radical nowadays than most of their constituents.

At 55% support, it's really really easy to see Deep South State or someplace like Idaho voting to prohibit gay marriage within the next couple years.

Think about it. After this ruling what's the likelihood that some Ultra conservative state house rep or state senator introduces such a bill. At that point, what are the odds that the Republican legislative leadership are going to bow to religious right pressure to permit a vote on the bill? At that point, how many of these GOP legislators want to risk a primary challenge by voting no? Anywhere near enough to keep a bill from passing even with unanimous Democratic opposition? I doubt it.

What would scare off Republican leaders and Governors is the economic threat of what would happen if they passed such a bill and all the boycotts and opposition from big business.

Like look at those anti-trans "bathroom bills." They used to be proposed everywhere. Then North Carolina passed one and paid a huge economic price for it. Now they all disappeared.

Bathroom bills were considered a low payoff high-risk Venture politically and economically. It didn't satisfy that many people for the amount of economic loss being inflicted.

Abortion is completely different. Most Atlas Blue States would readily tolerate Iran or Russia level International sanctions in lieu of not outlawing abortion.

I'm talking about same-sex marriage. Yes there's enough push in the Republican base to ban abortion despite the economic consequences, but not for banning same-sex marriage today.

But there's nowhere near enough push among the Republican party to stop the issue from going to the Supreme Court, where it is all too likely the Hobbs majority will engage in conservative judicial activism yet again.

They can't send it to the Supreme Court without a state trying to ban it and taking the economic consequences.

Here's a question: despite all the abortion bills popping up everywhere why haven't we heard of any bills to relimit marriage to just heterosexual couples again anywhere?

I believe you severely underestimate how much some deeply conservative GOP dominated state legislatures will gladly undergo International sanctions on the long the lines of a ran or Russia, let alone nearly being boycotted by many American Tech firms and the like, overturn gay marriage.

Remember, it's only going to take one state to pass such a law to get it before The Supremes and for us to kneel down and pray that Gorsuch doesn't distinguish gay marriage from his ruling in Bostock.

As to your second point, there hasn't been a bunch of jumping up and down about repealing gay marriage until the last couple weeks because everyone, right-wing social conservatives included, fully believe that it was a fait accompli. However, as I'm sure you've noticed that since the Hogs decision was leaked Republicans haven't torn off their masks and unquestionably put gay marriage in the crosshairs. They see an opening, and by God they're absolutely going to take it.

I would place better than fifty-fifty odds that by the end of the year. at least one or more state legislatures will have bills introduced to Outlaw gay marriage. And considering how many state Republican caucuses are dominated by folks whose mindset are close to fuzzy bear, extreme republican, and other Usual Suspects on this list, I have a hard time seeing it not getting passed.

Slippery slope. I wonder how many people are going to reevaluate their stances on abortion and homosexuality  based on abortion being reopened again.

[MiddleRoad]

Jesus Christ, just say "people". "Birthing bodies" appeals to no one.

Or just say women.

I actually have a funny story about something like this.

Go on, tell us more. I'm trying to see if we get 50 pages by the weekend.

Well, we didn't make it, but we got close. Good work, Atlas.

This is post 1059. That’s a good number.

You could say “biological women” versus “trans women” to make a distinction. There’s no need to reduce women to “birthing bodies”.

As for abortion: Mixed opinions on this all.

I’m in NY, so abortion rights will never be restricted here. So Roe being overturned is kind of irrelevant to me locally. In general, I don’t see why we need abortions when we have birth control, condoms, and the morning after pill. If someone is so irresponsible that they dont bother to try to prevent a pregnancy….

I support abortion if someone is raped, or if the life of the mother is at risk, or in cases of incest. But in general, if you don’t want a child, have safe sex.

So, to you, abortion isn’t murder but it’s some mixture of adultery and child neglect.

No? I never said that?

I just think it’s nonsensical and unnecessary.

There’s plenty of ways to prevent pregnancy if you don’t want a child:

Condoms
Female condoms
Birth control pills
Morning after pills

Etc

All of which I 110% support.

If you’re going to ignore all those, and have unsafe sex anyway…That seems like a personal problem. It rewards being irresponsible. If a woman is raped, or her health is at risk, or the father of the child has abandoned the family/they’ve broken up and she doesn’t want to be a single mother, those are valid reasons for having an abortion. But as a form of birth control? No.

[Saint Milei]

THIS DOESN'T HELP, PLEASE SHUT THE F[INKS] UP WITH THIS TYPE OF LANGUAGE AT A TIME LIKE THIS

https://twitter.com/StateRepHong/status/1521298873859334145

The language is dumb, but acting like it's going to do any meaningful damage to the pro-choice cause is laughable. The internet isn't real life.

Sorry to dredge this up, I know this post is a couple days old, but I just had a conversation this afternoon with the least online person I know, and her exact words were, "You can't even say 'mothers' anymore". I don't know where she heard it, but we're way past the point of this being a Twitter only thing. Everybody knows that the left talks like this.

My friends and Associates are overwhelmingly liberal and pro-choice. Anecdote is not evidence, but I do not know a single person on the left, even acquaintances level, who talks like this. Not one. I refuse to believe that I am somehow the exception to the rule and my circle of friends are likewise.

Sorry, but I am firmly convinced you are wrong and that in fact nearly no one on the left actually talks like this, let alone almost everyone as you facetiously claim.

Im right you're wrong. Did you tell that to all the black people you wrongly prosecuted?

[Badger]

Despite this I'll admit that unlike Loving there is a small possibility of Obergefell being challenged because there might still be just enough opposition to same-sex marriage in some state to actually see a state attempt to challenge it. However it's also worth noting that no state has made any serious push to do so in the past two years, like I haven't heard of any bills even being proposed, despite this abortion bills being proposed left and right.

Bunch of that Republican so-called support for gay marriage was viewing it as a fait accompli. That's clearly no longer the case. Besides, I submit the Republican legiators are tangibly more radical nowadays than most of their constituents.

At 55% support, it's really really easy to see Deep South State or someplace like Idaho voting to prohibit gay marriage within the next couple years.

Think about it. After this ruling what's the likelihood that some Ultra conservative state house rep or state senator introduces such a bill. At that point, what are the odds that the Republican legislative leadership are going to bow to religious right pressure to permit a vote on the bill? At that point, how many of these GOP legislators want to risk a primary challenge by voting no? Anywhere near enough to keep a bill from passing even with unanimous Democratic opposition? I doubt it.

What would scare off Republican leaders and Governors is the economic threat of what would happen if they passed such a bill and all the boycotts and opposition from big business.

Like look at those anti-trans "bathroom bills." They used to be proposed everywhere. Then North Carolina passed one and paid a huge economic price for it. Now they all disappeared.

Bathroom bills were considered a low payoff high-risk Venture politically and economically. It didn't satisfy that many people for the amount of economic loss being inflicted.

Abortion is completely different. Most Atlas Blue States would readily tolerate Iran or Russia level International sanctions in lieu of not outlawing abortion.

I'm talking about same-sex marriage. Yes there's enough push in the Republican base to ban abortion despite the economic consequences, but not for banning same-sex marriage today.

But there's nowhere near enough push among the Republican party to stop the issue from going to the Supreme Court, where it is all too likely the Hobbs majority will engage in conservative judicial activism yet again.

They can't send it to the Supreme Court without a state trying to ban it and taking the economic consequences.

Here's a question: despite all the abortion bills popping up everywhere why haven't we heard of any bills to relimit marriage to just heterosexual couples again anywhere?

I believe you severely underestimate how much some deeply conservative GOP dominated state legislatures will gladly undergo International sanctions on the long the lines of a ran or Russia, let alone nearly being boycotted by many American Tech firms and the like, overturn gay marriage.

Remember, it's only going to take one state to pass such a law to get it before The Supremes and for us to kneel down and pray that Gorsuch doesn't distinguish gay marriage from his ruling in Bostock.

As to your second point, there hasn't been a bunch of jumping up and down about repealing gay marriage until the last couple weeks because everyone, right-wing social conservatives included, fully believe that it was a fait accompli. However, as I'm sure you've noticed that since the Hogs decision was leaked Republicans haven't torn off their masks and unquestionably put gay marriage in the crosshairs. They see an opening, and by God they're absolutely going to take it.

I would place better than fifty-fifty odds that by the end of the year. at least one or more state legislatures will have bills introduced to Outlaw gay marriage. And considering how many state Republican caucuses are dominated by folks whose mindset are close to fuzzy bear, extreme republican, and other Usual Suspects on this list, I have a hard time seeing it not getting passed.

Slippery slope. I wonder how many people are going to reevaluate their stances on abortion and homosexuality  based on abortion being reopened again.

Again, demonstrating that with gay marriage having previously, emphasize previously, having fought to be a legal fait accompli, it only had 55% so-called support among Republicans. Hobbs has absolutely kicked the door off the hinges to resume legal challenges to Obergefell. Meaning of those Republican so-called supporters of gay marriage are going to really change their positions from basically shrugging because it's a done deal to where they were pre-2013.

Again, all it's going to take is one Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Idaho, etc etc etc to take the plunge. If anyone thinks that the republican-led legislatures in those States have now decided that gay marriage is a okay, you have not met the 45% of Republicans still opposed to it nearly a decade after Obergefell.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

“domestic supply of infants” JFC these people are insane.
https://twitter.com/DrGJackBrown/status/1522737305710067715

That's in a footnote as a direct quote from a report from the CDC.

btw the owner of that twitter account is a "body language expert" grifter, so it shouldn't be surprising if he's being dishonest (though it's possible he just isn't good at understanding what he's reading)

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

No? I never said that?

I just think it’s nonsensical and unnecessary.

There’s plenty of ways to prevent pregnancy if you don’t want a child:

Condoms
Female condoms
Birth control pills
Morning after pills

Etc

All of which I 110% support.

If you’re going to ignore all those, and have unsafe sex anyway…That seems like a personal problem. It rewards being irresponsible. If a woman is raped, or her health is at risk, or the father of the child has abandoned the family/they’ve broken up and she doesn’t want to be a single mother, those are valid reasons for having an abortion. But as a form of birth control? No.

I tend to agree. But even regular birth control does fail occasionally, and lawmakers in Idaho are looking to ban IUDs and morning-after pills. If anything, we should be making those free, like the COVID vaccine, if we really want to lower the number of abortions.

But bans impact poor people the most. The people who can't afford childcare as the cost of living increases, and carrying the emotional baggage of having a child out there they are not able to care for is something I am simply unable to empathize with. And a lot, perhaps most, of these women who have abortions do decide to become mothers once they're on better footing.

Banning abortion will be like banning guns or street drugs. (I'm "pro-choice" on both abortion and gun ownership, for the most part.) And it's not 1973 anymore. Women are having abortions that are simply not reported, because it is easier to self-induce abortions, safely, with the help of abortifacients; drugs, which the government sucks at regulating as we've seen over the years.

Ultimately the debate is futile, because if the pro-life side is right, then abortion truly is murder and it must be outlawed. But a zygote is not a person and that is why I think this viewpoint lacks nuance. I think that banning abortion after the first trimester but guaranteeing access beforehand is the way to go, but that again is insufficient if abortion truly is murder. And a lot of pro-life people are going to see what pre-Roe America looked like, and the practical consequences of imposing strict bans and prosecuting either women or abortion providers.

[pppolitics]

McConnell says national abortion ban ‘possible’

https://thehill.com/news/senate/3480725-mcconnell-says-national-abortion-ban-possible/

[MiddleRoad]

No? I never said that?

I just think it’s nonsensical and unnecessary.

There’s plenty of ways to prevent pregnancy if you don’t want a child:

Condoms
Female condoms
Birth control pills
Morning after pills

Etc

All of which I 110% support.

If you’re going to ignore all those, and have unsafe sex anyway…That seems like a personal problem. It rewards being irresponsible. If a woman is raped, or her health is at risk, or the father of the child has abandoned the family/they’ve broken up and she doesn’t want to be a single mother, those are valid reasons for having an abortion. But as a form of birth control? No.

I tend to agree. But even regular birth control does fail occasionally, and lawmakers in Idaho are looking to ban IUDs and morning-after pills. If anything, we should be making those free, like the COVID vaccine, if we really want to lower the number of abortions.

But bans impact poor people the most. The people who can't afford childcare as the cost of living increases, and carrying the emotional baggage of having a child out there they are not able to care for is something I am simply unable to empathize with. And a lot, perhaps most, of these women who have abortions do decide to become mothers once they're on better footing.

Banning abortion will be like banning guns or street drugs. (I'm "pro-choice" on both abortion and gun ownership, for the most part.) And it's not 1973 anymore. Women are having abortions that are simply not reported, because it is easier to self-induce abortions, safely, with the help of abortifacients; drugs, which the government sucks at regulating as we've seen over the years.

Ultimately the debate is futile, because if the pro-life side is right, then abortion truly is murder and it must be outlawed. But a zygote is not a person and that is why I think this viewpoint lacks nuance. I think that banning abortion after the first trimester but guaranteeing access beforehand is the way to go, but that again is insufficient if abortion truly is murder. And a lot of pro-life people are going to see what pre-Roe America looked like, and the practical consequences of imposing strict bans and prosecuting either women or abortion providers.

I think banning IUDs and Morning after pills is very, very wrong and is immoral. I think things such as the morning after pill should be readily available and free in all colleges, high schools, low income areas and such - places where accidental pregnancy happens frequently. I think that birth control shouldn’t cost a woman even a penny. And I think also that there should be greater education at the high school level and above about the various ways to have safe sex, told from a compassionate and tactful perspective - that it can be just as enjoyable as unsafe sex

It’s my feeling that with birth control pills and greater education, abortion would be utterly redundant and thus would probably not be at all necessary unless the woman was raped, the pregnancy was risky, or the child would be born with birth defects or is dead in the womb, etc.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

No? I never said that?

I just think it’s nonsensical and unnecessary.

There’s plenty of ways to prevent pregnancy if you don’t want a child:

Condoms
Female condoms
Birth control pills
Morning after pills

Etc

All of which I 110% support.

If you’re going to ignore all those, and have unsafe sex anyway…That seems like a personal problem. It rewards being irresponsible. If a woman is raped, or her health is at risk, or the father of the child has abandoned the family/they’ve broken up and she doesn’t want to be a single mother, those are valid reasons for having an abortion. But as a form of birth control? No.

I tend to agree. But even regular birth control does fail occasionally, and lawmakers in Idaho are looking to ban IUDs and morning-after pills. If anything, we should be making those free, like the COVID vaccine, if we really want to lower the number of abortions.

But bans impact poor people the most. The people who can't afford childcare as the cost of living increases, and carrying the emotional baggage of having a child out there they are not able to care for is something I am simply unable to empathize with. And a lot, perhaps most, of these women who have abortions do decide to become mothers once they're on better footing.

Banning abortion will be like banning guns or street drugs. (I'm "pro-choice" on both abortion and gun ownership, for the most part.) And it's not 1973 anymore. Women are having abortions that are simply not reported, because it is easier to self-induce abortions, safely, with the help of abortifacients; drugs, which the government sucks at regulating as we've seen over the years.

Ultimately the debate is futile, because if the pro-life side is right, then abortion truly is murder and it must be outlawed. But a zygote is not a person and that is why I think this viewpoint lacks nuance. I think that banning abortion after the first trimester but guaranteeing access beforehand is the way to go, but that again is insufficient if abortion truly is murder. And a lot of pro-life people are going to see what pre-Roe America looked like, and the practical consequences of imposing strict bans and prosecuting either women or abortion providers.

I think banning IUDs and Morning after pills is very, very wrong and is immoral. I think things such as the morning after pill should be readily available and free in all colleges, high schools, low income areas and such - places where accidental pregnancy happens frequently. I think that birth control shouldn’t cost a woman even a penny. And I think also that there should be greater education at the high school level and above about the various ways to have safe sex, told from a compassionate and tactful perspective - that it can be just as enjoyable as unsafe sex

It’s my feeling that with birth control pills and greater education, abortion would be utterly redundant and thus would probably not be at all necessary unless the woman was raped, the pregnancy was risky, or the child would be born with birth defects or is dead in the womb, etc.

I agree with everything you said, but on a sightly unrelated note, I've heard this to be BS. But I'm a 27-year-old virgin so what would I know?

EDIT: Actually I assume you're not referring to condoms here