SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[Badger]

On another note, I am absolutely rotflmao over the latest Fox News outrage of finding non-committal about people possibly choosing to protest outside of I'm home. I'm generally not in favor of protest in front of private homes, with the White House being an obvious exception, but oh the irony.

" what is a violation of privacy. Democrats understand they live their life behind closed doors? WHAT ABOUT THE VUE OF PRIVACY?!11?!"

[OSR stands with Israel]

On another note, I am absolutely rotflmao over the latest Fox News outrage of finding non-committal about people possibly choosing to protest outside of I'm home. I'm generally not in favor of protest in front of private homes, with the White House being an obvious exception, but oh the irony.

" what is a violation of privacy. Democrats understand they live their life behind closed doors? WHAT ABOUT THE VUE OF PRIVACY?!11?!"

This is such a disingenuous argument that only liberal hacks could make .

[Person Man]

On another note, I am absolutely rotflmao over the latest Fox News outrage of finding non-committal about people possibly choosing to protest outside of I'm home. I'm generally not in favor of protest in front of private homes, with the White House being an obvious exception, but oh the irony.

" what is a violation of privacy. Democrats understand they live their life behind closed doors? WHAT ABOUT THE VUE OF PRIVACY?!11?!"

What about the "legitimate political discourse"?

[T'Chenka]

https://twitter.com/billscher/status/1522670972909805569


Like I said , nobody outside Partisans will care in October

If you think only partisans care about abortion rights, you're incredibly, deeply out of touch.

[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.

[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.

I saw something on Wired how much Tech Companies have to lose with all of these personhood laws.

[Pouring Rain and Blairing Music]

On another note, I am absolutely rotflmao over the latest Fox News outrage of finding non-committal about people possibly choosing to protest outside of I'm home. I'm generally not in favor of protest in front of private homes, with the White House being an obvious exception, but oh the irony.

" what is a violation of privacy. Democrats understand they live their life behind closed doors? WHAT ABOUT THE VUE OF PRIVACY?!11?!"

What about the "legitimate political discourse"?

If it’s legitimate political discourse, the body politic has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.

[Person Man]

On another note, I am absolutely rotflmao over the latest Fox News outrage of finding non-committal about people possibly choosing to protest outside of I'm home. I'm generally not in favor of protest in front of private homes, with the White House being an obvious exception, but oh the irony.

" what is a violation of privacy. Democrats understand they live their life behind closed doors? WHAT ABOUT THE VUE OF PRIVACY?!11?!"

What about the "legitimate political discourse"?

If it’s legitimate political discourse, the body politic has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.

I'm talking about what Republicans consider "legitimate political discourse".

[Badger]

On another note, I am absolutely rotflmao over the latest Fox News outrage of finding non-committal about people possibly choosing to protest outside of I'm home. I'm generally not in favor of protest in front of private homes, with the White House being an obvious exception, but oh the irony.

" what is a violation of privacy. Democrats understand they live their life behind closed doors? WHAT ABOUT THE VUE OF PRIVACY?!11?!"

This is such a disingenuous argument that only liberal hacks could make .

What a shocker that someone with the critical thinking skills of a footstool can't see the irony and inherent contradiction of arguing about how horrendous it is that the Hobbs majority justices right to privacy is being disregarded.

[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.

[OSR stands with Israel]

On another note, I am absolutely rotflmao over the latest Fox News outrage of finding non-committal about people possibly choosing to protest outside of I'm home. I'm generally not in favor of protest in front of private homes, with the White House being an obvious exception, but oh the irony.

" what is a violation of privacy. Democrats understand they live their life behind closed doors? WHAT ABOUT THE VUE OF PRIVACY?!11?!"

This is such a disingenuous argument that only liberal hacks could make .

What a shocker that someone with the critical thinking skills of a footstool can't see the irony and inherent contradiction of arguing about how horrendous it is that the Hobbs majority justices right to privacy is being disregarded.

They are two completely different forms of privacy

[Badger]

On another note, I am absolutely rotflmao over the latest Fox News outrage of finding non-committal about people possibly choosing to protest outside of I'm home. I'm generally not in favor of protest in front of private homes, with the White House being an obvious exception, but oh the irony.

" what is a violation of privacy. Democrats understand they live their life behind closed doors? WHAT ABOUT THE VUE OF PRIVACY?!11?!"

This is such a disingenuous argument that only liberal hacks could make .

What a shocker that someone with the critical thinking skills of a footstool can't see the irony and inherent contradiction of arguing about how horrendous it is that the Hobbs majority justices right to privacy is being disregarded.

They are two completely different forms of privacy

Yes, of course they are. But you see...

OMG why would I try overcome this level of cluelessness with further explanation? I could sooner teach a herd of cows to dance the can-can.

[OSR stands with Israel]

On another note, I am absolutely rotflmao over the latest Fox News outrage of finding non-committal about people possibly choosing to protest outside of I'm home. I'm generally not in favor of protest in front of private homes, with the White House being an obvious exception, but oh the irony.

" what is a violation of privacy. Democrats understand they live their life behind closed doors? WHAT ABOUT THE VUE OF PRIVACY?!11?!"

This is such a disingenuous argument that only liberal hacks could make .

What a shocker that someone with the critical thinking skills of a footstool can't see the irony and inherent contradiction of arguing about how horrendous it is that the Hobbs majority justices right to privacy is being disregarded.

They are two completely different forms of privacy

Yes, of course they are. But you see...

OMG why would I try overcome this level of cluelessness with further explanation? I could sooner teach a herd of cows to dance the can-can.

Yah so making that comparison is the height of liberal Hackery

[Pres Mike]

Here are my thoughts

2/3 of Americans do not want a total abortion ban. Most likely higher than this.

40-45% Americans think abortion is murder. Although I think most would be fine with exceptions for rape, incest and health of the mother.

50-55% probably would keep the status quo

So why is the pro-life movement so close to winning?

Sure, the current American system of government favors rural conservative areas. Like the senate and electoral college. Older more conservative Americans are more likely to vote. Republicans have also gotten lucky that they controlled the senate the last two times a justice has died.

But the pro-life movement is much more unified and passionate about their argument. They think abortion is murder. You can reconcile this.

What about the 55% of Americans who would keep the status quo? They are not united. Look at our current President. He is pro-choice but has said numerous times he does not like abortion, just doesn't want to tell women what to do. Most of his career, he would not have been protesting in the streets. How many "pro-choice" folks out there don't even like the concept of abortion but care more about privacy or women's right to their bodies?

[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.

[Horus]

Per Gallup, interracial marriage is approved of by 94% of Americans and 98% of Zoomers. If you think Loving is going anywhere please touch grass

[GeorgiaModerate]

Tesla is covering travel costs for employees seeking out-of-state abortions, joining the ranks of major companies who’ve introduced a similar policy to benefit workers affected by new restrictions in the past few months.

The company said in its 2021 “ Impact Report ” released Friday that it expanded its Safety Net program and health insurance offerings last year to include “travel and lodging support for those who may need to seek healthcare services that are unavailable in their home state.”

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-business-travel-4553c60632c09fd9a4944d4e29d6e720

[Person Man]

Tesla is covering travel costs for employees seeking out-of-state abortions, joining the ranks of major companies who’ve introduced a similar policy to benefit workers affected by new restrictions in the past few months.

The company said in its 2021 “ Impact Report ” released Friday that it expanded its Safety Net program and health insurance offerings last year to include “travel and lodging support for those who may need to seek healthcare services that are unavailable in their home state.”

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-business-travel-4553c60632c09fd9a4944d4e29d6e720

https://www.protocol.com/policy/tech-companies-roe-v-wade

[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.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

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.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Before the Ruling: "That'll never happen"; "You're delusional!"; "They would never overturn something with so much precedence"; "They told Senator Fu.ckelstein they would never overturn X"

After the Ruling: "Yes, they overturned this precedent, but they won't go any further!"; "You really think Justice McGillycuddy would do something like that?"; "The shadow docket is a valid exercise of the Court's authority"; "Seriously, you are being delusional!"

Republicans have been openly campaigning on reversing Roe for 40+ years

And they've been openly campaigning on reversing Obergefell for 7 years.

No they have not . Putting stuff on a virtue signaling  platform is different than actively campaigning on stuff.

No, it's not different.

Why would they include it on their platform if they didn't actually want to do it?

Parties don’t implement 90% of their platform

That's not what I asked.

Why would they include it on their platform if they didn't want to actually do it?

There's only two reasons to include something on a platform: if you intend to do it, or if you want to excite the base.

So you either have to concede that the Republican leadership wants to overturn Obergefell, or you have to concede that the majority of Republicans want to overturn it. And these two options aren't necessarily mutually exclusive either.

So which is it?

For one thing, the platform is from 2016, the year after Obergefell (they didn't put together a new platform in 2020).

It may be the case that a majority of party activists would overturn it if it were up to them, but even if so they aren't focused on it.

Those who have to run and get elected are by and large even less interested.

[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.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

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?

[fhtagn]

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.

[MiddleRoad]

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.