SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Was in D.C. the other day seeing some women holding up protest signs and one of them was like "We are NEVER going back."

I thought, "Ah, but we have already gone back, my friend."

Dobbs has shattered something that cannot be regained. A notion which, at least since the 1960s, but perhaps since the abolitionist movement of the early 19th century, has reigned in Western culture -- the notion that social history is a linear process of progress, whereby rights are continually expanded. In my view, that, is one of the most important legacies of Dobbs. It shows that social regression is in fact possible.

A historic "first" has occurred, but not the kind social liberals often celebrate. Rather, for the first time, a major social right that was once considered settled has been taken away. No matter how many rights you think you have as a woman, as a minority, as a gay, as any kind of minority, it can be taken away again.

The only group that rights cannot be taken away from are white men. Anything else, and your rights in the West will always be up for debate -- perpetually up for debate. You cannot sleep soundly. That is the real difference between social classes.

The very idea of a government taking away rights from people in the blink of an eye is just a horrifying concept in general. The "land of the free" locks up and surveils more people than civilized countries do. I've been saying since the Patriot Act passed - yes, when I was like nine - that America is becoming a police state.

I know this is an old post that I'm replying to, but I think you're definitely right about all of this. I've been noticing since long before Trump that the American people (not just the politicians, but the people themselves) are very eager to see rights taken away. "Live and let live" as a philosophy is totally gone, at least from what I can see. I also think we're dangerously close to losing the 1st Amendment too. Obviously it'll still exist, but I would not be surprised if there's a dramatic reinterpretation of it in the near future that limits the speech it protects, I'm betting due to "think of the children" legislation, which is a mindset that is very prominent now.

In fairness, compared to the Tipper Gore/Joe Lieberman era of censorship that we had throughout the '90s and early aughts, we've become slightly more "libertarian" in that sense. A state legalizing recreational marijuana would never have been considered a possibility 20/30 years ago. When Trump suggested banning video games to stop school shootings, he was (appropriately) laughed at.

But yes, the "live and let live" philosophy is increasingly out of tune with the current environment, and it's really sad to see. You choose your tribe and defend it to the end, consequences be damned.

[patzer]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/10/18/illegal-abortion-pill-network/

I got through some of it, it was quite long. But very interesting. I am reminded of the prohibition days of our history and no matter how much they tried to ban alcohol, all they did was create an "alternative" network of delivery for the product. And I'm sure many people died in the process.

And then they found out that you can't regulate something as fundamental as drinking alcohol. People will do it no matter what. Same with abortions. Women will have them no matter what. We can do it the safer way, or the prohibition way -- which we know doesn't work. But some people in our society have the need to reinvent the wheel, and the rest of us are stuck in their warped thinking until we find a way out.

Feels somewhat sexist to me to talk about “women” as a monolith here, as if all women are just clamoring to kill their kids and will do anything they can to make sure they still can. It’s only a minority of women who’ve done that.

But the more general point does have accuracy insofar as you can’t just legally ban a thing and expect people to stop doing it. You need actual societal change. And that comes with providing resources, advocacy, etc, not just policing.

It’s similar to murder of adults insofar as you’re always going to get it and even in deprived communities you’d have a hard time cracking down on gangs with solely police effort– you need to tackle the problem at the root, obviously crack down on the crime but also tackle the causes behind people turning to it in the first place. In the case of cracking down on murder of babies, that sort of “root cause” intervention would take the form of better healthcare and financial support for mothers, easy access to contraception, and an easy adoption process (give both mother and father an easy way to relinquish all rights and responsibilities over their child, and if both parents do so and nobody they know wants the baby, they go into the adoption system).

And also better education– there are too many people completely convinced that babies have no rights when unborn and it’s okay to kill them. Actually have education in schools about this, go into the biology, share stories of babies who survived attempted abortion, stories of babies who survived highly premature birth, etc.

[Person Man]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/10/18/illegal-abortion-pill-network/

I got through some of it, it was quite long. But very interesting. I am reminded of the prohibition days of our history and no matter how much they tried to ban alcohol, all they did was create an "alternative" network of delivery for the product. And I'm sure many people died in the process.

And then they found out that you can't regulate something as fundamental as drinking alcohol. People will do it no matter what. Same with abortions. Women will have them no matter what. We can do it the safer way, or the prohibition way -- which we know doesn't work. But some people in our society have the need to reinvent the wheel, and the rest of us are stuck in their warped thinking until we find a way out.

Feels somewhat sexist to me to talk about “women” as a monolith here, as if all women are just clamoring to kill their kids and will do anything they can to make sure they still can. It’s only a minority of women who’ve done that.

But the more general point does have accuracy insofar as you can’t just legally ban a thing and expect people to stop doing it. You need actual societal change. And that comes with providing resources, advocacy, etc, not just policing.

It’s similar to murder of adults insofar as you’re always going to get it and even in deprived communities you’d have a hard time cracking down on gangs with solely police effort– you need to tackle the problem at the root, obviously crack down on the crime but also tackle the causes behind people turning to it in the first place. In the case of cracking down on murder of babies, that sort of “root cause” intervention would take the form of better healthcare and financial support for mothers, easy access to contraception, and an easy adoption process (give both mother and father an easy way to relinquish all rights and responsibilities over their child, and if both parents do so and nobody they know wants the baby, they go into the adoption system).

And also better education– there are too many people completely convinced that babies have no rights when unborn and it’s okay to kill them. Actually have education in schools about this, go into the biology, share stories of babies who survived attempted abortion, stories of babies who survived highly premature birth, etc.

On one hand, propaganda doesn’t work and unless your opinion of humanity is that low (I’m getting there so who knows with you!), it’s very difficult to believe that the issue is as simple as you are letting on.

[patzer]

On one hand, propaganda doesn’t work and unless your opinion of humanity is that low (I’m getting there so who knows with you!), it’s very difficult to believe that the issue is as simple as you are letting on.

Education can sometimes work but even with this which is one of the most blatant present day injustices, it’s very hard for public opinion to change solely on activism.

I’m not optimistic, but I still hope. Very easy to grow cynical about how arbitrary human empathy is. An unborn baby can be either a precious life to be cherished or a clump of cells that it’s okay to brutally end the life of; an animal being held under atrocious conditions raised to be killed would receive empathy if it’s a dog but not if it’s a pig; for people in general there’s the pure luck of where you’re born in the world...

But there have been activism and education campaigns before which have seen genuine change. So maybe there’s still hope, we’ll see.

[Person Man]

On one hand, propaganda doesn’t work and unless your opinion of humanity is that low (I’m getting there so who knows with you!), it’s very difficult to believe that the issue is as simple as you are letting on.

Education can sometimes work but even with this which is one of the most blatant present day injustices, it’s very hard for public opinion to change solely on activism.

I’m not optimistic, but I still hope. Very easy to grow cynical about how arbitrary human empathy is. An unborn baby can be either a precious life to be cherished or a clump of cells that it’s okay to brutally end the life of; an animal being held under atrocious conditions raised to be killed would receive empathy if it’s a dog but not if it’s a pig; for people in general there’s the pure luck of where you’re born in the world...

But there have been activism and education campaigns before which have seen genuine change. So maybe there’s still hope, we’ll see.

I mean, things are arbitrary sometimes and sometimes you don’t understand things, but most of the time society needs arbitrary things like this to survive. Should homelessness be considered trespassing? Is bankruptcy or taxation theft? Is prison or public schools slavery? Is public funding for healthcare  slavery to doctors? Is the death penalty murder? It’s not that simple.

But yes. I think abortion is more like homelessness or bankruptcy. Perhaps it shouldn’t be permitted but not because it is the same as a black and white crime. Child prevention is not automatically child murder and the transfer/destruction  of property without expressed consent is not always conversion.  All of these things are things that are to be avoided but how we do so is a morally reasonable conversation.

[ListMan38]

My personal opinion is that, while I am on the fence from a personal standpoint, a ban is not the answer for the following reasons:
1. A ban will not stop abortions, only bring them to less safe means
2. When Life Begins is not a settled moral question, and people can be of different belief systems in that regard

[patzer]

My personal opinion is that, while I am on the fence from a personal standpoint, a ban is not the answer for the following reasons:
1. A ban will not stop abortions, only bring them to less safe means
2. When Life Begins is not a settled moral question, and people can be of different belief systems in that regard

A ban won't stop everyone, but it will certainly save some lives; not everyone will go to the effort of lawbreaking in this regard. Even if only 10 percent of babies whose mothers try to kill them are saved by a law like this, that would still be a massive number of lives saved and absolutely worth it.

As for the second point, the science is pretty clear on it. You don't base laws on the fact that some people disagree, else you'd never get anywhere.

[Person Man]

My personal opinion is that, while I am on the fence from a personal standpoint, a ban is not the answer for the following reasons:
1. A ban will not stop abortions, only bring them to less safe means
2. When Life Begins is not a settled moral question, and people can be of different belief systems in that regard

A ban won't stop everyone, but it will certainly save some lives; not everyone will go to the effort of lawbreaking in this regard. Even if only 10 percent of babies whose mothers try to kill them are saved by a law like this, that would still be a massive number of lives saved and absolutely worth it.

As for the second point, the science is pretty clear on it. You don't base laws on the fact that some people disagree, else you'd never get anywhere.

No one disputes the science but science alone doesn’t mean anything. Basing laws 100% on science has historically tragic results. There’s a difference between studying and teaching evolution and trying to derive a system of morals from studying it.

[Hermit For Peace]

So the vote to keep abortion legal was a winner in the elections. Nobody wants to have their freedoms taken away from them, whether it's the right to have an abortion, a right to own a gun or whatever. Any politician who wants to criminalize or restrict access to abortion is an automatic loser in the general scheme of things. The majority of people don't vote for losers.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

How much hope do activists have in legalizing abortion through referendum in red states? Can they overturn DeWine's heartbeat law and end the bans in Missouri and Arkansas?

[Hope For A New Era]

How much hope do activists have in legalizing abortion through referendum in red states? Can they overturn DeWine's heartbeat law and end the bans in Missouri and Arkansas?

It's possible. Missouri in particular has a history of liberal results in ballot measures - 67% against right-to-work and 62% for $12 minimum wage in 2018.

It would be wise for the activists to not aim for the Michigan measure, though. I think a 15-week ban similar to what was done in Florida would pass at least in Missouri and Ohio. Arkansas might have to be a little stricter. But I'm pretty confident that total bans do not have majority support in any state.


Other states that allow citizen initiatives: Idaho, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma.

[Skill and Chance]

How much hope do activists have in legalizing abortion through referendum in red states? Can they overturn DeWine's heartbeat law and end the bans in Missouri and Arkansas?

It's possible. Missouri in particular has a history of liberal results in ballot measures - 67% against right-to-work and 62% for $12 minimum wage in 2018.

It would be wise for the activists to not aim for the Michigan measure, though. I think a 15-week ban similar to what was done in Florida would pass at least in Missouri and Ohio. Arkansas might have to be a little stricter. But I'm pretty confident that total bans do not have majority support in any state.


Other states that allow citizen initiatives: Idaho, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma.

Arizona technically has a total ban from the 19th century that is in legal limbo because it conflicts with a more recent 15 week law.  There's no way the older law would survive an initiative there, and even the Michigan language may very well pass. 

I think the Dakotas would repeal their bans, and Nebraska would block one, but IDK if something as strong as the Michigan measure would pass.  Oklahoma and Arkansas are iffy and I would normally expect significant restrictions to be popular there, but since the status quo in both states is a no-exceptions total ban, it could get interesting.

Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming initiatives are only statutes that can then be repealed/edited by the legislature.  The legislatures are all near unanimous R.

[Hope For A New Era]

Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming initiatives are only statutes that can then be repealed/edited by the legislature.  The legislatures are all near unanimous R.

True, but it would be extremely unpopular to do so.

Also, the extreme-R-ness of those legislatures has a lot to do with geography. It doesn't represent the state, and in fact drawing fair state legislative maps is extremely difficult bordering on impossible.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/ribunchreports/status/1592581823837573120

Judge McBurney was appointed by former Gov. Nathan Deal (R).  He's also the judge overseeing the Fulton County special grand jury investigating interference in the 2020 election.

[MarkD]

https://twitter.com/ribunchreports/status/1592581823837573120

Judge McBurney was appointed by former Gov. Nathan Deal (R).  He's also the judge overseeing the Fulton County special grand jury investigating interference in the 2020 election.

So which constitution does the Georgia abortion law violate: the US Constitution or the GA state constitution?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

https://twitter.com/ribunchreports/status/1592581823837573120

Judge McBurney was appointed by former Gov. Nathan Deal (R).  He's also the judge overseeing the Fulton County special grand jury investigating interference in the 2020 election.

So which constitution does the Georgia abortion law violate: the US Constitution or the GA state constitution?

Apparently he struck it down because Roe was still in place when it was signed (in 2019) and they’d have to re-pass a similar law again post-Dobbs.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

https://twitter.com/ribunchreports/status/1592581823837573120

Judge McBurney was appointed by former Gov. Nathan Deal (R).  He's also the judge overseeing the Fulton County special grand jury investigating interference in the 2020 election.

So which constitution does the Georgia abortion law violate: the US Constitution or the GA state constitution?

Apparently he struck it down because Roe was still in place when it was signed (in 2019) and they’d have to re-pass a similar law again post-Dobbs.

Serious question- why does a county judge have the authority to strike down a state law?  If that's the case, couldn't any state law just be referred to a county judge in a county you know is likely to be sympathetic to your cause?

[Hammy]

https://twitter.com/ribunchreports/status/1592581823837573120

Judge McBurney was appointed by former Gov. Nathan Deal (R).  He's also the judge overseeing the Fulton County special grand jury investigating interference in the 2020 election.

So which constitution does the Georgia abortion law violate: the US Constitution or the GA state constitution?

Apparently he struck it down because Roe was still in place when it was signed (in 2019) and they’d have to re-pass a similar law again post-Dobbs.

Serious question- why does a county judge have the authority to strike down a state law?  If that's the case, couldn't any state law just be referred to a county judge in a county you know is likely to be sympathetic to your cause?

Likely for whatever the same reason circuit judges have the authority to strike down federal laws

[politicallefty]

I hope no one on the left thinks the abortion debate is close to over. This is only just the beginning. To use a WWII analogy, we're still in 1939.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/ribunchreports/status/1592581823837573120
Judge McBurney was appointed by former Gov. Nathan Deal (R).  He's also the judge overseeing the Fulton County special grand jury investigating interference in the 2020 election.

So which constitution does the Georgia abortion law violate: the US Constitution or the GA state constitution?

Apparently he struck it down because Roe was still in place when it was signed (in 2019) and they’d have to re-pass a similar law again post-Dobbs.

Serious question- why does a county judge have the authority to strike down a state law?  If that's the case, couldn't any state law just be referred to a county judge in a county you know is likely to be sympathetic to your cause?

Superior Court Judge *is* a state office; note that he was initially appointed by Governor Deal to fill a vacancy, although he was later reelected in his own right.  They're assigned to different circuits, and he's assigned to the Fulton County Circuit.

[Hermit For Peace]

I hope no one on the left thinks the abortion debate is close to over. This is only just the beginning. To use a WWII analogy, we're still in 1939.

Not only is it not over but it hasn't even really begun. Both sides are talking past each other and never the twain shall meet for years and years to come. For one reason, it's because the church has a big influence on people's lives and it's hard to go against their influence. I've had plenty of arguments and discussions with these types and all they do is get all emotional and talk about "killing babies." They can't get past that point.

So there is no discussion going on, only emotionalism.

[John Dule]

36 down, 14 to go!

[afleitch]

https://mobile.twitter.com/JessicaValenti/status/1592640415374901249

Is it a fertility cult?

https://mobile.twitter.com/JessicaValenti/status/1592641416169422848

Or a death cult?

[Person Man]

What’s the deal in Nebraska? Will the new senate be conservative enough to pass anything?

[politicallefty]

What’s the deal in Nebraska? Will the new senate be conservative enough to pass anything?

Even if something does, it would almost surely be subject to a veto referendum. If something like that was on the ballot in the 2024 general election, NE-02 probably wouldn't be a pretty sight for Republicans.