Some thoughts on recent BS narratives around abortion

[Skill and Chance]

What if a tribe wishes to establish an abortion clinic on their tribal lands?  Can a state government stop them?  Would the staff have to all be members of the tribe?  Could the non-Native general public legally use it?  Could the state get involved at all if it was only members of the tribe performing abortions on other members of the tribe?  Could a Republican federal government shut them down?  Could they make funding of other tribal services contingent on shutting them down by executive order or through reconciliation or would any federal legislation shutting them down have to get past a filibuster?

Of course, some tribes are very socially conservative and would have no interest in this. That is also their right.  They may even want to try and explicitly ban abortions on their lands now.


 

[GeneralMacArthur]

What if a tribe wishes to establish an abortion clinic on their tribal lands?  Can a state government stop them?  Would the staff have to all be members of the tribe?  Could the non-Native general public legally use it?  Could the state get involved at all if it was only members of the tribe performing abortions on other members of the tribe?  Could a Republican federal government shut them down?  Could they make funding of other tribal services contingent on shutting them down by executive order or through reconciliation or would any federal legislation shutting them down have to get past a filibuster?

Of course, some tribes are very socially conservative and would have no interest in this. That is also their right.  They may even want to try and explicitly ban abortions on their lands now.
 

Yes, a tribe could do this, it would be similar to casinos.  It would obviously cause extreme tension and unfriendly relations with the surrounding state (for instance the red state governor might block all the roads into/out of the tribal area, block commerce, and persecute any member of the tribe who leaves the area) and if the GOP ever regains power then with the federal government as well.  All for what, the opportunity to offer some abortion services that wouldn't be covered by any recognized insurance anyway?  What tribe would volunteer for such a thing?  People aren't thinking this through.

[lfromnj]

Also one female Tribal leader tried to do this in 2006 and was impeached by her Tribal Council.

[Skill and Chance]

What if a tribe wishes to establish an abortion clinic on their tribal lands?  Can a state government stop them?  Would the staff have to all be members of the tribe?  Could the non-Native general public legally use it?  Could the state get involved at all if it was only members of the tribe performing abortions on other members of the tribe?  Could a Republican federal government shut them down?  Could they make funding of other tribal services contingent on shutting them down by executive order or through reconciliation or would any federal legislation shutting them down have to get past a filibuster?

Of course, some tribes are very socially conservative and would have no interest in this. That is also their right.  They may even want to try and explicitly ban abortions on their lands now.
 

Yes, a tribe could do this, it would be similar to casinos.  It would obviously cause extreme tension and unfriendly relations with the surrounding state (for instance the red state governor might block all the roads into/out of the tribal area, block commerce, and persecute any member of the tribe who leaves the area) and if the GOP ever regains power then with the federal government as well.  All for what, the opportunity to offer some abortion services that wouldn't be covered by any recognized insurance anyway?  What tribe would volunteer for such a thing?  People aren't thinking this through.

Given that some tribes chose to open casinos in states that otherwise banned or heavily restricted gambling, I think it's reasonable some (but not most or all) tribes would consider this as a business opportunity, particularly those red state tribes that vote near unanimously Dem.     

[free my dawg]

I could go without the screeds against The Left, but this is actually a fine post. I actually agree with most of your points here. Let's go bit-by-bit on this:

* I actually agree with you on this one. For all my pearl-clutching about how Democrats have a lot of nominal power but little actual power, the same thing applied in 2008. Even putting Nelson aside, where do the other 59 votes come from? The ND Senators? Mark Pryor, who was as conservative as Manchin? Hell, once Byrd died, you had Manchin, who didn't even vote to codify now! I don't put a lot of blame onto Obama here - 2009 was a different time. Even if Snowe voted to codify too, at least one more Senator was defecting.

* Same here. Again - we have to change the Hyde Amendment to do that. The rest seem tough, but workable. But we need the 52 votes to change the filibuster first.

* I wouldn't necessarily call this stupid - more out of our hands than anything else. If the native government want to open one up, great. We should support them in any way we can. If not, then on to the next solution. You also haven't touched the issue of non-natives coming onto the reservation and telling natives what to do. It just seems weirdly paternalistic and wrong to me.

* Just gonna pack these next two points together. Again, I believe we should be using the bully pulpit - not necessarily with Manchin, but with the Court itself. The bill will fail - full stop. But even so much as campaigning to pack the court because of overreach does damage to the integrity of the court as an institution.

If a Supreme Court nominee's spouse funded a BLM protest that turned violent, we'd never hear the end of it, and the GOP would file for impeachment. If a Democrat perjured themselves for campaign votes, we would never hear the end of it. FDR ended the Lochner era with the bully pulpit, and the threat to pack the Court. The abolitionist movement ended the Taney era by keeping the pressure on him and portraying him as a political hack that abandoned his job.

Voting is noble, but we can't go "well shucks, just vote harder for us and give us money and we can change it". We need to keep pressure on the other side, and attack the legitimacy and integrity of the Court publicly. We need to fear-monger about how Republicans have their eyes on gay peoples' rights to exist. Now is not the time for lily-livered civility or kumbaya. We need action, and we need to speak truth to power.

* I'd like to propose another to you - what can Jessica Cisneros do? Not someone like me, who has a pro-choice option but is choosing to vote third-party because of other important issues. I'm talking about the average red-state Democrat, or someone in their district who's anti-codification. Beto, God bless his soul, is not going to win. Henry Cuellar is not going to codify Roe. The people have spoken, and they want Cuellar. Voting is great and all that, but what can she do to help the cause now aside from organizing?

This is where direct action comes in. Donation to charities, volunteering, persuasion, organizing - there are ways to fight for the cause outside of voting. This is a better way for someone in Texas to do something in the now, while they build the infrastructure to win later.

The Democratic Party also needs to reckon with itself and re-jigger its priorities. Right now, its top priority is protecting the machine. Full stop. Not codifying Roe, not big structural change, not even keeping the economic order. Nancy Pelosi isn't a galaxy-brained chessmaster who's secretly pro-life. She just cares more about the Democratic machine than the cause, and supported Cuellar because he is a part of that machine.

The fact of the matter is that we need a new type of leadership. Not just younger leadership - totally new leadership in ideology. Not necessarily someone who openly wants to defund the police and defends the use of "birthing people" or "people who give birth". Just someone who will put policy over party. Someone who will drain the swamp. Someone who will leave a candidate who doesn't support the agenda out to dry to send a message.

Voting for Democrats is no longer enough. We need to vote for better Democrats, up and down the ballot. Your vote is the strongest muscle you have. Use it for yourself and candidates who support you, not their clique.

[Torie]

Pending the election, both parties should propose national abortion laws. And then have a conversation. If they don't, in order to have an issue to run on in a more chaotic environment, that is more evidence that the system is broken.

[Figueira]

Another stupid argument I've seen is "Democrats didn't/won't codify Roe because then they wouldn't be able to fundraise off it." Do people think "codifying Roe" means permanently making abortion legal?

[Skill and Chance]

Another stupid argument I've seen is "Democrats didn't/won't codify Roe because then they wouldn't be able to fundraise off it." Do people think "codifying Roe" means permanently making abortion legal?

Any federal abortion law that passes the Senate with 60+ bipartisan votes could reasonably be assumed to stay for decades.

[Figueira]

Another stupid argument I've seen is "Democrats didn't/won't codify Roe because then they wouldn't be able to fundraise off it." Do people think "codifying Roe" means permanently making abortion legal?

Any federal abortion law that passes the Senate with 60+ bipartisan votes could reasonably be assumed to stay for decades.

SCOTUS could still kill it, and there would be enough of a danger that it would be worth voting Democratic because of it.

[7,052,770]

Another stupid argument I've seen is "Democrats didn't/won't codify Roe because then they wouldn't be able to fundraise off it." Do people think "codifying Roe" means permanently making abortion legal?

Any federal abortion law that passes the Senate with 60+ bipartisan votes could reasonably be assumed to stay for decades.

Republicans would get rid of it as soon as they had a trifecta. Nobody who honestly believes abortion is murder is going to let the filibuster stand in their way.

[Donerail]

Open abortion clinics on federal land

words words words.

Why do you believe the abortion clinics would have to be constructed and staffed from scratch in remote wildlife refuges(??) and not, for example, run through the large network of fully functioning hospitals that the federal government already operates?

What large network of fully-functioning hospitals?  Are you talking about military bases?  Almost all federal land is national parks, national forests, fishing + wildlife areas, swampland, mountain ranges, and other such areas managed by the BLM.

Military bases are actually a more reasonable option than the national parks and tribal land that Warrenites have been talking about, but still require a massive set of changes in current policy.  For one, U.S. Code strictly prohibits this.  Let's pretend you can overturn that.  You then also have to create all this infrastructure to give civilians access to military bases and hospitals for abortion services, which will run into dozens of different roadblocks since the entire point of the military hospital system was for that to not happen.  Let's be generous and say you can get around all that too.  You then have to provide funding for these services, which can be done through reconciliation, but only if you have complete Dem control of the presidency and both houses of Congress.  So again it's not a permanent solution and you likely won't even get the chance to do it because we're going to lose at least the House by the time the next budget rolls around.  But let's say we do keep both houses.  Then you still have to deal with the problem that these military bases are in red states and those red states will do everything in their power to prevent this from happening and persecute those receiving or performing abortions.  So it's not as logistically impossible as the national parks idea but it's still not a realistic solution to the problem.

The Veterans Health Administration operates a couple hundred hospitals and several hundreds clinics; these hospitals and clinics are located in every state in the country. VA hospitals are located on federal land, and VA employees are not subject to state requirements (a status recently strengthened by new regulations in 2020 that confirmed their independence from state regulators). Unlike military bases, civilians frequently enter VA hospitals and no special infrastructure is required to allow civilians to enter.

[Jeffster]

Anyone want to respond to the actual post tho

Stop making excuses. They could have just nuked the filibuster and codified it at several different points in the last 50 years. But they didn't because they don't really care. Democrats say they will do all sorts of crap in order to get elected, but then once in office cry they are unable to do it because of muh filibuster. STOP MAKING EXCUSES FOR DEMOCRATS LYING TO THEIR VOTERS!

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Another stupid argument I've seen is "Democrats didn't/won't codify Roe because then they wouldn't be able to fundraise off it." Do people think "codifying Roe" means permanently making abortion legal?

Any federal abortion law that passes the Senate with 60+ bipartisan votes could reasonably be assumed to stay for decades.

Republicans would get rid of it as soon as they had a trifecta. Nobody who honestly believes abortion is murder is going to let the filibuster stand in their way.

A majority of Republican politicians probably don't believe that. I would imagine more have been a party to an abortion than hold that belief, though both numbers are probably under 30 percent.

[darklordoftech]

Anyone want to respond to the actual post tho

Stop making excuses. They could have just nuked the filibuster and codified it at several different points in the last 50 years. But they didn't because they don't really care. Democrats say they will do all sorts of crap in order to get elected, but then once in office cry they are unable to do it because of muh filibuster. STOP MAKING EXCUSES FOR DEMOCRATS LYING TO THEIR VOTERS!

They also could have kept OFA intact after 2008 rather than calling its leaders and volunteers “****ing retards”.

[Badger]

I could go without the screeds against The Left, but this is actually a fine post. I actually agree with most of your points here. Let's go bit-by-bit on this:

* I actually agree with you on this one. For all my pearl-clutching about how Democrats have a lot of nominal power but little actual power, the same thing applied in 2008. Even putting Nelson aside, where do the other 59 votes come from? The ND Senators? Mark Pryor, who was as conservative as Manchin? Hell, once Byrd died, you had Manchin, who didn't even vote to codify now! I don't put a lot of blame onto Obama here - 2009 was a different time. Even if Snowe voted to codify too, at least one more Senator was defecting.

* Same here. Again - we have to change the Hyde Amendment to do that. The rest seem tough, but workable. But we need the 52 votes to change the filibuster first.

* I wouldn't necessarily call this stupid - more out of our hands than anything else. If the native government want to open one up, great. We should support them in any way we can. If not, then on to the next solution. You also haven't touched the issue of non-natives coming onto the reservation and telling natives what to do. It just seems weirdly paternalistic and wrong to me.

* Just gonna pack these next two points together. Again, I believe we should be using the bully pulpit - not necessarily with Manchin, but with the Court itself. The bill will fail - full stop. But even so much as campaigning to pack the court because of overreach does damage to the integrity of the court as an institution.

If a Supreme Court nominee's spouse funded a BLM protest that turned violent, we'd never hear the end of it, and the GOP would file for impeachment. If a Democrat perjured themselves for campaign votes, we would never hear the end of it. FDR ended the Lochner era with the bully pulpit, and the threat to pack the Court. The abolitionist movement ended the Taney era by keeping the pressure on him and portraying him as a political hack that abandoned his job.

Voting is noble, but we can't go "well shucks, just vote harder for us and give us money and we can change it". We need to keep pressure on the other side, and attack the legitimacy and integrity of the Court publicly. We need to fear-monger about how Republicans have their eyes on gay peoples' rights to exist. Now is not the time for lily-livered civility or kumbaya. We need action, and we need to speak truth to power.

* I'd like to propose another to you - what can Jessica Cisneros do? Not someone like me, who has a pro-choice option but is choosing to vote third-party because of other important issues. I'm talking about the average red-state Democrat, or someone in their district who's anti-codification. Beto, God bless his soul, is not going to win. Henry Cuellar is not going to codify Roe. The people have spoken, and they want Cuellar. Voting is great and all that, but what can she do to help the cause now aside from organizing?

This is where direct action comes in. Donation to charities, volunteering, persuasion, organizing - there are ways to fight for the cause outside of voting. This is a better way for someone in Texas to do something in the now, while they build the infrastructure to win later.

The Democratic Party also needs to reckon with itself and re-jigger its priorities. Right now, its top priority is protecting the machine. Full stop. Not codifying Roe, not big structural change, not even keeping the economic order. Nancy Pelosi isn't a galaxy-brained chessmaster who's secretly pro-life. She just cares more about the Democratic machine than the cause, and supported Cuellar because he is a part of that machine.

The fact of the matter is that we need a new type of leadership. Not just younger leadership - totally new leadership in ideology. Not necessarily someone who openly wants to defund the police and defends the use of "birthing people" or "people who give birth". Just someone who will put policy over party. Someone who will drain the swamp. Someone who will leave a candidate who doesn't support the agenda out to dry to send a message.

Voting for Democrats is no longer enough. We need to vote for better Democrats, up and down the ballot. Your vote is the strongest muscle you have. Use it for yourself and candidates who support you, not their clique.

This is an excellent argument all around my man. But may I suggest that you take your own advice and drop is voting third party crap? Support progressives in the primaries, but every progressive's third party vote is a vote for a Republican

[BlueSwan]

Isn't a possible way forward to get access to abortion on the ballot in states, just like the GOP used to put DOMA stuff on the ballot in the 00's. If polls are to be believed, such ballot measures could well succeed if sufficiently moderate (like 15 weeks no limit access or so) and could motivate young progressive to actually f***ing vote.

[free my dawg]

This is an excellent argument all around my man. But may I suggest that you take your own advice and drop is voting third party crap? Support progressives in the primaries, but every progressive's third party vote is a vote for a Republican

The Supreme Court's ruling Roe v. Wade actually pushes me to being undecided on voting for Pappas. He blatantly lied about supporting marijuana decriminalization for votes, but he's a solid vote on every other issue. Some noble "contract with the voter" stuff but ultimately I'm beginning to soften my stance.

There's no way you can convince me to vote for Hassan. When she voted no there was a very easily traceable aspect of corruption to her vote, for reasons that are personal to me. My mother was (and is still) a waitress. Waitress wages helped put me through college. Waitress wages put me through my first seven years of my life. My sister was a waitress. There's also proof that all the opposition to raising the wage came from one person and one large restaurant chain in the state. Voting down minimum wage reform to court restaurant lobby, because it closed the tip loophole, is disqualifying to me for personal reasons.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Isn't a possible way forward to get access to abortion on the ballot in states, just like the GOP used to put DOMA stuff on the ballot in the 00's. If polls are to be believed, such ballot measures could well succeed if sufficiently moderate (like 15 weeks no limit access or so) and could motivate young progressive to actually f***ing vote.

This could be a good idea, although it may be strategically better to avoid such things so people can't split-ticket vote.  Like all the right-leaning women who are furious about abortion should have to vote (D) to get their abortion rights back, they shouldn't be able to use the referendum as a single-issue cop-out and then vote straight-ticket (R) the rest of the way.

[BlueSwan]

Isn't a possible way forward to get access to abortion on the ballot in states, just like the GOP used to put DOMA stuff on the ballot in the 00's. If polls are to be believed, such ballot measures could well succeed if sufficiently moderate (like 15 weeks no limit access or so) and could motivate young progressive to actually f***ing vote.

This could be a good idea, although it may be strategically better to avoid such things so people can't split-ticket vote.  Like all the right-leaning women who are furious about abortion should have to vote (D) to get their abortion rights back, they shouldn't be able to use the referendum as a single-issue cop-out and then vote straight-ticket (R) the rest of the way.

True.

So the question remains. Will an abortion ballot measure lead more young progressive to turn up to vote (and hence also vote for democrats while they are at it) than it will prevent right-leaning women from supporting democrats because they can do split-ticket voting. I tend to think the former, mostly because I am very sceptical of the idea that this will lead all that many republican voters to switch sides. I tend to think that to the extent overturning Roe makes a difference it is more likely to come from boosting democratic turnout than from persuading republicans.

[T'Chenka]

Some more thoughts (on Republican BS abortion narratives):

[OSR stands with Israel]

Isn't a possible way forward to get access to abortion on the ballot in states, just like the GOP used to put DOMA stuff on the ballot in the 00's. If polls are to be believed, such ballot measures could well succeed if sufficiently moderate (like 15 weeks no limit access or so) and could motivate young progressive to actually f***ing vote.

This could be a good idea, although it may be strategically better to avoid such things so people can't split-ticket vote.  Like all the right-leaning women who are furious about abortion should have to vote (D) to get their abortion rights back, they shouldn't be able to use the referendum as a single-issue cop-out and then vote straight-ticket (R) the rest of the way.

Actually ballot measures can help bring attention to issues in a way a otherwise it wouldnt and I am sure the abortion issue would get more attention if there is a ballot measure on it then if there isnt one.

The fact is more swing voters will care about inflation, and probably law and order than they do about abortion and if there is no ballot measure about the issue that will make this even more true.

[lfromnj]

Isn't a possible way forward to get access to abortion on the ballot in states, just like the GOP used to put DOMA stuff on the ballot in the 00's. If polls are to be believed, such ballot measures could well succeed if sufficiently moderate (like 15 weeks no limit access or so) and could motivate young progressive to actually f***ing vote.

This could be a good idea, although it may be strategically better to avoid such things so people can't split-ticket vote.  Like all the right-leaning women who are furious about abortion should have to vote (D) to get their abortion rights back, they shouldn't be able to use the referendum as a single-issue cop-out and then vote straight-ticket (R) the rest of the way.

And there's the DNC ad.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

The idea that winning every election for the next three decades is more viable than just expanding the goddamned court is peak pundit brain.

[GP270watch]

The idea that winning every election for the next three decades is more viable than just expanding the goddamned court is peak pundit brain.

 Especially when the present rightwing court could just slice and dice whatever legislation you pass at their whim, as they've been doing.

[GeneralMacArthur]

The idea that winning every election for the next three decades is more viable than just expanding the goddamned court is peak pundit brain.

You only really have to keep winning elections until Thomas and Alito die.  Thomas is 74 and in poor health, Alito is 72.  Scalia died at 80.  Rehnquist died at 81.  Ginsburg lived all the way to 87.  The GOP would have had to do this, but they "lucked into" a situation where they got to nominate three justices in four years.  Usually you only get to appoint one or two every decade.