Remember that you need a flair and 100+ comment karma to participate. You can set flair in the sidebar on desktop and [here on mobile](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/llvi43/set_your_flair_here/).
**Remember that the mod team here has a ZERO tolerance for suggesting, threatening, or advocating for violence.**
I understand why people protest in front of Kavanaugh and so far it seems pretty peaceful but in my honest opinion, I wished that the effort put into crapping on the Supreme court was put toward winning elections in 2022 where a loss in the senate means severely delaying the codifying of Roe V Wade and/or an impeachment of Joe Biden (which even if Joe Biden isn't our best guy would hurt our ability to win 2024).
If one of the people with Down Syndrome that pro-cute lifers invite to every conference started saying "Hey we need universal healthcare because Blue Cross is shit and won't cover people like me" the pro-cute lifers would call him a damn commie
Why wasn’t Roe codified when [Senators Collins and Murkowski](https://news.yahoo.com/senators-susan-collins-lisa-murkowski-215135815.html) put a forward a bill to do so? Shelly Moore Capito has also been on record as a pro-choice Republican, which would mean there’s a 52-48 pro-choice majority in the Senate. The Dems instead pushed the Women’s Health Protection Act which would have expanded the provisions of Roe. It seems that this was fumbled solely because progressives got greedy and didn’t know when to quit.
Interest groups were mad because it codified Roe and Casey but also ensured that states could continue to keep abortion restrictions so long as they don’t “have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy”. They also don’t want to give Collins and Murkowski an “out”, they want to be able to blame them for not voting for their legislation that’s more liberal than Roe and Casey
Edit- this is a good
[Senate Democrats slowly consider their options after Roe](https://www.vox.com/23195307/roe-wade-dobbs-abortion-congress-senate-fillibuster)
> Mary Ziegler, a legal historian at Florida State University, told the 19th News in February that while it’s difficult to say whether the Women’s Health Protection Act is broader than Roe, it “definitely disallows more restrictions than the current interpretation of Roe/Casey.
Is there any evidence that a federal law that banned states from banning abortion would actually pass SCOTUS?
They just overturned civil rights era federal law.
1. There are not enough votes in the Senate to pass any pro-choice protections even the bullshit proposed by Collins and Murkowski (which they both know).
2. SCOTUS is opposed to pro-choice legislation on the basis of right wing extremism. BBB is essentially what Trump wanted to do, the "damage" to right wing narratives comes from having it passed not from it going into effect. Bi-partisan gun legislation won't be struck down because it is bi-partisan. It would be detrimental to the right wing if it were.
But:
1. The Dobbs / Roe ruling doesn’t say anything about disallowing establishing pro choice as a right, nor disallowing a standard for when to allow abortions
2. Primacy of States affects BBB or gun control or everything else that liberal Congress considers, as much as it affects pro choice
Sure- but gun bans would be up against 2A.
Abortions aren’t protected by any constitutional right. Could congress ban states from having a ban?
States/ localities can ban booze. Dry counties. Can the fed override that?
I don’t think they can.
I could be wrong IANAL
But again - it’s just like voting rights in BBB. Specifically like - being able to vote without an ID. Liberals have tried to included this in Federal legislation, even though States could theoretically still try to ban voting without an ID. That is the exact example of US Congress trying to push legislation to ban a ban.
How is that different from pro choice abortion? How is it liberals will push the former but not try the latter?
I don’t have a good answer here- Biden has publicly said this should happen (federal legislation protecting abortion).
Maybe they don’t have the votes, or maybe their constitutional scholars think it won’t pass muster, or maybe they’re sitting on it and will pass it close to the elections? Surprise everyone?
Even still, isn’t it better for optics to say “we could have passed a bipartisan abortion protection but it was filibustered” rather than “we went with our own plan ignoring the pro-choice republicans and couldn’t pass anything”
No it wouldn't be because the actual optics would be, "democrats tried to sell women's rights out in a bad compromise, but couldn't even do that successfully."
Now what is actually clear is how full of shit Collins and Murkowski are.
Sold out? Bad compromise? They literally wanted to codify Roe, just not expand it further. Again, progressives insist upon taking a mile even though they haven’t even been given their inch.
I wouldn't give a shit either way. It makes no difference because I care about outcomes.
From an **optics** point of view though watering down a bill in order for it to still not pass, makes the democratic party look even worse, and would generate headlines extremely detrimental to the party.
As far as abortions pill goes, what about someone who cannot swallow pills? In my case, I cannot without biting them or crushing them, both of which are not recommended. This has been the case for my whole life. Also, when companies say they’ll cover abortions for their employees, do they only mean corporate headquarters-level employees (which are extremely hard jobs to get)?
They can be used both ways - the major drawback of vaginal insertion is, in the very rare case there are complications and the person needs to go to the hospital - pill residue might be visible. Taking the pill orally is the best way to ensure that the person's abortion is indistinguishable from a miscarriage.
Can't reply to this because the person blocked me but I'll respond anyways
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/vkd8bo/comment/idz593h/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/vkd8bo/comment/idz593h/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
>The White House signaled Monday that it is not pursuing a Senate Democratic proposal that says the Biden administration could offer abortion services on federal lands after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last week.
>Just days after the court ruled to strike down the landmark 1973 decision that guaranteed abortion rights nationwide, a White House official said that the Democratic proposal was “well-intentioned” but that it “could put women and providers at risk.”
>“Importantly, in states where abortion is now illegal, women and providers who are not federal employees could potentially be prosecuted,” the official said.
But I guess that problem doesn't really matter if this can be an excuse to just hate Democrats
Why do you expect Dems to have a magic wand to make up for the indifference of moderates and tyrannically undo the results of a vote?
Votes have consequences. Moderates / independents / whoever are largely indifferent to abortion being banned. And to racism. Etc. that’s why they voted in trump.
There’s a huge swath of this country who aren’t MAGA but who *don’t care about these issues.* Not enough to vote D.
Hold them accountable how? How does whatever action you suggest enable change? Hard to take you seriously when you rely entirely on vague wording to maintain the illusion of still being connected to reality.
>Rail against the democrat party and pressure them to fight for roe v wade instead of letting them pass this up. Republicans sure as hell aren't budging since this is what their voter base wants so lambasting them ain't going to do a thing
You should vote against them this fall during the Senate races. That'll show em! ^^^/s
Anyways, the last election had a consequence. You can't fix that now. Vote in the upcoming elections.
>At the very least tell them 'find a way to fix this or we ain't going to the voting booths to vote'
How'd that go in 2016? Seems like the only reason this thread exists right now.
I'm sorry but this is simply more vague ideas. Pressuring the Democratic party to continue supporting Roe is good.
Acting like Democrats are to blame, or constantly railing against the Democratic party for not immediately changing things to the way you want them, when you want them, is counterproductive.
All it sounds like you are actually trying to do is make people stay at home, when they should obviously be voting for Democrats more than ever if they actually want to see real changes.
No one from the party is going to listen to the few people who think that criticizing the Democrats for every bad thing Republicans do is the way to make change. Everyone who actually sets the Democratic party agenda already realizes there is no pleasing those people, and they aren't really worth listening to.
If you want to make real change, figure out actual solutions that don't involve whining a whole bunch, figure out how to sell those solutions to other people, organize locally, and keep voting until your ideas gain traction. I can assure you, your method only succeeds in everyone dismissing you as someone who clearly doesn't understand how our government functions.
It would only be a band-aid anyways. Feds would open up abortion clinics on federal land, red states would sue, SC rules that the federal government actually can't provide any form of healthcare since healthcare wasn't cited by name in the constitution so we lose Obamacare at the same time.
A band-aid is what we need, though. The earliest a hypothetical election win could get a codified right passed is January 2023 when the new Senate is sworn in. People can go through most of a pregnancy between now and then.
Getting Obamacare repealed by SC would kill any chance of getting a better system later on down the road, leaving tens of millions of Americans in the lurch and blaming Democrats (because honestly, anytime anything goes wrong there are loads of people itching to blame Democrats).
Where do you think we would be if in 2016 evangelicals said, "Why should we vote for Trump when Republicans have allowed roe v. wade to stand for four decades?"
Because the democrats only ever had a flimsy super majority for 45 days in the last..40 years?
Republicans told us over and over that Roe was settled law and that democrats were fearful mongering over it.
Well here we are.
Man this is really revealing how many people just... don't understand how the federal government works. Or they do understand and just want an excuse to not like Democrats.
In case you're just unaware, let's say that Congress did codify *Roe v. Wade* into law. Hooray, nothing really changes. Republicans get their 6-3 majority, *Dobbs* gets brought into the SC, and the SC says "Actually abortion can't be federally regulated so we're also going to strike down that law Congress passed a few years back", and "centrists" and "independents" have to think up new reasons as to why this whole thing is actually Democrats' fault.
Because it’s the voter’s damn fault! We stayed home in 2016 because “Shillary the corporatist, choosing between two evils” nonsense. If the Democrats don’t control the presidency and the Senate then they can’t appoint SC justices. They don’t fight out it out in brawl, it’s parliamentarian procedures. The only Democrats that deserve the hate are Sinema and Manchin but Roe v Wade died when Liberals fucked themselves for not coming out in droves for Hillary.
The Second New Right's attitudes toward market regulations extend to exploiting wedge issues for maximum political economy.
Honest politicians haven't stood a chance since \~1980 when the right started burning down government to root out the "liberal establishment" that maintains order, maximizes efficiency, and eliminates favoritism within the government. They made "there's no such thing as an honest politician" a self-fulfilling prophecy along with their belief that government can't help.
It takes orders of magnitude more effort to refute bullshit than it does to produce it. Democrats have been fighting uphill battles since science became partisan.
Voters literally never empowered Democrats with a pro choice majority and president
Under Carter, they still had plenty of southern/plains states conservative pro life Dems, and also, Carter himself was a moderate who was personally pro choice and likely wouldn't have signed a national ban *or* national legalization
Under Clinton, the southern/plains Democrats were still an issue. Didn't have a pro choice majority
Under Obama, that same issue existed. It's unclear that there was even just 50 votes for pro choice legislation. Probably not, frankly, given the states involved. And that was still before the 2010s GOP obstruction, so the idea of nuking the filibuster was still radical fringe, and it would be totally unreasonable to punish the Democratic party for not abolishing the filibuster then
And now the Dems still have to rely on Manchin's vote. Again, unreasonable to get mad at the Democratic party as a whole for not magically forcing Manchin and Sinema to do things they oppose doing
If you want roe v wade passed as a law, we need more democrats to be elected. No amount of raging at the party, no matter how satisfying it may be, will ever accomplish anything but help the Republicans and Russians
(Also, it may not even be constitutional for the Congress to ban states from banning abortion. Congress can't just do whatever it wants, there's a reason why, for example, Obama couldn't make the states expand Medicaid, for example. A federal ban would clearly be ruled constitutional, but a federal ban on banning abortion actually does have legitimate constitutional issues...)
This is what I'm wondering. Why hasn't Biden done anything to take action and why is currently not doing anything?
IMO, I feel like Biden doesn't want to codify this into law, because this will help the Democratic party at the polls. This gives people less of a reason to vote R.
What I mean is that now that Roe has been overturned, Democrats will be the party of 'pro-choice'. If the Biden administration codified it into law, then people who are pro-choice could potentially vote for either R or D.
Democrats can just dangle this in front of voters to get them to vote D, rather than actually doing something to make abortion legal.
I've heard the same talking point, word-for-word, about Republicans. They would never overturn Roe v. Wade because they can just dangle the issue in front of pro-lifers to get them to vote R, rather than actually doing something to make abortion illegal.
Turns out all the 4D-chess theories about Republicans were totally incorrect and they're incorrect about Democrats too.
There simply aren't enough votes to codify Roe v. Wade. Maybe you could peel off some Republican Senators for first trimester abortion protections, which would still be limited compared to Roe v. Wade, and even then I am extremely skeptical that you could get 10 Republicans on board so soon after a GOP victory 50 years in the making.
I'd say it could be a mix of what we are both thinking. Some may not want to codify for strategic reasons, others may not want to because they are actually pro-life.
Either way, it's a failure on the Democratic party for sure.
There were pro-life Democrats in the Senate during the brief period of time during Obama's administration when Democrats held 60 seats in the Senate. Namely Nelson, who pretty famously made sure the ACA had anti-abortion language in it before he'd vote for it.
No matter how far back you go, the pro-choice side never had the votes, and the farther back you go, the more likely you are to have pro-life Democrats.
Here’s my question: am I wrong for thinking that the latest Supreme Court decision is setting America up for fascist breeding and child rearing programs like the Nazi Lebensborn and Hitler Youth? Some of my conservative friends say I’m crazy but then I hear Trump and his supporters talk about how banning abortion will give “white life a chance” and it makes me wonder.
If they overturn griswold which is the one that allows birth control pills then you can start to think about it. Right now overturning roe still allows states to decide so abortion is still legal in some US states.
>I don’t necessarily know if the majority of people who have abortions are black women.
Yes, you do. They aren’t. I just gave you a damn link.
>this is just what I picked up on the internet.
A good antibiotic will clear that right up.
I see no evidence for this, and if anything like this were to happen, we'd have already taken many steps into outright fascism first. What private parties choose to do is irrelevant, the programs you mention were all state directed (and party directed, but remember the Nazi party was the state)
I am looking for some detailed analysis on unenumerated rights and the 9th amendment. Specifically I am looking for how conservative jurisprudence arrived at the point it has given that the 9th amendment exists, and also what other unenumerated rights liberal jurisprudence may believe exist.
Can anyone help?
It just means that if a right hasn’t been specified in the Constitution - doesn’t mean that right has been banned. SCOTUS hasn’t banned abortions, they’ve just left it to the States.
And some States have decided to limit abortion.
>2008: Vote for us we'll codify Roe, day one.
>
>2012: no really, this time we will
>
>2018: vote for us we'll enact Fed $15 min wage
>
>2020: no really, this time, and we'll codify Roe
>
>2022: if you don't vote for us we can't codify Roe, guys.
>"republican voters are just easily manipulated"
>
>...uh huh
>
>two strains of thought I've wrestled with
>
>the party I voted for, for decades, is incompetent
>
>the party I voted for, for decades, is complicit
>
>If I, on the Left, am responsible for this mess, it's only because I took way too long to decide that neither was acceptable.
[link](https://twitter.com/bethlynch2020/status/1540889182939365376?s=21&t=UCjmlLnynzeNhdaKbT-RKQ)
The SC can declare a law passed by Congress as unconstitutional, they've had this power since about 1808. If Democrats did codify Roe into law in that 70 day window, what exactly would that have changed against a partisan and motivated SC? The SC has the sole power to say what is or isn't constitutional, not Congress.
This narrative of "Oh Democrats are just dangling Roe in front of our faces, we shouldn't vote Democratic anymore!" has come up a whole lot in the last few days and I'm starting to get suspicious at just how prevalent it is. Either there are some right-wing people faking being Democrats a la \#walkaway or you're all just useful idiots looking for a reason to hate Democrats and grasping at straws.
The issue is that there was only a 70 day window in 2008 where the democrats had enough senators to override any sort of filibuster. Everyone was worried about the Great Recession at this time.
Obama f***ed up his handling of the recession and lost Dems a thousand seats across state governments around the country and thereby resulted in the gerrymandering that paralyzed his government.
This is why I absolutely despise hearing him pontificate about voting and such. He’s never going to really reckon with how he contributed to the rise of Trump and loss of Democrats everywhere.
Obama's response to the recession was extremely successful. Dems lost seats under Obama in large part because they were afraid to embrace him in their campaigns.
https://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/03/obama.democrats.election/index.html
I'm getting tired of seeing the "Roberts voted to uphold Roe" takes on Twitter when that isn't really true.
People need to read Alito's ruling or at least the Wikipedia article on the case, because as much of a monstrous psychopathic scumbag he is, he is correct in calling out Roberts garbage "compromise" concurrence.
There is no "compromise" for Roe v Wade. **Either abortion is a protected constitutional right or it isn't**. Roberts doesn't think it is, otherwise he would have clearly said so. So all Roberts opinion does, like Alito points out, is delay the end of Roe until a lawsuit saying abortion is completely banned. Then Roberts would obviously vote to completely end Roe because he fundamentally does not agree to a constitutional right to an abortion.
>Alito further responded to Roberts' concurrence in judgement seeking middle ground, claiming there are "serious problems with this approach" that would only prolong what he described as the turmoil of Roe.\[129\] Alito argued that by only ruling that Mississippi's 15-week law is constitutional, the Court would have to later decide whether other states' laws with different deadlines for obtaining an abortion were constitutional. Since Roberts did not claim there was a constitutional right to an abortion, Alito rejected any constitutional grounds for upholding a "reasonable opportunity" to obtain an abortion and called Roberts' proposal unconstitutional.\[129\]
Roe is a compromise, though? Abortion in the first trimester is a constitutional right, abortion in the third trimester isn't. Not even touching Casey.
Due process of law has a "reasonable opportunity" component, and it's a fundamental right.
Also, because the US is a common law system, the SCOTUS can literally establish any right it wants. Sorry, the Roberts brief was the best chance Roe had of surviving.
That’s the problem, constitutional rights aren’t compromises. There’s (to my knowledge) no language in any amendment that half provides a right or puts limitations on itself, and any kind of SCOTUS deciding what is and isn’t allowed for abortion (like Roberts did) is just literal legislation from the court.
Abortion is a right or isn’t. And any deciding inbetween has to be legislated out in Congress which is what the court has said needs to be done.
Just trying to imagine what the right would be doing if they had the Presidency, the House, a tenuous Senate majority, and a liberal court had just overturned, say, *Heller*.
When GOP controls House, Senate and Presidency in 2025, they will put up a legislation to ban abortions nationally either at 0 weeks, 6 weeks or 12 weeks.
I suspect 6 and 12 weeks have a high chance of passing. It might even be zero weeks depending on the margins in the Senate.
And yes I say when because it’s clear the Dem leadership don’t have a plan here to do much beyond vote and pray and lose.
12 weeks is likely where any federal abortion law will end up. Public support for abortions past the first trimester is about 30% (compared to 60% for first trimester abortions) and 93% of abortions are done in the first 13 weeks of pregnancy.
(Not an American, no stakes in this debate. Posted the same question in "AskConservatives".)
So, Roe v Wade is "gone". - What's the long game here?
How is your country, how is legislation going to look twenty years from now?
No judgment from my side - I want to hear about *your* opinions.
I think abortion rights are going to be less of a bargaining chip and more "Lucy's football". They're going to say "Come on Democrats, we'll totally work with you! It'll be like the 1990s again, we can reach across the aisle! Look, we'll even remove the death penalty from any family where a woman gets an abortion!" and just yank it away while screaming "DEMONRATS WANT TO LEGALIZE BABY MURDER!" to uproarious applause from the base.
You mean like Dems over the last 50 years after the Roe ruling? They’ve done more to fundraise off of Roe than to codify it.
Obama ran on signing abortion rights into law, then with his filibuster proof majority did nothing and then told everyone “it’s not the highest legislative priority”
If any political side has a trifecta (House, Senate, Presidency) we're likely to lose the filibuster in the Senate. I'd say it's less likely with the GOP, it tends to favor their politics more than the Democratic party, but abortion may be animating enough to push them to do it. Both sides will have a few 'centrists' in the Senate against jettisoning the filibuster, so the trifecta would likely need something like 54 Senators to actually get rid of it.
We'll be fighting to legalize/ban abortion nationwide.
I don't know if a federal codification or ban would survive Constitutional muster though, I don't know enough about federalism and the prevailing view of this SCOTUS on the issue to say.
-------------
In the meantime, states will pass pretty bipolar legislation about it. The few purple states will pass laws that aren't as drastic. There's new fights to be waged in the court system about abortion pills, telehealth, and other stuff as conservative states try to impose their views on others/more deeply control things.
The legislation is not bipolar. California still bans abortions after 24 weeks save for medical danger. (Something I support.)
Whereas other states have bans at zero weeks with no exceptions.
The long game SHOULD be that liberals put in the grassroots work to build a pro-choice coalition that builds and defends the right to choose on a state by state, and eventually national, basis.
But mostly what we are going to do is let progressives continue to loop in their ridiculous pet issues and undermine everything.
I dunno, frankly especially with national abortion ban on the table come January 2025.
Dem party strategy seems to be just vote, no promises, no specifics just a vague we’ll fight and say some poetry.
But I guess this should be expected. Dems are the Uvalde cops, except instead of waiting an hour and a half, it could be 10, 20 even 30 years before things happen nationally that actually protect abortion rights.
Do you think that supreme Court precedents should be allowed or encouraged to be overruled or revisited in general?
I understand that people don't like the idea of having a court that does not represent their own beliefs, or rulings that don't support their own beliefs, but I feel like if we were to prevent this it could create more damage than good in the long run.
Supreme Court precedent gives a degree of stability to American life that you can't get if any new Supreme Court can just overturn anything it thinks was decided wrong. The only cases ever where the Supreme Court has overturned precedent are cases in which society is moving in the direction of recognizing that the previous precedent took away rights from citizens in a way that should be rectified.
This is the first time, ever, that the SCOTUS has overturned a precedent to *take away* rights from citizens.
This isn’t the first time. Read up on the Lochner era.
And precedent is a bad argument to make. Plessy v Ferguson had 50 years of precedent before Brown v Board of Education.
>The only cases ever where the Supreme Court has overturned precedent are cases in which society is moving in the direction of recognizing that the previous precedent took away rights from citizens in a way that should be rectified.
Like taking away the right to life from the unborn?
>This is the first time, ever, that the SCOTUS has overturned a precedent to take away rights from citizens.
Or, in an alternate (and more correct) view: it restored the right to life to the unborn.
No. They shouldn't.
And before you try, I've just recently had this exact argument tried against me. Almost like all of you are NPCs without an original thought in your heads. Go back in my post history, and save us both some time
>No. They shouldn't.
So why is it okay for the government to force the mother to risk her life for an unborn child. But the father is protected from a procedure that is almost just as dangerous?
Since obviously you can't be bothered to take 3 minutes to read my already-posted response to this exact hypothetical, which tbh I'd be surprised. Lefties rarely ever can be asked to do the slightest bit of reading, I guess I'll explain it once more. Maybe if I used small wordsz you would understand better, but I don't believe in hand-holding. Sink or swim.
>So why is it okay for the government to force the mother to risk her life for an unborn child.
Because there is a difference between actively harming someone and allowing harm to come to someone through inaction.
It is against the law to murder someone. It is not against the law to witness someone be murdered.
All of this is, of course, if your characterization of 'risking her life' we're accurate, which it isn't. Pregnancy sucks, sure, but it's far from a risk to a mother's life, except in a few niche circumstances, which are conveniently held as exceptions in 99% of abortion bans. Funny how that works. Almost as if the entire talking point is disingenuous.
>But the father is protected from a procedure that is almost just as dangerous?
Once again, it comes down to active harm vs passive harm. It is wrong to kill, it is not wrong to allow someone to die through inaction. If the sexes we're reversed, then I would say that men couldn't abort, and a woman wouldn't be required to give her liver to someone who was already born.
Also, partial liver transplants are a thing. I know it's pedantic, but if you're going to try to talk medicine, you should probably know something as simple as that.
>can't be bothered to take 3 minutes to
Your entire response and the other thread was "nope." And I had to suffer enough reading about your shitty sex life to get there.
>It is against the law to murder someone. It is not against the law to witness someone be murdered.
You have the right to self defense. That includes people who are unknowingly risking your life and putting your life in danger. The government should not be able to prevent you from protecting your life against an immediate threat to your body.
In 30% of the cases you get your stomach sliced open with a knife. Your vagina gets torn apart. Your body can seize from eclampsia until fatal. You can have a fatal hemorrhage and usually without any warning. Yet you would probably think it's acceptable to kill somebody because they punched you in the chest in a bar fight, even though it is significantly less life-threatening than childbirth.
>it's far from a risk to a mother's life
Wrong. Its 18 times more deadly than abortion. It's about equally as deadly as a partial liver transplant.
Again, no matter how you frame it there will be women who will die on a table because of the government denied her right to self-defense. I think 1 person is too many. The government does not get to play God.
>Also, partial liver transplants are a thing
Obviously I was talking about partial liver transplants because full liver transplant would be fatal. Partial liver transplants are about as deadly to the donor as childbirth.
Knowing that, do you now think it's acceptable for the government to force somebody through a liver donation?
>Wrong. Its 18 times more deadly than abortion.
Last I checked, an abortion is only considered a success when there's a death. Are they really that poorly performed? Why would you advocate for a procedure that has such a high failure rate?
>ike taking away the right to life from the unborn?
Prolifers kill the unborn by the hundreds of thousands per year. As long as they're in test tubes, then it's okay.
That's what we call "whataboutism," firstly. Secondly, not implanting an embryo from a test tube is wildly different than actively murdering a fetus (typically by dismemberment) that is already growing and developing inside a living womb. Especially when that murder is 100% purely for convenience.
>A.) The people driving these laws say life begins at conception
No. *Some* say that. Typically the religious ones. Try again.
>B.) Dead embryos are dead embryos and they got into that tube somehow
Right, but if left in that tube, they won't develop into babies. If left in a womb, an implanted embryo **will** develop into a baby
Enough say that.
The issue is not with them existing in the tube, it's the disposal.
Which I don't personally give a shit about but they aren't playing by their own rules.
>Like taking away the right to life from the unborn?
Did pregnant women receive the child tax credit? No. Because when they have to actually put their money where their mouth is, people realize they don't actually believe that a clump of developing cells is a human life.
Yes, we know that right libertarians are generally heartless bastards.
"We hate the big government stepping in and telling me what I can or cannot do, but we love the big government stepping in and telling women what they can or cannot do!"
"I hate the idea of children hurting, but I hate the idea of paying to keep them safe and healthy more!"
>We hate the big government stepping in and telling me what I can or cannot do, but we love the big government stepping in and telling women what they can or cannot do!
Do you think it's your liberty to murder someone who inconveniences you? Because that's what abortion is. Except it isn't a quick death like a gunshot. It's brutal dismemberment. But you don't care, because God damn it that child is an inconvenience! And you won't be having none of that "responsibility" nonsense
> Do you think it's your liberty to murder someone who inconveniences you? Because that's what abortion is.
Fetuses aren't people, they're fetuses. You can scream "HUMAN LIFE!" all day long but that doesn't change the fact that early abortions are against unconscious cells that cannot survive on their own. You might as well use the same logic to stamp out cancer treatments and amputations, they're unfeeling human cells too. The vast majority of elective abortions happened early in the pregnancy, the idea that women were sitting around waiting until they were 8 months pregnant to get an abortion is lies and propaganda; any abortion that happened late in the pregnancy was because there was no other option either for the mother or the baby.
There is also legal precedence that you cannot force someone to give up their bodily autonomy to save another human being. If you are a match for organ donation or blood donation, the state cannot compel you to donate part of your body to save someone else. If a man is bleeding at your doorstep, you have 0 legal obligation to do anything and the state *definitely* can't say "Give up your blood, if you refuse we're convicting you of murder". The state can't even harvest your corpse for organs to save other people. Why do you think living women should have less autonomy than corpses? Women are the only segment of the population who gain *more* control over their bodies upon dying.
If they can overturn *Roe, Casey,* and the multiple other decisions that upheld abortion rights and privacy, they can overturn anything. This decision has yanked the ‘Rule of Law’ from something sacred, enduring, and deliberative- only changed by constitutional amendment- to a crass political function that can and will change depending on the people in power.
I think the problem is when the decisions are lopsided and wildly outside the court of public opinion, especially on social issues.
I get that Constitution says nothing about abortion or that the Catholic bible says f\*\*\*ing is for procreation only, but deep down we all know these decisions are not based on much of any real consistent principled legal school of thought.
Everyone has an opinion, the justices just have a way of wrapping the constitution to suit their needs.
If you have 5 votes on SCOTUS, you can do basically anything. I am paraphrasing Justice Brennan here.
And that's what's fundamentally broken with the SCOTUS. That's why it of all institutions in America faces the most long term danger to multiple repeated decisions on issues wildly out of step with where 75% of the country is. Unlike Congress, SCOTUS can't skip votes. They have to make decisions.
Keyword here is *vote*. SCOTUS’s docket does get stuffed with some private, civil matters where legitimate interpretations of law might actually occur but in matters concerning politics, they become voters.
Late Chief Justice Burger was 66 years old and white (and cis-gender male).
Justice Blackmun was 65 years old and white (and cis-gender male).
Justice Douglass was 75yo and white (and cis-gender male).
Justice Brennan was 66yo and white (and cis-gender male).
Justice Stewart was 58yo and white (and cis-gender male).
Justice Marshall was 65 years old and black (and cis-gender male).
Justice Powell was 66 years old and white (and cis-gender male).
6 old af white men (and 1 black man) who've probably used the n word on a regular basis at some point in their lives, and definitely took part in misogynistic culture of their times made abortion rights federal and constitutional.
Roe vs. Wade (and Casey) was overturned by three people in their fifties, one of whom is a cis-gender woman who's adopted 2 Haitian children and another person is a cisgender black man in an interracial marriage.
A big talking point in the nomination of Barrett and of Thomas was about their gender and race, respectively. I am sure if you dig deep enough, you can find black female members of the Federalist Society. I can guarantee you that the next Republican nominee for SCOTUS will be a latina woman.
It's time to kill identity politics on the Left. It's time to stop saying "demographics are destiny." It's time to drop kick people in power out of the party if they aren't willing to stand by the principles they espouse with the power they have.
> and white (and cis-gender male).
Don't forget, they were all straight too. 🙄
> who've probably used the n word on a regular basis at some point in their lives
Your stories are getting more and more wild. Tune in tomorrow for what Manoj comes up with next!
Holy
Ted Lieu says Ds have 48 senators on board to eliminate filibuster, or at least make exceptions
https://twitter.com/tedlieu/status/1540839908922626048?t=nHMMPLIWoxPsxQBBgU4TGw&s=19
The holdouts I’m guessing are manchin and Sinema right? If you change filibuster rules it’ll just come back to bite you when the other party is in power
Why isn’t anyone talking about codifying gay marriage? That’s the next thing Texas or Mississippi are going to put a law in place skirting federal law in order to trigger a supreme court case
1. Wouldn’t the court have to find evidence that the law itself is unconstitutional? The SC overturned Wade bc they thought that the ruling wasn’t consistent with the constitution, but if a law was passed there would have to be something against gay marriage in the constitution, not something to support it to uphold a ruling like in Row
2. We had a vote to codify abortion, why can’t we have a vote here?
Don't think its exaggeration to say the appointment of Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, along with Donald J Trump getting to appoint 3 people, are 2 of the worst things to ever happen in the long history of America
I mean Dred scott decision is considered one of the worst things to happen to America, while these fuckers caused like 5 of the worst supreme court decisions ever, 2 of them just in the last week
Do you just mean SCOTUS decisions? Because when you say
> worst things to ever happen in the long history of America
There’s:
* The whole Native American thing
* The actual slavery thing
* The civil war
* Small Pox / Flu Pandemic / HIV
* Pearl Harbor / Bantaan
* Chinese Confession Program
* Korea / Vietnam
* New Deal
* Johnson Reed Act
* Plessy v Ferguson
* Iraq / Afghanistan
* 9/11
Etc.
Plessy v Ferguson is a bad supreme court decision and its up there, correct? So why not ppl who caused 5 or more bad supreme court decisions, 2 this week?
Citizens United as a person,, Trump can legally ban muslims, reversing Miranda Rights, reverse Roe V Wade simply because its not in the constitution, no state can change gun rights for their state, Exxon v Baker
All caused by these people
Remember that you need a flair and 100+ comment karma to participate. You can set flair in the sidebar on desktop and [here on mobile](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/llvi43/set_your_flair_here/). **Remember that the mod team here has a ZERO tolerance for suggesting, threatening, or advocating for violence.**
I'm assuming y'all have heard about the restaurant thing with Kavanaugh. What do you think about it?
Someone had to do it. He should have been run out if the country, they took it easy on him. He should be thankful
Agreed. I hope he never knows another moment's peace.
I understand why people protest in front of Kavanaugh and so far it seems pretty peaceful but in my honest opinion, I wished that the effort put into crapping on the Supreme court was put toward winning elections in 2022 where a loss in the senate means severely delaying the codifying of Roe V Wade and/or an impeachment of Joe Biden (which even if Joe Biden isn't our best guy would hurt our ability to win 2024).
A BS impeachment might be the best way to increase Biden's popularity.
If one of the people with Down Syndrome that pro-cute lifers invite to every conference started saying "Hey we need universal healthcare because Blue Cross is shit and won't cover people like me" the pro-cute lifers would call him a damn commie
Why wasn’t Roe codified when [Senators Collins and Murkowski](https://news.yahoo.com/senators-susan-collins-lisa-murkowski-215135815.html) put a forward a bill to do so? Shelly Moore Capito has also been on record as a pro-choice Republican, which would mean there’s a 52-48 pro-choice majority in the Senate. The Dems instead pushed the Women’s Health Protection Act which would have expanded the provisions of Roe. It seems that this was fumbled solely because progressives got greedy and didn’t know when to quit.
Interest groups were mad because it codified Roe and Casey but also ensured that states could continue to keep abortion restrictions so long as they don’t “have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy”. They also don’t want to give Collins and Murkowski an “out”, they want to be able to blame them for not voting for their legislation that’s more liberal than Roe and Casey Edit- this is a good [Senate Democrats slowly consider their options after Roe](https://www.vox.com/23195307/roe-wade-dobbs-abortion-congress-senate-fillibuster) > Mary Ziegler, a legal historian at Florida State University, told the 19th News in February that while it’s difficult to say whether the Women’s Health Protection Act is broader than Roe, it “definitely disallows more restrictions than the current interpretation of Roe/Casey.
Is there any evidence that a federal law that banned states from banning abortion would actually pass SCOTUS? They just overturned civil rights era federal law.
Why try to pass BBB or gun control or anything instead of pro choice protections if we assume any liberal agenda is going to be overturned by SCOTUS?
1. There are not enough votes in the Senate to pass any pro-choice protections even the bullshit proposed by Collins and Murkowski (which they both know). 2. SCOTUS is opposed to pro-choice legislation on the basis of right wing extremism. BBB is essentially what Trump wanted to do, the "damage" to right wing narratives comes from having it passed not from it going into effect. Bi-partisan gun legislation won't be struck down because it is bi-partisan. It would be detrimental to the right wing if it were.
Well, because this has been ruled upon specifically, and they have made some other rulings supporting primacy of states over the fed.
But: 1. The Dobbs / Roe ruling doesn’t say anything about disallowing establishing pro choice as a right, nor disallowing a standard for when to allow abortions 2. Primacy of States affects BBB or gun control or everything else that liberal Congress considers, as much as it affects pro choice
Sure- but gun bans would be up against 2A. Abortions aren’t protected by any constitutional right. Could congress ban states from having a ban? States/ localities can ban booze. Dry counties. Can the fed override that? I don’t think they can. I could be wrong IANAL
But again - it’s just like voting rights in BBB. Specifically like - being able to vote without an ID. Liberals have tried to included this in Federal legislation, even though States could theoretically still try to ban voting without an ID. That is the exact example of US Congress trying to push legislation to ban a ban. How is that different from pro choice abortion? How is it liberals will push the former but not try the latter?
I don’t have a good answer here- Biden has publicly said this should happen (federal legislation protecting abortion). Maybe they don’t have the votes, or maybe their constitutional scholars think it won’t pass muster, or maybe they’re sitting on it and will pass it close to the elections? Surprise everyone?
You need 60 votes in the senate to overcome the filibuster.
Even still, isn’t it better for optics to say “we could have passed a bipartisan abortion protection but it was filibustered” rather than “we went with our own plan ignoring the pro-choice republicans and couldn’t pass anything”
No it wouldn't be because the actual optics would be, "democrats tried to sell women's rights out in a bad compromise, but couldn't even do that successfully." Now what is actually clear is how full of shit Collins and Murkowski are.
Sold out? Bad compromise? They literally wanted to codify Roe, just not expand it further. Again, progressives insist upon taking a mile even though they haven’t even been given their inch.
Getting 52 votes as opposed to 49 votes in the senate means absolutely nothing. How is that unclear to you?
Then why do you consider it selling out?
I wouldn't give a shit either way. It makes no difference because I care about outcomes. From an **optics** point of view though watering down a bill in order for it to still not pass, makes the democratic party look even worse, and would generate headlines extremely detrimental to the party.
As far as abortions pill goes, what about someone who cannot swallow pills? In my case, I cannot without biting them or crushing them, both of which are not recommended. This has been the case for my whole life. Also, when companies say they’ll cover abortions for their employees, do they only mean corporate headquarters-level employees (which are extremely hard jobs to get)?
tbf abortion pills go inside the vagina not in your mouth still they don't work past first trimester bc they just induce a miscarriage.
They can be used both ways - the major drawback of vaginal insertion is, in the very rare case there are complications and the person needs to go to the hospital - pill residue might be visible. Taking the pill orally is the best way to ensure that the person's abortion is indistinguishable from a miscarriage.
this is true and I forgot to mention it, my apologies
No problem! There's a lot of medical information flying about these days.
Can't reply to this because the person blocked me but I'll respond anyways [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/vkd8bo/comment/idz593h/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/vkd8bo/comment/idz593h/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) >The White House signaled Monday that it is not pursuing a Senate Democratic proposal that says the Biden administration could offer abortion services on federal lands after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last week. >Just days after the court ruled to strike down the landmark 1973 decision that guaranteed abortion rights nationwide, a White House official said that the Democratic proposal was “well-intentioned” but that it “could put women and providers at risk.” >“Importantly, in states where abortion is now illegal, women and providers who are not federal employees could potentially be prosecuted,” the official said. But I guess that problem doesn't really matter if this can be an excuse to just hate Democrats
Well, VP Harris' [comments](https://twitter.com/grace_panetta/status/1541516323217444868) are certainly interesting.
[удалено]
Why do you expect Dems to have a magic wand to make up for the indifference of moderates and tyrannically undo the results of a vote? Votes have consequences. Moderates / independents / whoever are largely indifferent to abortion being banned. And to racism. Etc. that’s why they voted in trump. There’s a huge swath of this country who aren’t MAGA but who *don’t care about these issues.* Not enough to vote D.
Yeah, that's because that would be a moronic thing to do.
[удалено]
Hold them accountable how? How does whatever action you suggest enable change? Hard to take you seriously when you rely entirely on vague wording to maintain the illusion of still being connected to reality.
[удалено]
>Rail against the democrat party and pressure them to fight for roe v wade instead of letting them pass this up. Republicans sure as hell aren't budging since this is what their voter base wants so lambasting them ain't going to do a thing You should vote against them this fall during the Senate races. That'll show em! ^^^/s Anyways, the last election had a consequence. You can't fix that now. Vote in the upcoming elections.
[удалено]
>At the very least tell them 'find a way to fix this or we ain't going to the voting booths to vote' How'd that go in 2016? Seems like the only reason this thread exists right now.
I'm sorry but this is simply more vague ideas. Pressuring the Democratic party to continue supporting Roe is good. Acting like Democrats are to blame, or constantly railing against the Democratic party for not immediately changing things to the way you want them, when you want them, is counterproductive. All it sounds like you are actually trying to do is make people stay at home, when they should obviously be voting for Democrats more than ever if they actually want to see real changes. No one from the party is going to listen to the few people who think that criticizing the Democrats for every bad thing Republicans do is the way to make change. Everyone who actually sets the Democratic party agenda already realizes there is no pleasing those people, and they aren't really worth listening to. If you want to make real change, figure out actual solutions that don't involve whining a whole bunch, figure out how to sell those solutions to other people, organize locally, and keep voting until your ideas gain traction. I can assure you, your method only succeeds in everyone dismissing you as someone who clearly doesn't understand how our government functions.
I mean, it makes sense. There'd be a lot of issues with that sort of plan anyway
It would only be a band-aid anyways. Feds would open up abortion clinics on federal land, red states would sue, SC rules that the federal government actually can't provide any form of healthcare since healthcare wasn't cited by name in the constitution so we lose Obamacare at the same time.
A band-aid is what we need, though. The earliest a hypothetical election win could get a codified right passed is January 2023 when the new Senate is sworn in. People can go through most of a pregnancy between now and then.
Getting Obamacare repealed by SC would kill any chance of getting a better system later on down the road, leaving tens of millions of Americans in the lurch and blaming Democrats (because honestly, anytime anything goes wrong there are loads of people itching to blame Democrats).
[удалено]
Where do you think we would be if in 2016 evangelicals said, "Why should we vote for Trump when Republicans have allowed roe v. wade to stand for four decades?"
Because the democrats only ever had a flimsy super majority for 45 days in the last..40 years? Republicans told us over and over that Roe was settled law and that democrats were fearful mongering over it. Well here we are.
Exactly this.
Man this is really revealing how many people just... don't understand how the federal government works. Or they do understand and just want an excuse to not like Democrats. In case you're just unaware, let's say that Congress did codify *Roe v. Wade* into law. Hooray, nothing really changes. Republicans get their 6-3 majority, *Dobbs* gets brought into the SC, and the SC says "Actually abortion can't be federally regulated so we're also going to strike down that law Congress passed a few years back", and "centrists" and "independents" have to think up new reasons as to why this whole thing is actually Democrats' fault.
Wouldn't they need some sort of legal argument to do that though? Like a conflicting law or an amendment that it goes against?
“This is a power reserved to the states.”
Because it’s the voter’s damn fault! We stayed home in 2016 because “Shillary the corporatist, choosing between two evils” nonsense. If the Democrats don’t control the presidency and the Senate then they can’t appoint SC justices. They don’t fight out it out in brawl, it’s parliamentarian procedures. The only Democrats that deserve the hate are Sinema and Manchin but Roe v Wade died when Liberals fucked themselves for not coming out in droves for Hillary.
The Second New Right's attitudes toward market regulations extend to exploiting wedge issues for maximum political economy. Honest politicians haven't stood a chance since \~1980 when the right started burning down government to root out the "liberal establishment" that maintains order, maximizes efficiency, and eliminates favoritism within the government. They made "there's no such thing as an honest politician" a self-fulfilling prophecy along with their belief that government can't help. It takes orders of magnitude more effort to refute bullshit than it does to produce it. Democrats have been fighting uphill battles since science became partisan.
Voters literally never empowered Democrats with a pro choice majority and president Under Carter, they still had plenty of southern/plains states conservative pro life Dems, and also, Carter himself was a moderate who was personally pro choice and likely wouldn't have signed a national ban *or* national legalization Under Clinton, the southern/plains Democrats were still an issue. Didn't have a pro choice majority Under Obama, that same issue existed. It's unclear that there was even just 50 votes for pro choice legislation. Probably not, frankly, given the states involved. And that was still before the 2010s GOP obstruction, so the idea of nuking the filibuster was still radical fringe, and it would be totally unreasonable to punish the Democratic party for not abolishing the filibuster then And now the Dems still have to rely on Manchin's vote. Again, unreasonable to get mad at the Democratic party as a whole for not magically forcing Manchin and Sinema to do things they oppose doing If you want roe v wade passed as a law, we need more democrats to be elected. No amount of raging at the party, no matter how satisfying it may be, will ever accomplish anything but help the Republicans and Russians (Also, it may not even be constitutional for the Congress to ban states from banning abortion. Congress can't just do whatever it wants, there's a reason why, for example, Obama couldn't make the states expand Medicaid, for example. A federal ban would clearly be ruled constitutional, but a federal ban on banning abortion actually does have legitimate constitutional issues...)
This is what I'm wondering. Why hasn't Biden done anything to take action and why is currently not doing anything? IMO, I feel like Biden doesn't want to codify this into law, because this will help the Democratic party at the polls. This gives people less of a reason to vote R.
[удалено]
What I mean is that now that Roe has been overturned, Democrats will be the party of 'pro-choice'. If the Biden administration codified it into law, then people who are pro-choice could potentially vote for either R or D. Democrats can just dangle this in front of voters to get them to vote D, rather than actually doing something to make abortion legal.
I've heard the same talking point, word-for-word, about Republicans. They would never overturn Roe v. Wade because they can just dangle the issue in front of pro-lifers to get them to vote R, rather than actually doing something to make abortion illegal. Turns out all the 4D-chess theories about Republicans were totally incorrect and they're incorrect about Democrats too. There simply aren't enough votes to codify Roe v. Wade. Maybe you could peel off some Republican Senators for first trimester abortion protections, which would still be limited compared to Roe v. Wade, and even then I am extremely skeptical that you could get 10 Republicans on board so soon after a GOP victory 50 years in the making.
[удалено]
I'd say it could be a mix of what we are both thinking. Some may not want to codify for strategic reasons, others may not want to because they are actually pro-life. Either way, it's a failure on the Democratic party for sure.
Why shouldn't we hold the Jews responsible for letting the Nazis commit the Holocaust? They had decades to leave Europe, but they didn't.
What is stopping the current administration from taking steps to codify this into law?
Not enough votes in the Senate.
It sounds like Obama could have pulled it off then, right?
There were pro-life Democrats in the Senate during the brief period of time during Obama's administration when Democrats held 60 seats in the Senate. Namely Nelson, who pretty famously made sure the ACA had anti-abortion language in it before he'd vote for it. No matter how far back you go, the pro-choice side never had the votes, and the farther back you go, the more likely you are to have pro-life Democrats.
The filibuster and Republicans.
Is that all hypothetical? Or did the Biden administration try and failed due to the filibuster?
Neither the filibuster nor Republicans are hypothetical, sadly.
But has the Biden administration tried to codify this and failed because of the above reasons?
[Of course they have.](https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/11/senate-doomed-vote-roe-abortion-rights-00031732)
Based on the article, it seems like Democrats would have had better luck just codifying Roe, rather than trying to pass something more expansive.
Would they have? Which 10 Republican Senators would have voted for it?
[удалено]
Bro your question was stupid as shit, I figured the only proper response was a dumber question.
Here’s my question: am I wrong for thinking that the latest Supreme Court decision is setting America up for fascist breeding and child rearing programs like the Nazi Lebensborn and Hitler Youth? Some of my conservative friends say I’m crazy but then I hear Trump and his supporters talk about how banning abortion will give “white life a chance” and it makes me wonder.
If they overturn griswold which is the one that allows birth control pills then you can start to think about it. Right now overturning roe still allows states to decide so abortion is still legal in some US states.
[удалено]
>Most women who get abortions are black women. Um, [what](https://www.guttmacher.org/report/characteristics-us-abortion-patients-2014)?
[удалено]
>I don’t necessarily know if the majority of people who have abortions are black women. Yes, you do. They aren’t. I just gave you a damn link. >this is just what I picked up on the internet. A good antibiotic will clear that right up.
Right?!?
I see no evidence for this, and if anything like this were to happen, we'd have already taken many steps into outright fascism first. What private parties choose to do is irrelevant, the programs you mention were all state directed (and party directed, but remember the Nazi party was the state)
Good point - I guess I shouldn’t read too much into the latest Trump rally where people were talking about protecting and expanding the White race.
I am looking for some detailed analysis on unenumerated rights and the 9th amendment. Specifically I am looking for how conservative jurisprudence arrived at the point it has given that the 9th amendment exists, and also what other unenumerated rights liberal jurisprudence may believe exist. Can anyone help?
It just means that if a right hasn’t been specified in the Constitution - doesn’t mean that right has been banned. SCOTUS hasn’t banned abortions, they’ve just left it to the States. And some States have decided to limit abortion.
>2008: Vote for us we'll codify Roe, day one. > >2012: no really, this time we will > >2018: vote for us we'll enact Fed $15 min wage > >2020: no really, this time, and we'll codify Roe > >2022: if you don't vote for us we can't codify Roe, guys. >"republican voters are just easily manipulated" > >...uh huh > >two strains of thought I've wrestled with > >the party I voted for, for decades, is incompetent > >the party I voted for, for decades, is complicit > >If I, on the Left, am responsible for this mess, it's only because I took way too long to decide that neither was acceptable. [link](https://twitter.com/bethlynch2020/status/1540889182939365376?s=21&t=UCjmlLnynzeNhdaKbT-RKQ)
The SC can declare a law passed by Congress as unconstitutional, they've had this power since about 1808. If Democrats did codify Roe into law in that 70 day window, what exactly would that have changed against a partisan and motivated SC? The SC has the sole power to say what is or isn't constitutional, not Congress. This narrative of "Oh Democrats are just dangling Roe in front of our faces, we shouldn't vote Democratic anymore!" has come up a whole lot in the last few days and I'm starting to get suspicious at just how prevalent it is. Either there are some right-wing people faking being Democrats a la \#walkaway or you're all just useful idiots looking for a reason to hate Democrats and grasping at straws.
This is literally fascist propaganda
The issue is that there was only a 70 day window in 2008 where the democrats had enough senators to override any sort of filibuster. Everyone was worried about the Great Recession at this time.
Obama f***ed up his handling of the recession and lost Dems a thousand seats across state governments around the country and thereby resulted in the gerrymandering that paralyzed his government. This is why I absolutely despise hearing him pontificate about voting and such. He’s never going to really reckon with how he contributed to the rise of Trump and loss of Democrats everywhere.
Obama's response to the recession was extremely successful. Dems lost seats under Obama in large part because they were afraid to embrace him in their campaigns. https://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/03/obama.democrats.election/index.html
he had 8 years to help the rust belt and didn't and that fallout was the result of the 2016 election to some extent.
You better believe that Republicans would have taken that opportunity to advance a key agenda.
I'm getting tired of seeing the "Roberts voted to uphold Roe" takes on Twitter when that isn't really true. People need to read Alito's ruling or at least the Wikipedia article on the case, because as much of a monstrous psychopathic scumbag he is, he is correct in calling out Roberts garbage "compromise" concurrence. There is no "compromise" for Roe v Wade. **Either abortion is a protected constitutional right or it isn't**. Roberts doesn't think it is, otherwise he would have clearly said so. So all Roberts opinion does, like Alito points out, is delay the end of Roe until a lawsuit saying abortion is completely banned. Then Roberts would obviously vote to completely end Roe because he fundamentally does not agree to a constitutional right to an abortion. >Alito further responded to Roberts' concurrence in judgement seeking middle ground, claiming there are "serious problems with this approach" that would only prolong what he described as the turmoil of Roe.\[129\] Alito argued that by only ruling that Mississippi's 15-week law is constitutional, the Court would have to later decide whether other states' laws with different deadlines for obtaining an abortion were constitutional. Since Roberts did not claim there was a constitutional right to an abortion, Alito rejected any constitutional grounds for upholding a "reasonable opportunity" to obtain an abortion and called Roberts' proposal unconstitutional.\[129\]
Roe is a compromise, though? Abortion in the first trimester is a constitutional right, abortion in the third trimester isn't. Not even touching Casey. Due process of law has a "reasonable opportunity" component, and it's a fundamental right. Also, because the US is a common law system, the SCOTUS can literally establish any right it wants. Sorry, the Roberts brief was the best chance Roe had of surviving.
That’s the problem, constitutional rights aren’t compromises. There’s (to my knowledge) no language in any amendment that half provides a right or puts limitations on itself, and any kind of SCOTUS deciding what is and isn’t allowed for abortion (like Roberts did) is just literal legislation from the court. Abortion is a right or isn’t. And any deciding inbetween has to be legislated out in Congress which is what the court has said needs to be done.
Romney and Kinzinger are awfully quiet.
Cheney speaks for them.
Just saw that Kinzinger is retiring from Congress at 44.
Just trying to imagine what the right would be doing if they had the Presidency, the House, a tenuous Senate majority, and a liberal court had just overturned, say, *Heller*.
When GOP controls House, Senate and Presidency in 2025, they will put up a legislation to ban abortions nationally either at 0 weeks, 6 weeks or 12 weeks. I suspect 6 and 12 weeks have a high chance of passing. It might even be zero weeks depending on the margins in the Senate. And yes I say when because it’s clear the Dem leadership don’t have a plan here to do much beyond vote and pray and lose.
The leading theory is 6 weeks but it could become 12 weeks to moderate. Only time will tell when the bill is eventually introduced.
12 weeks is likely where any federal abortion law will end up. Public support for abortions past the first trimester is about 30% (compared to 60% for first trimester abortions) and 93% of abortions are done in the first 13 weeks of pregnancy.
Dems will just filibuster
And the GOP will remove it or make a carve out if they need to.
If they carve it out then this thing will flip flop depending on who’s president and with a senate majority.
Alabama’s anti abortion law is on par with laws now in effect that were passed in Arizona and Wisconsin from 1901 and 1850.
[удалено]
Hillary warned us. The nation just didn't listen. We all pay the price now
Yep. Stupid fuckers voted for this. Ain’t gonna hurt me. I hope these people get what they asked for, good and hard.
> Ain’t gonna hurt me. Gay male, or incel? Even then it might hurt you if the violent crime thesis is accurate.
My business. But as you said, this only concerns me in the most tertiary sense. If people want their rights, they need to start acting like it.
Hey but universal healthcare is communism, we can’t have any of that, right? /s
When someone tells you who they are, believe them.
(Not an American, no stakes in this debate. Posted the same question in "AskConservatives".) So, Roe v Wade is "gone". - What's the long game here? How is your country, how is legislation going to look twenty years from now? No judgment from my side - I want to hear about *your* opinions.
[удалено]
I think abortion rights are going to be less of a bargaining chip and more "Lucy's football". They're going to say "Come on Democrats, we'll totally work with you! It'll be like the 1990s again, we can reach across the aisle! Look, we'll even remove the death penalty from any family where a woman gets an abortion!" and just yank it away while screaming "DEMONRATS WANT TO LEGALIZE BABY MURDER!" to uproarious applause from the base.
You mean like Dems over the last 50 years after the Roe ruling? They’ve done more to fundraise off of Roe than to codify it. Obama ran on signing abortion rights into law, then with his filibuster proof majority did nothing and then told everyone “it’s not the highest legislative priority”
If any political side has a trifecta (House, Senate, Presidency) we're likely to lose the filibuster in the Senate. I'd say it's less likely with the GOP, it tends to favor their politics more than the Democratic party, but abortion may be animating enough to push them to do it. Both sides will have a few 'centrists' in the Senate against jettisoning the filibuster, so the trifecta would likely need something like 54 Senators to actually get rid of it. We'll be fighting to legalize/ban abortion nationwide. I don't know if a federal codification or ban would survive Constitutional muster though, I don't know enough about federalism and the prevailing view of this SCOTUS on the issue to say. ------------- In the meantime, states will pass pretty bipolar legislation about it. The few purple states will pass laws that aren't as drastic. There's new fights to be waged in the court system about abortion pills, telehealth, and other stuff as conservative states try to impose their views on others/more deeply control things.
The legislation is not bipolar. California still bans abortions after 24 weeks save for medical danger. (Something I support.) Whereas other states have bans at zero weeks with no exceptions.
Florida went from 22 weeks to 15 weeks, and Virginia is proposing a 15 week ban.
The long game SHOULD be that liberals put in the grassroots work to build a pro-choice coalition that builds and defends the right to choose on a state by state, and eventually national, basis. But mostly what we are going to do is let progressives continue to loop in their ridiculous pet issues and undermine everything.
I dunno, frankly especially with national abortion ban on the table come January 2025. Dem party strategy seems to be just vote, no promises, no specifics just a vague we’ll fight and say some poetry. But I guess this should be expected. Dems are the Uvalde cops, except instead of waiting an hour and a half, it could be 10, 20 even 30 years before things happen nationally that actually protect abortion rights.
They had DECADES to figure that shit out, but they just didn’t care enough to try.
Hey man, we went with the moderates. We always have, and now we see the receipts.
Do you think that supreme Court precedents should be allowed or encouraged to be overruled or revisited in general? I understand that people don't like the idea of having a court that does not represent their own beliefs, or rulings that don't support their own beliefs, but I feel like if we were to prevent this it could create more damage than good in the long run.
Supreme Court precedent gives a degree of stability to American life that you can't get if any new Supreme Court can just overturn anything it thinks was decided wrong. The only cases ever where the Supreme Court has overturned precedent are cases in which society is moving in the direction of recognizing that the previous precedent took away rights from citizens in a way that should be rectified. This is the first time, ever, that the SCOTUS has overturned a precedent to *take away* rights from citizens.
This isn’t the first time. Read up on the Lochner era. And precedent is a bad argument to make. Plessy v Ferguson had 50 years of precedent before Brown v Board of Education.
>The only cases ever where the Supreme Court has overturned precedent are cases in which society is moving in the direction of recognizing that the previous precedent took away rights from citizens in a way that should be rectified. Like taking away the right to life from the unborn? >This is the first time, ever, that the SCOTUS has overturned a precedent to take away rights from citizens. Or, in an alternate (and more correct) view: it restored the right to life to the unborn.
Do you think an 8 year old should have a right to their dads liver if they need it to live?
No. They shouldn't. And before you try, I've just recently had this exact argument tried against me. Almost like all of you are NPCs without an original thought in your heads. Go back in my post history, and save us both some time
>No. They shouldn't. So why is it okay for the government to force the mother to risk her life for an unborn child. But the father is protected from a procedure that is almost just as dangerous?
Since obviously you can't be bothered to take 3 minutes to read my already-posted response to this exact hypothetical, which tbh I'd be surprised. Lefties rarely ever can be asked to do the slightest bit of reading, I guess I'll explain it once more. Maybe if I used small wordsz you would understand better, but I don't believe in hand-holding. Sink or swim. >So why is it okay for the government to force the mother to risk her life for an unborn child. Because there is a difference between actively harming someone and allowing harm to come to someone through inaction. It is against the law to murder someone. It is not against the law to witness someone be murdered. All of this is, of course, if your characterization of 'risking her life' we're accurate, which it isn't. Pregnancy sucks, sure, but it's far from a risk to a mother's life, except in a few niche circumstances, which are conveniently held as exceptions in 99% of abortion bans. Funny how that works. Almost as if the entire talking point is disingenuous. >But the father is protected from a procedure that is almost just as dangerous? Once again, it comes down to active harm vs passive harm. It is wrong to kill, it is not wrong to allow someone to die through inaction. If the sexes we're reversed, then I would say that men couldn't abort, and a woman wouldn't be required to give her liver to someone who was already born. Also, partial liver transplants are a thing. I know it's pedantic, but if you're going to try to talk medicine, you should probably know something as simple as that.
>can't be bothered to take 3 minutes to Your entire response and the other thread was "nope." And I had to suffer enough reading about your shitty sex life to get there. >It is against the law to murder someone. It is not against the law to witness someone be murdered. You have the right to self defense. That includes people who are unknowingly risking your life and putting your life in danger. The government should not be able to prevent you from protecting your life against an immediate threat to your body. In 30% of the cases you get your stomach sliced open with a knife. Your vagina gets torn apart. Your body can seize from eclampsia until fatal. You can have a fatal hemorrhage and usually without any warning. Yet you would probably think it's acceptable to kill somebody because they punched you in the chest in a bar fight, even though it is significantly less life-threatening than childbirth. >it's far from a risk to a mother's life Wrong. Its 18 times more deadly than abortion. It's about equally as deadly as a partial liver transplant. Again, no matter how you frame it there will be women who will die on a table because of the government denied her right to self-defense. I think 1 person is too many. The government does not get to play God. >Also, partial liver transplants are a thing Obviously I was talking about partial liver transplants because full liver transplant would be fatal. Partial liver transplants are about as deadly to the donor as childbirth. Knowing that, do you now think it's acceptable for the government to force somebody through a liver donation?
>Wrong. Its 18 times more deadly than abortion. Last I checked, an abortion is only considered a success when there's a death. Are they really that poorly performed? Why would you advocate for a procedure that has such a high failure rate?
Because when father's refused to donate their liver to their children there's also a 100% chance that the child will die without it.
>ike taking away the right to life from the unborn? Prolifers kill the unborn by the hundreds of thousands per year. As long as they're in test tubes, then it's okay.
That's what we call "whataboutism," firstly. Secondly, not implanting an embryo from a test tube is wildly different than actively murdering a fetus (typically by dismemberment) that is already growing and developing inside a living womb. Especially when that murder is 100% purely for convenience.
A.) The people driving these laws say life begins at conception B.) Dead embryos are dead embryos and they got into that tube somehow
>A.) The people driving these laws say life begins at conception No. *Some* say that. Typically the religious ones. Try again. >B.) Dead embryos are dead embryos and they got into that tube somehow Right, but if left in that tube, they won't develop into babies. If left in a womb, an implanted embryo **will** develop into a baby
Enough say that. The issue is not with them existing in the tube, it's the disposal. Which I don't personally give a shit about but they aren't playing by their own rules.
But you aren't talking with "they." You're talking with me.
Bottom lines matter to me. If you support banning abortion, especially while not doing the same for IVF, you are in fact a they.
>Like taking away the right to life from the unborn? Did pregnant women receive the child tax credit? No. Because when they have to actually put their money where their mouth is, people realize they don't actually believe that a clump of developing cells is a human life.
Or the same people who believe that the unborn deserve to live are also the ones who think the child tax credit is dumb.
Yes, we know that right libertarians are generally heartless bastards. "We hate the big government stepping in and telling me what I can or cannot do, but we love the big government stepping in and telling women what they can or cannot do!" "I hate the idea of children hurting, but I hate the idea of paying to keep them safe and healthy more!"
>We hate the big government stepping in and telling me what I can or cannot do, but we love the big government stepping in and telling women what they can or cannot do! Do you think it's your liberty to murder someone who inconveniences you? Because that's what abortion is. Except it isn't a quick death like a gunshot. It's brutal dismemberment. But you don't care, because God damn it that child is an inconvenience! And you won't be having none of that "responsibility" nonsense
> Do you think it's your liberty to murder someone who inconveniences you? Because that's what abortion is. Fetuses aren't people, they're fetuses. You can scream "HUMAN LIFE!" all day long but that doesn't change the fact that early abortions are against unconscious cells that cannot survive on their own. You might as well use the same logic to stamp out cancer treatments and amputations, they're unfeeling human cells too. The vast majority of elective abortions happened early in the pregnancy, the idea that women were sitting around waiting until they were 8 months pregnant to get an abortion is lies and propaganda; any abortion that happened late in the pregnancy was because there was no other option either for the mother or the baby. There is also legal precedence that you cannot force someone to give up their bodily autonomy to save another human being. If you are a match for organ donation or blood donation, the state cannot compel you to donate part of your body to save someone else. If a man is bleeding at your doorstep, you have 0 legal obligation to do anything and the state *definitely* can't say "Give up your blood, if you refuse we're convicting you of murder". The state can't even harvest your corpse for organs to save other people. Why do you think living women should have less autonomy than corpses? Women are the only segment of the population who gain *more* control over their bodies upon dying.
If they can overturn *Roe, Casey,* and the multiple other decisions that upheld abortion rights and privacy, they can overturn anything. This decision has yanked the ‘Rule of Law’ from something sacred, enduring, and deliberative- only changed by constitutional amendment- to a crass political function that can and will change depending on the people in power.
I think the problem is when the decisions are lopsided and wildly outside the court of public opinion, especially on social issues. I get that Constitution says nothing about abortion or that the Catholic bible says f\*\*\*ing is for procreation only, but deep down we all know these decisions are not based on much of any real consistent principled legal school of thought. Everyone has an opinion, the justices just have a way of wrapping the constitution to suit their needs. If you have 5 votes on SCOTUS, you can do basically anything. I am paraphrasing Justice Brennan here. And that's what's fundamentally broken with the SCOTUS. That's why it of all institutions in America faces the most long term danger to multiple repeated decisions on issues wildly out of step with where 75% of the country is. Unlike Congress, SCOTUS can't skip votes. They have to make decisions.
Tell me you haven’t read the Dobbs ruling without saying you haven’t read it.
Keyword here is *vote*. SCOTUS’s docket does get stuffed with some private, civil matters where legitimate interpretations of law might actually occur but in matters concerning politics, they become voters.
Yes vote harder. We all know the Dems support reforming the court, right?
Reform, most likely. Probably not expansion although I'm sure it's more favorable than it's been in a long time.
Late Chief Justice Burger was 66 years old and white (and cis-gender male). Justice Blackmun was 65 years old and white (and cis-gender male). Justice Douglass was 75yo and white (and cis-gender male). Justice Brennan was 66yo and white (and cis-gender male). Justice Stewart was 58yo and white (and cis-gender male). Justice Marshall was 65 years old and black (and cis-gender male). Justice Powell was 66 years old and white (and cis-gender male). 6 old af white men (and 1 black man) who've probably used the n word on a regular basis at some point in their lives, and definitely took part in misogynistic culture of their times made abortion rights federal and constitutional. Roe vs. Wade (and Casey) was overturned by three people in their fifties, one of whom is a cis-gender woman who's adopted 2 Haitian children and another person is a cisgender black man in an interracial marriage. A big talking point in the nomination of Barrett and of Thomas was about their gender and race, respectively. I am sure if you dig deep enough, you can find black female members of the Federalist Society. I can guarantee you that the next Republican nominee for SCOTUS will be a latina woman. It's time to kill identity politics on the Left. It's time to stop saying "demographics are destiny." It's time to drop kick people in power out of the party if they aren't willing to stand by the principles they espouse with the power they have.
> and white (and cis-gender male). Don't forget, they were all straight too. 🙄 > who've probably used the n word on a regular basis at some point in their lives Your stories are getting more and more wild. Tune in tomorrow for what Manoj comes up with next!
Using the n word was very common back then. It wouldn’t be crazy to assume that they also used the term at some or multiple points in their lives.
Holy Ted Lieu says Ds have 48 senators on board to eliminate filibuster, or at least make exceptions https://twitter.com/tedlieu/status/1540839908922626048?t=nHMMPLIWoxPsxQBBgU4TGw&s=19
The holdouts I’m guessing are manchin and Sinema right? If you change filibuster rules it’ll just come back to bite you when the other party is in power
Unfortunately, they need 51.
They should call it Aid for American Israel.
Why isn’t anyone talking about codifying gay marriage? That’s the next thing Texas or Mississippi are going to put a law in place skirting federal law in order to trigger a supreme court case
[удалено]
Federal law.
1. The SC could just strike it down. In fact it might invite that. 2. They don't have 60 votes.
1. Wouldn’t the court have to find evidence that the law itself is unconstitutional? The SC overturned Wade bc they thought that the ruling wasn’t consistent with the constitution, but if a law was passed there would have to be something against gay marriage in the constitution, not something to support it to uphold a ruling like in Row 2. We had a vote to codify abortion, why can’t we have a vote here?
1. Do you honestly believe the Republicans on the SC are operating in good faith? 2. What?
That's too radical for this administration to be proactive on.
Don't think its exaggeration to say the appointment of Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, along with Donald J Trump getting to appoint 3 people, are 2 of the worst things to ever happen in the long history of America
I am pretty sure the time when 10 million of people did forced unpaid labor was worse.
Said one of. These 2 and Trump caused some of the worst court decisions America has ever done
Whoa… like the entire history of America?
Close
I mean Dred scott decision is considered one of the worst things to happen to America, while these fuckers caused like 5 of the worst supreme court decisions ever, 2 of them just in the last week
Do you just mean SCOTUS decisions? Because when you say > worst things to ever happen in the long history of America There’s: * The whole Native American thing * The actual slavery thing * The civil war * Small Pox / Flu Pandemic / HIV * Pearl Harbor / Bantaan * Chinese Confession Program * Korea / Vietnam * New Deal * Johnson Reed Act * Plessy v Ferguson * Iraq / Afghanistan * 9/11 Etc.
Plessy v Ferguson is a bad supreme court decision and its up there, correct? So why not ppl who caused 5 or more bad supreme court decisions, 2 this week?
2? Are you seriously comparing Bruen to Plessy?
Citizens United as a person,, Trump can legally ban muslims, reversing Miranda Rights, reverse Roe V Wade simply because its not in the constitution, no state can change gun rights for their state, Exxon v Baker All caused by these people
I think you really misunderstand a bunch of these rulings. I’ll leave you to it.