Elaine Godfrey fucking nails it in her opener in The Atlantic today on how dems should be warning voters about what Trump's base will do next to pressure Trump on outlawing abortion:
"The year 2022 was a triumphant one for the anti-abortion movement. After half a century, the Supreme Court did what had once seemed impossible when it overt…
Elaine Godfrey fucking nails it in her opener in The Atlantic today on how dems should be warning voters about what Trump's base will do next to pressure Trump on outlawing abortion:
"The year 2022 was a triumphant one for the anti-abortion movement. After half a century, the Supreme Court did what had once seemed impossible when it overturned Roe v. Wade, stripping Americans of the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy. Now movement activists are feeling bolder than ever: Their next goal will be ending legal abortion in America once and for all. A federal ban, which would require 60 votes in the Senate, is unlikely. But some activists believe there’s a simpler way: the enforcement by a Trump Justice Department of a 150-year-old obscenity law.
The Comstock Act, originally passed in 1873 to combat vice and debauchery, prohibits the mailing of any “article or thing” that is “designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use.” In the law’s first 100 years, a series of court cases narrowed its scope, and in 1971, Congress removed most of its restrictions on contraception. But the rest of the Comstock Act has remained on the books....If Donald Trump is reelected president, many prominent opponents of abortion rights will demand that his DOJ issue its own memo....that Comstock is a de facto ban on shipping medication that could end a pregnancy, regardless of its intended use (this would apply to the USPS and to private carriers like UPS and FedEx). “The language is black-and-white. It should be enforced,” Steven H. Aden, the general counsel at Americans United for Life, told me."
You are right. However, we need to know the why republicans want to own women's bodies. Because they have not been able to own their brains. Women have demonstrated that they have the brains to be independent, scientists, engineers, politicians, artists, writers, lawyers and have won Nobel prizes. And now there are more women in grad school than men. It does not go with their misogynistic views about women as just reproduction tools and servants to their wishes. So, they go for their bodies. They don't care about fetuses..
I think they feel threatened by the rise of women's economic power and that a lot of it comes from backlash to that. Men typically marry/date across or down in economic class while women tend to date across or up in economic class (comes back to evolutionary psychology and looking for providers). The more women that are out there who are post-college and making good money, the less men without degrees and good incomes feel like they have a shot in the dating pool (this is before we talk about the 85% of men under 6' feeling like they're unappealing via what dating apps have revealed about women's preferences there). The more these men feel insecure about their romantic prospects with women, the more they blame women for it and want to punish women by going after the social policies they care about in politics: abortion access, women's equality (part of DEI), and LGBTQ+ rights/normalization (also part of DEI).
That said, the anti-choice movement was already established prior to Title IX passage and women rising in the work force and at universities. The anti-choice coalition's backbone originally came from the religious groups who opposed abortion, but I think we're in the middle of a generational shift within the anti-choice movement where the religious folks are still there and are probably still a majority, but I think that the folks who are motivated by the backlash to the rise of women's economic power are growing in share size within that cohort. It's also important to note that those two groups (the uber-religious and the backlashers) can be overlapping and are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Just my take on their motivations.
I feel ya. Yet folks where warned back in 2016 and the MAGA have done a even better job at convincing many that Dems are evil crybabies out to steal your jobs, kids, soul, life and bone marrow so who is left to warn really?
At this point the only people who don't know what Trump are either dead, under 2 years old or comatose.
Virtually every industrialized country bans abortion after 15 weeks with exceptions of rape, incest, life of the mother. No reason to believe that the United States will be any different.
Hard disagree. Beyond what Travis mentions below there are big questions around how one interprets the implementation of "life of the mother." In Texas we're seeing stories of women with pregnancies that have zero viability being told to go home and wait until their life is at risk enough to clear the legal standard. Perhaps they exist, but I haven't heard stories out of Europe that boil down to 'go home and bleed more'.
Except that the opponents of abortion here think life starts at conception or a heartbeat. They want the national ban at 6 week--or even less--if they had their way. Every other industrial country doesn't go as far as the American anti-choice movement does in where they think the line should be. Probably because most other advanced countries aren't as religiously fever-pitched as our social conservative movement is. They ain't exactly building Ark Encounter exhibits in the UK or Germany or putting Ken Ham's lawyer in charge of parliament.
Elaine Godfrey fucking nails it in her opener in The Atlantic today on how dems should be warning voters about what Trump's base will do next to pressure Trump on outlawing abortion:
"The year 2022 was a triumphant one for the anti-abortion movement. After half a century, the Supreme Court did what had once seemed impossible when it overturned Roe v. Wade, stripping Americans of the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy. Now movement activists are feeling bolder than ever: Their next goal will be ending legal abortion in America once and for all. A federal ban, which would require 60 votes in the Senate, is unlikely. But some activists believe there’s a simpler way: the enforcement by a Trump Justice Department of a 150-year-old obscenity law.
The Comstock Act, originally passed in 1873 to combat vice and debauchery, prohibits the mailing of any “article or thing” that is “designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use.” In the law’s first 100 years, a series of court cases narrowed its scope, and in 1971, Congress removed most of its restrictions on contraception. But the rest of the Comstock Act has remained on the books....If Donald Trump is reelected president, many prominent opponents of abortion rights will demand that his DOJ issue its own memo....that Comstock is a de facto ban on shipping medication that could end a pregnancy, regardless of its intended use (this would apply to the USPS and to private carriers like UPS and FedEx). “The language is black-and-white. It should be enforced,” Steven H. Aden, the general counsel at Americans United for Life, told me."
You are right. However, we need to know the why republicans want to own women's bodies. Because they have not been able to own their brains. Women have demonstrated that they have the brains to be independent, scientists, engineers, politicians, artists, writers, lawyers and have won Nobel prizes. And now there are more women in grad school than men. It does not go with their misogynistic views about women as just reproduction tools and servants to their wishes. So, they go for their bodies. They don't care about fetuses..
I think they feel threatened by the rise of women's economic power and that a lot of it comes from backlash to that. Men typically marry/date across or down in economic class while women tend to date across or up in economic class (comes back to evolutionary psychology and looking for providers). The more women that are out there who are post-college and making good money, the less men without degrees and good incomes feel like they have a shot in the dating pool (this is before we talk about the 85% of men under 6' feeling like they're unappealing via what dating apps have revealed about women's preferences there). The more these men feel insecure about their romantic prospects with women, the more they blame women for it and want to punish women by going after the social policies they care about in politics: abortion access, women's equality (part of DEI), and LGBTQ+ rights/normalization (also part of DEI).
That said, the anti-choice movement was already established prior to Title IX passage and women rising in the work force and at universities. The anti-choice coalition's backbone originally came from the religious groups who opposed abortion, but I think we're in the middle of a generational shift within the anti-choice movement where the religious folks are still there and are probably still a majority, but I think that the folks who are motivated by the backlash to the rise of women's economic power are growing in share size within that cohort. It's also important to note that those two groups (the uber-religious and the backlashers) can be overlapping and are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Just my take on their motivations.
I feel ya. Yet folks where warned back in 2016 and the MAGA have done a even better job at convincing many that Dems are evil crybabies out to steal your jobs, kids, soul, life and bone marrow so who is left to warn really?
At this point the only people who don't know what Trump are either dead, under 2 years old or comatose.
Virtually every industrialized country bans abortion after 15 weeks with exceptions of rape, incest, life of the mother. No reason to believe that the United States will be any different.
Hard disagree. Beyond what Travis mentions below there are big questions around how one interprets the implementation of "life of the mother." In Texas we're seeing stories of women with pregnancies that have zero viability being told to go home and wait until their life is at risk enough to clear the legal standard. Perhaps they exist, but I haven't heard stories out of Europe that boil down to 'go home and bleed more'.
Except that the opponents of abortion here think life starts at conception or a heartbeat. They want the national ban at 6 week--or even less--if they had their way. Every other industrial country doesn't go as far as the American anti-choice movement does in where they think the line should be. Probably because most other advanced countries aren't as religiously fever-pitched as our social conservative movement is. They ain't exactly building Ark Encounter exhibits in the UK or Germany or putting Ken Ham's lawyer in charge of parliament.