At SCOTUS, whose members outright lie about their intentions during confirmation, giving politicians like Senator Collins the cover they need to vote for someone they either knew, or should have known, would lead to this very moment.
At the Federalist Society who has waged an insidious, long-term, successful campaign to build a…
At SCOTUS, whose members outright lie about their intentions during confirmation, giving politicians like Senator Collins the cover they need to vote for someone they either knew, or should have known, would lead to this very moment.
At the Federalist Society who has waged an insidious, long-term, successful campaign to build a court that will happily enact their agenda.
At the Republican party who has abandoned every democratic principle our nation was founded on. They have cynically gamed the system to gain and keep power, with no regard to the cost it has imposed upon us.
They have succeeded by stoking fear and anger in those they now embrace, and it is long past time for the Democratic party to use this moment to do the same. It is time to instill fear and anger in every voter about the agenda of the radical and extreme GOP, and exactly where they will lead our country if given the reins of power.
1. A federal law banning abortion throughout the entire US.
2. A repeal of the Affordable Care Act, replacing it with something not affordable, and lacking the protections for pre-existing conditions.
3. The end to Social Security and Medicare.
I honestly don't want to hear from anyone about how they couldn't get these things passed without a 60 vote majority in the Senate or a Democratic President who would not sign them into law. It doesn't matter - it's where they want to lead us. Does anyone doubt that McConnell would end the filibuster or other Senate rules if it served his purpose? Does anyone doubt that Manchin or Sinema can be bought?
It's also long past time to stop putting the burden of women's rights on the shoulders of women alone. Men who love their wives, sisters, daughters and granddaughters need to start voting to protect their rights as well. If a woman is forced to give birth, it affects them, their brothers, their sons as well, because courts will still be in favor of exacting 18 years of child support from them.
It is time to mobilize the masses around our anger. It is time for each of us to be willing to stand in line for however many hours it takes to cast our votes. It is time for the younger generation, progressives, and minority voters to stop threatening to stay home because President Biden didn't pass legislation canceling student debt, or enacting universal child-care, or reforming the judicial system with a 5 seat majority in the House and a 50-50 Senate. If they want to threaten to stay home during the midterms, do it. See where that gets you and our country.
You still have the problem that by all accounts at least 40% of conservative and/or Republican women want abortion to be legal. My mother said that if she were ever raped, the first thing she would do is preemptively make sure any possible pregnancy would be terminated before she missed her period.
Your sincere position is I think not representative of that held by at least a major fraction of the political forces exploiting this issue on the Republican side. The last couple of decades' cascade of laws and agitation against abortion is (I think) at most half driven by moral concern for the human life of the fetus (or as perhaps you might prefer, unborn person) and at least half driven by the political benefit of riding the heat and anger of the issue to power. There is at least a powerful core of this group for whom ending abortion is a purely instrumental objective -- merely a horse to ride in order to get and keep power, absolute and permanent power if at all possible. Its effectiveness as a wedge issue leads me to suspect that total victory will not result in the horse being retired to pasture -- I don't see this ending with abortion being "left to the states."
Leaving it to the states is really no different from leaving it alone to the individual woman. (It does have the advantage of leaving abortion as an option for the rich and powerful, and protecting their privilege is of course always one of their goals). This wedge has been far too useful to allow the matter to drop as long as there is the slightest remnant of blood in the turnip. The canny farmer prosecutes the harvest until every last reachable fruit is stripped from the tree. The end of Roe leaves a lot of apples yet to be plucked,
That such efforts will begin the morning after the reversal of Roe seems inevitable. There may even be legal argument that abortion itself is already prohibited by the fourteenth amendment, but at the very least there will be a ginned up campaign for a constitutional amendment, and doubtless also efforts to introduce, and if like dogs unlucky enough to catch the cars they chase, actually enact, Federal legislation to restrict and prohibit abortion everywhere.
It is in the interest of at least part of the pro-life movement to keep the fight alive, because there is much of the larger agenda yet to be implemented.
I fear that the result will not be -- cannot be, given the full purposes of the anti-abortion coalition -- making it easier for us to move forward together. The whole purpose has been to cleave apart everyone in the middle and force them to join one gang or other.
It's unfortunate that those with sincere beliefs get swooped up into the machinations of those just interested in power. The near-term benefits of the deal are too hard to resist, I suppose.
Yes, he has advanced in his political development. At the outset he imagined that politicians must appear to have principles and beliefs about law and policy benefitting the whole citizenry.
In his middle years he thought it was better to keep any principles out of sight, and just display energy in favor of policies that benefitted only his target electorate.
Eventually he came to the full realization that not only was it inadvisable to display principles, it was actually beneficial to show that he had none at all; and further, that hurting people his voters did not like is far more effective than helping any voters, even his own.
70% of Americans do not want Roe overturned. But the GOP has gamed the system to allow themselves to hold minority power over the entire country. 70% agreement on anything today is more than just the middle.
And 90% of Americans have no idea what the holding of Roe is. 70% of the American public doesn't want second term abortion which Roe requires states allow.
It doesn't say that. Which is why you leave the issue to democratic institutions, i.e. state legislatures rather than pretend the Constitution says something it does not.
Fine. Then I DEMAND that a law be passed that ALL males 16 years old be MANDATED to get a vasectomy. Once they can prove to a tribunal that they can support their progeny THEN they can petition it be reversed.
It makes more sense since a female can only get pregnant about once a year but a male can impregnate any female he is intimate with.
Since the male can impregnate any female and a female, once pregnant can't get pregnant again until after the child is born, it stands to reason that the MALE is more dangerous and this law should be passed to stop abortions.
If that is your argument, where does the constitution say that corporations are people and have the right to First Amendment? When isn't that left to the state legislatures?
That conundrum is one of the reasons why the Supreme Court has lost respect, as well as the curious number of 5-4 party-line rulings. A well-argued ruling should be nonpartisan and have more than the nominal majority.
To the Republicans who claim to be pro-life, no one said it better than Sister Joan Chittister back in 2004 in an interview with Bill Moyers:
"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."
When you mention the "sanctity and dignity of the human individual", you ought to be willing to stand up for it post-birth, don't you think?
I submit the argument is -- and from a couple of comments I need to note this is an attempt to honestly try and imagine the perspective of a certain pro-life consistuency that results in being pro life before birth and more or less after that you're on your own-- which I do not share, but have actually heard expressed by people I know who are not, in most respects, monsters --
"Unlike murderers and rapists and other criminals, fetuses haven't done anything deserving of being killed. So I am perfectly justified making it illegal to have them aborted.
"On the other hand, the mothers of the fetuses haven't done anything to make them deserving of my help through their pregnancies. In fact most of them got pregnant due to their own bad decisions, so the government has no right to ask me to help pay the cost of bailing them out. Speaking as a man, nobody bailed me out because I had an unintended pregnancy. So responsibility.
"And after birth, until the babies have done something to deserve my support and maintenance like joining the army or police to protect me and my family, I see no reason I should be taxed to pay for their food, shelter, clothing, or education any more than we already do. Because freedom."
----------------
In fairness -- this is also wrapped up in a sincere moral problem because if fetuses are humans with human rights, it is not hypocrisy to try by law to protect those rights.
Since you will never be pregnant or give birth, you should not be allowed to force someone to go through those processes. I don't care if you think the fetus is a person or not. I agree that the woman who got pregnant was stupid, and I absolutely believe in birth control. But I've had two children and I believe it would be heinous to force someone to go through that against her will.
Apparently I was more successful imagining and attempting to summarize the mindset of a certain kind of "pro-life" male than I thought. Not my sentiments by any means. But I do think this is how some people justify what to me is an obviously morally contradictory congerie of opinions. I should have put quotes around it...
Basic human rights (and the Declaration of Independence) - that the fact that you are BORN means you are deserving of support and maintenance. Yo, ding dong, babies are HELPLESS and can't do a one damn thing for themselves. Sometimes the parents are NOT able to give them the care they need through NO FAULT of their own or because of their decisions. That is a causality fallacy.
Ignorant and arrogant. Also, ever heard of dead beat dads. There are many men who abdicate ANY responsibility WHATSOEVER and it happens to MILLIONS of women. But you still BLAME the woman. What a load of SHIT
Have you listened to yourself? "And after birth, until the babies have done something to deserve my support and maintenance like joining the army or police to protect me and my family, I see no reason I should be taxed to pay for their food, shelter, clothing, or education any more than we already do." How many babies do you know in the army or police?
This was my slightly tendentious take on the perspective of what I think is probably the vast majority of those who think of themselves as pro-life but don't want to think of themselves as inconsistent, sincerely have no inkling that there could be an element of unconscious hypocrisy involved, and (like all of us) want to believe everything they enjoy is due to their own merit and effort, but they are surrounded by undeserving people trying to live the high life at others' expense.
I think we see this in the pro-death penalty facet of this social opposition. "Pro life" and "pro death penalty" are perfectly compatible if cast in the context of personal responsibility. Execution is justified because criminals have chosen to commit crimes. Abortion is unjustified because babies have not chosen to be aborted. Welfare and public assistance is only minimally justifiable because the beneficiaries haven't worked hard to deserve it. Children caught in the middle are tougher -- my hypothetical pro-lifer has to squirm a little here, but fudges it by saying parents have responsibilities, and if a person has a child, it's that person's duty to care for it, not everyone else's.
This is certainly not my perspective. It's interesting that what I wrote as an obvious posited expression of a different viewpoint could be taken as being plausibly sincere. This implies perhaps that I'm on target, more so than I wish were the case.
I did think that writing "speaking as a man, nobody ever bailed me out because I had an unintended pregnancy" was over the top in this regard!
It is famously said, never criticize another until you have tried walking a mile with his foot in your mouth. Or something like that.
I hear you, but if "It's why I can't be a Democrat again- at least as long as it remains a partisan issue.", then there is zero chance that what Sister Chittister advocates, and what you agree with, will ever happen under a GOP majority.
I would suggest that using the word "hysterical" in response to women being concerned about a decision that would open the door to criminalization of abortion even at the point of conception is itself "hysterical" in phrasing how women should be reacting in the moment. If you don't want hyperbole, then refrain from it yourself. Thanks.
Actually Dred Scott was never technically reversed. It was simply made moot by the 13th and 14th Amendments.
Abraham Lincoln said that a house divided against itself cannot stand. A country cannot permanently remain half slave or half free. It will become all one thing or the other.
Now, conservatives and even some liberals often deride any comparison between today and the pre-Civil War period. But tell me, after the violence at the capitol, the increasing vitriol between politicians and between voters, the refusal to find common ground, and the increasing extremism of the right in this country, how can anyone ignore the similarities? We can no longer pretend and must face reality, a national split is becoming a real possibility. Before anyone claims that I am being hyperbolic, consider this:
- In 1846, men like Jefferson Davis, Robert E Lee, US Grant, Stonewall Jackson all fought together in the Mexican American War.
- in 1848, a general from that war was elected POTUS
- In 1852, Jeff Davis, and many other future confederate leaders served in Pierce Administration.
- In 1860, Jeff Davis and Alexander Stephens opposed secession for their respective states, as did Robert E Lee.
- in 1861, we were in active conflict at Bull Run.
Don’t be fooled by the idea that because we are all currently watching football together or working together that somehow it cannot all flip on a dime.
This is what Mitch did say about social security when he was interviewed on camera many years ago: "there are fifty million piglets sucking on the teats of government". He then proclaimed "this problem" needed to be addressed. It's not unbelievable to think he would want it eliminated. I don't think that would happen because recipients would revolt but he has spent years criticizing it.
You okay with Forbes magazine, or is that "fake news"?
"Donald Trump won’t say it, but Republicans in the Senate will: Social Security and Medicare would be on the chopping block in a second Trump term. Pointing to rising deficits, Republican senators have all but promised to gut entitlements if Trump gets four more years.
Sen. John Thune (R-SD), the second-ranking Senate Republican, expressed hope to the New York Times that Trump would be “interested” in reforming Social Security and Medicare. Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) was even more optimistic. “We’ve brought it up with President Trump, who has talked about it being a second-term project,” Barrasso said. Senate Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has made no secret of wanting to cut Social Security. "
You claimed in your comment that McConnell said he wanted to get rid of social security. Then you post a couple paragraphs from an article which doesn't say that at all.
The only reason I have to agree with you about Republicans not taking care of Social Security is -- to do it properly, is governance -- public policy to solve problems (and hopefully also benefit your constituency) --and the party has entirely abandoned governance as even something they have any interest in. And a huge core of their base is the very proletariat that Mitt called "takers" who pay no income tax. The only platform all Republicans publicly acknowledge is whatever Trump (or whichever trick-or-treat Charlie follows or deposes him) says on any given day. That, and squeezing non-base voters out of the electorate.
Yes, I mean by "governance" what one does in a polity to make and execute laws for the benefit of the commonwealth. As opposed to "rule", which is what prevails in a one-party state. And yes, as soon as Trump returns to office, the R's will abolish the filibuster, and "repeal and replace" such things as the voting rights act. Although that will be superfluous, since the voting rights act requires a functional Justice Department, and the Justice Department will be nothing more than a mob of servile consulari serving the gangster in chief and his fellow mobsters.
Oh Charlie - say it isn't so! In their zeal to please the religious right, is it so far-fetched to believe they would try to ban birth control? Do you remember the moment when you finally accepted they were willing to support an attempted coup in their lust for power?
"is it so far-fetched to believe they would try to ban birth control?" Yes, it is extremely far-fetched. Abortion and birth control aren't remotely comparable.
Where do you get your information? We are talking about the RIGHT to something, and the hard-right zealots are to the point that birth control is the next logical step. Look at Holy Lobby, I mean, Hobby Lobby - if an employee is lucky enough to get health benefits, the company's responsibility to include birth control is specifically exempted. That's right, even an unfertilized egg is not allowed "protection" from marauding sperm - that would be tantamount to the same evil as abortion itself.
Do you know what can prevent abortion?
Birth Control. Logic has nothing to do with these people.
Do you know what helps prevent abortion?
The promise of a safety net to make sure that after this "oh-so-precious life
has been saved", the child does not spiral into poverty, poor health, or a
bleak life - nor does the mother, who may have had no options.
And yet, I know a bunch of Conservative Republicans (Catholic) that went out and put their Daughters on Birth Control the minute they were Seniors in HS or went College. I don't think everyone feels that Birth Control is verbotten. Maybe the Hard Right Evangelicals.
Now now. As a man that used to hope Charlie stepped on a rake that promptly flattened his face. I think he is one of the most centered people in opinion journalism and in fairness has just explained the chasm it will open. He doesn't need to weigh in on his position on abortion to highlight the unneeded rift it causes. While I am emphatically against changing the law. The leeking to place undue influence on the court is horrible. Its exactly the means justify the ends, at all costs, people point at Trumpists for doing. I would like to hear Charlie's take on the leak just like he gave his take on the culture war it will cause.
"Its exactly the means justify the ends, at all costs, people point at Trumpists for doing." - yep. I remember lamenting years ago that elements on the left will be happy to join the right in a race to the bottom. Buckle up.
Why's that? I'm just an angry senior woman who has lived my entire adult life with a right that has now been taken away from all women. So much for precedent!
It seems unlikely that anyone here will think you extremist, MoosesMom. Some people will disagree with you. That's different from thinking you an extremist.
Bravo to everything you wrote. Also, over turning Roe won't end abortion. Wealthy women will still find a way for a safe abortion. Poor women will return to back rooms. It's cruel and punitive.
And yet for many reasons, a woman will get one. I know one young woman who had an abortion because the fetus was deformed and would only live a few hours after birth. I know another woman who had an abortion in her twenties because she was raped by an abusive boyfriend and became pregnant from the assault. And when I was in high school a classmate bled out on the toilet after sticking a coat hanger into her uterus to abort an unwanted pregnancy. Some states are not giving exceptions for rape or incest. If they were really pro-life they would make birth control less expensive for women. They would assist financially with prenatal care and hospitalization. Instead Medicaid is being cut. The same people screaming my body my choice over vaccines want to tell a woman what she should do with her body. There will always be abortion. The law just gave access to safe medical care.
I believe that no state has the right to assert control over anyone's body. I believe that our sex and reproductive lives are not the business of the state. I believe in a personal right to privacy.
I wonder if Alito thinks the legitimacy of Thomas' marriage is determined by which state he lives in?
I agree that the state has no right to exert control over anyone's body. I also think it is possible to be pro-choice and anti-abortion at the same time. Your last question about Thomas is a good question. Miscegenation was illegal not that long ago. I remember an old guy telling me that blacks and whites could not marry because the Bible says, "Light cannot have fellowship with darkness." On the other hand, for those who believe abortion is murder, Thomas' marriage is irrelevant because no one died.
Appeals to the Bible fail on two grounds 1) Separation of church and state. Legislation cannot promote religious beliefs. If abortion is to be a crime, it must be based on a rationale that [people can accept outside of religion. For example, theft is illegal in every country, even those without the Bible. 2) The only two Biblical passages that touch on abortion both treat it as a property crime against the father. Even pro-lifers do not accept the idea that a fetus is the property of the father.
"The reversal of ROE wouldn't take the right to an abortion away from anyone." - oh, come now, don't play dumb. You and everyone else is well aware of the GOP goals here.
If you fancy yourself a traditional conservative, aren't you the least bit concerned about the fate of other unenumerated rights? Or are you confident that only the "bad" unenumerated rights will disappear and the ones you happen to like at the moment will stick around?
You're right. It should be understood as a right to privacy and a right to freedom over your own body. But for some reason other peoples' pregnancy is something a lot if people feel they have a right to control.
Your definition of what is a human being is not necessarily another's definition. And you don't have the right to govern someone else's body based on your personal beliefs.
Too bad. If I don't want to be pregnant for 9 months, go through the pain of birth, that's my business. Not yours. If you want to save that human you can have it removed from the woman, implant into your wife or daughter who will give birth. You can pay the expense of that as well. Otherwise, mind your own business. And just to be clear. I never had an abortion or miscarriage and did have 2 babies. I loved expecting and giving birth because it was my choice. I wouldn't wish the pain, expense and discomfort on someone unwilling to bear it.
It could be argued that anyone (including men) who is not prepared to take on the responsibility for the care and nurture of another human being should abstain from the activity that potentially produces human beings. But human nature being what it is, the only viable public policy is to make abortion safe, legal and rare. It is very naive of those opposed to abortion to think outlawing it will put an an to it. Did we learn nothing from Prohibition and the War on Drugs?
You are being disingenious and kind of ignoring the larger picture--which is exactly the response the people who want to take rights away are hoping for...
And as pointed out elsewhere, the basis for abortion and privacy rights exists in the 9th Amendment. The error in Roe V Wade was in not basing it in the 9th.
Lots of rights have been created over time (like corporate personhood rights) or have been changed (like 2nd amendment rights). The reality, if you want to be all constitutional about it is that the government ONLY has the powers enumerated to it with the other rights reserved either to the states or the people. In the case of something like having to give birth to a child and raise it, perhaps that right and decision should be left to the person most affected by it? Meaning NOT the government.
Heh, speaking of non-sequiturs, I see you are desperately trying to avoid the important points here. Pretending that ROE exists in a vacuum is just that: playing pretend. Overturning it is a step in a process. Nothing paranoid about it: it's been broadcast from Conservative Inc for decades. Where have you been?
Ignoring Alito's words is also playing pretend. It's not hard to see how his thinking applies to lots of unenumerated rights. I get that you don't see privacy covering abortion. Swell. Maybe you don't feel privacy should exist as an unenumerated right at all. But *you* aren't necessarily the problem here. It's what others on the authoritarian right don't find as "believable arguments" that should concern you.
I'm trying to be sympathetic to your perspective, but it seems you are operating in a context-free idealized world.
You don't think it's an "emotional argument" to try to equate slavery to a woman's right to choose regarding her own body and health? As to returning it to the States, do a little reading. The first item on their agenda if they retake power is to pass a federal law banning abortion throughout the entire US. The leaked SCOTUS opinion spells that out for them.
These sorts of personal attacks are unbecoming. It is bad enough that other comment sections are full of them. Let's not pollute the Bulwark's comment section.
Hmm, are you dishonest or just confused? This thread isn't about your posts. Or, at least wasn't initially. You decided to butt in and defend someone else's rude behavior with a ridiculous whataboutism. BTW, said rude behavior most certainly does include calling others morons.
I am ANGRY.
At SCOTUS, whose members outright lie about their intentions during confirmation, giving politicians like Senator Collins the cover they need to vote for someone they either knew, or should have known, would lead to this very moment.
At the Federalist Society who has waged an insidious, long-term, successful campaign to build a court that will happily enact their agenda.
At the Republican party who has abandoned every democratic principle our nation was founded on. They have cynically gamed the system to gain and keep power, with no regard to the cost it has imposed upon us.
They have succeeded by stoking fear and anger in those they now embrace, and it is long past time for the Democratic party to use this moment to do the same. It is time to instill fear and anger in every voter about the agenda of the radical and extreme GOP, and exactly where they will lead our country if given the reins of power.
1. A federal law banning abortion throughout the entire US.
2. A repeal of the Affordable Care Act, replacing it with something not affordable, and lacking the protections for pre-existing conditions.
3. The end to Social Security and Medicare.
I honestly don't want to hear from anyone about how they couldn't get these things passed without a 60 vote majority in the Senate or a Democratic President who would not sign them into law. It doesn't matter - it's where they want to lead us. Does anyone doubt that McConnell would end the filibuster or other Senate rules if it served his purpose? Does anyone doubt that Manchin or Sinema can be bought?
It's also long past time to stop putting the burden of women's rights on the shoulders of women alone. Men who love their wives, sisters, daughters and granddaughters need to start voting to protect their rights as well. If a woman is forced to give birth, it affects them, their brothers, their sons as well, because courts will still be in favor of exacting 18 years of child support from them.
It is time to mobilize the masses around our anger. It is time for each of us to be willing to stand in line for however many hours it takes to cast our votes. It is time for the younger generation, progressives, and minority voters to stop threatening to stay home because President Biden didn't pass legislation canceling student debt, or enacting universal child-care, or reforming the judicial system with a 5 seat majority in the House and a 50-50 Senate. If they want to threaten to stay home during the midterms, do it. See where that gets you and our country.
Amen, sister. Sign me up for a March on Washington.
Let's name names : Leonard Leo. He his not American, he's a reactionary Catholic extremist, and those Trump judges are his picks.
I'm already phone banking for you sister.
I'd give you as many likes as I can, if they would let me!
I’m with you.
I will be your ally.
You still have the problem that by all accounts at least 40% of conservative and/or Republican women want abortion to be legal. My mother said that if she were ever raped, the first thing she would do is preemptively make sure any possible pregnancy would be terminated before she missed her period.
Your sincere position is I think not representative of that held by at least a major fraction of the political forces exploiting this issue on the Republican side. The last couple of decades' cascade of laws and agitation against abortion is (I think) at most half driven by moral concern for the human life of the fetus (or as perhaps you might prefer, unborn person) and at least half driven by the political benefit of riding the heat and anger of the issue to power. There is at least a powerful core of this group for whom ending abortion is a purely instrumental objective -- merely a horse to ride in order to get and keep power, absolute and permanent power if at all possible. Its effectiveness as a wedge issue leads me to suspect that total victory will not result in the horse being retired to pasture -- I don't see this ending with abortion being "left to the states."
Leaving it to the states is really no different from leaving it alone to the individual woman. (It does have the advantage of leaving abortion as an option for the rich and powerful, and protecting their privilege is of course always one of their goals). This wedge has been far too useful to allow the matter to drop as long as there is the slightest remnant of blood in the turnip. The canny farmer prosecutes the harvest until every last reachable fruit is stripped from the tree. The end of Roe leaves a lot of apples yet to be plucked,
That such efforts will begin the morning after the reversal of Roe seems inevitable. There may even be legal argument that abortion itself is already prohibited by the fourteenth amendment, but at the very least there will be a ginned up campaign for a constitutional amendment, and doubtless also efforts to introduce, and if like dogs unlucky enough to catch the cars they chase, actually enact, Federal legislation to restrict and prohibit abortion everywhere.
It is in the interest of at least part of the pro-life movement to keep the fight alive, because there is much of the larger agenda yet to be implemented.
I fear that the result will not be -- cannot be, given the full purposes of the anti-abortion coalition -- making it easier for us to move forward together. The whole purpose has been to cleave apart everyone in the middle and force them to join one gang or other.
It's unfortunate that those with sincere beliefs get swooped up into the machinations of those just interested in power. The near-term benefits of the deal are too hard to resist, I suppose.
Fun fact: McConnell used to be pro choice.
Yes, he has advanced in his political development. At the outset he imagined that politicians must appear to have principles and beliefs about law and policy benefitting the whole citizenry.
In his middle years he thought it was better to keep any principles out of sight, and just display energy in favor of policies that benefitted only his target electorate.
Eventually he came to the full realization that not only was it inadvisable to display principles, it was actually beneficial to show that he had none at all; and further, that hurting people his voters did not like is far more effective than helping any voters, even his own.
I'm guessing you've already read Alec MacGillis's book. Looking forward to the upcoming Ira Shapiro one.
70% of Americans do not want Roe overturned. But the GOP has gamed the system to allow themselves to hold minority power over the entire country. 70% agreement on anything today is more than just the middle.
And 90% of Americans have no idea what the holding of Roe is. 70% of the American public doesn't want second term abortion which Roe requires states allow.
Where's the constitution say that the rights of the unborn supersede & nullify the rights of living citizens? Let's hear that originalist explanation.
It doesn't say that. Which is why you leave the issue to democratic institutions, i.e. state legislatures rather than pretend the Constitution says something it does not.
Fine. Then I DEMAND that a law be passed that ALL males 16 years old be MANDATED to get a vasectomy. Once they can prove to a tribunal that they can support their progeny THEN they can petition it be reversed.
It makes more sense since a female can only get pregnant about once a year but a male can impregnate any female he is intimate with.
Since the male can impregnate any female and a female, once pregnant can't get pregnant again until after the child is born, it stands to reason that the MALE is more dangerous and this law should be passed to stop abortions.
If that is your argument, where does the constitution say that corporations are people and have the right to First Amendment? When isn't that left to the state legislatures?
That conundrum is one of the reasons why the Supreme Court has lost respect, as well as the curious number of 5-4 party-line rulings. A well-argued ruling should be nonpartisan and have more than the nominal majority.
Let me repeat this for you then:
To the Republicans who claim to be pro-life, no one said it better than Sister Joan Chittister back in 2004 in an interview with Bill Moyers:
"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."
When you mention the "sanctity and dignity of the human individual", you ought to be willing to stand up for it post-birth, don't you think?
I submit the argument is -- and from a couple of comments I need to note this is an attempt to honestly try and imagine the perspective of a certain pro-life consistuency that results in being pro life before birth and more or less after that you're on your own-- which I do not share, but have actually heard expressed by people I know who are not, in most respects, monsters --
"Unlike murderers and rapists and other criminals, fetuses haven't done anything deserving of being killed. So I am perfectly justified making it illegal to have them aborted.
"On the other hand, the mothers of the fetuses haven't done anything to make them deserving of my help through their pregnancies. In fact most of them got pregnant due to their own bad decisions, so the government has no right to ask me to help pay the cost of bailing them out. Speaking as a man, nobody bailed me out because I had an unintended pregnancy. So responsibility.
"And after birth, until the babies have done something to deserve my support and maintenance like joining the army or police to protect me and my family, I see no reason I should be taxed to pay for their food, shelter, clothing, or education any more than we already do. Because freedom."
----------------
In fairness -- this is also wrapped up in a sincere moral problem because if fetuses are humans with human rights, it is not hypocrisy to try by law to protect those rights.
Since you will never be pregnant or give birth, you should not be allowed to force someone to go through those processes. I don't care if you think the fetus is a person or not. I agree that the woman who got pregnant was stupid, and I absolutely believe in birth control. But I've had two children and I believe it would be heinous to force someone to go through that against her will.
Apparently I was more successful imagining and attempting to summarize the mindset of a certain kind of "pro-life" male than I thought. Not my sentiments by any means. But I do think this is how some people justify what to me is an obviously morally contradictory congerie of opinions. I should have put quotes around it...
Basic human rights (and the Declaration of Independence) - that the fact that you are BORN means you are deserving of support and maintenance. Yo, ding dong, babies are HELPLESS and can't do a one damn thing for themselves. Sometimes the parents are NOT able to give them the care they need through NO FAULT of their own or because of their decisions. That is a causality fallacy.
Ignorant and arrogant. Also, ever heard of dead beat dads. There are many men who abdicate ANY responsibility WHATSOEVER and it happens to MILLIONS of women. But you still BLAME the woman. What a load of SHIT
Have you listened to yourself? "And after birth, until the babies have done something to deserve my support and maintenance like joining the army or police to protect me and my family, I see no reason I should be taxed to pay for their food, shelter, clothing, or education any more than we already do." How many babies do you know in the army or police?
This was my slightly tendentious take on the perspective of what I think is probably the vast majority of those who think of themselves as pro-life but don't want to think of themselves as inconsistent, sincerely have no inkling that there could be an element of unconscious hypocrisy involved, and (like all of us) want to believe everything they enjoy is due to their own merit and effort, but they are surrounded by undeserving people trying to live the high life at others' expense.
I think we see this in the pro-death penalty facet of this social opposition. "Pro life" and "pro death penalty" are perfectly compatible if cast in the context of personal responsibility. Execution is justified because criminals have chosen to commit crimes. Abortion is unjustified because babies have not chosen to be aborted. Welfare and public assistance is only minimally justifiable because the beneficiaries haven't worked hard to deserve it. Children caught in the middle are tougher -- my hypothetical pro-lifer has to squirm a little here, but fudges it by saying parents have responsibilities, and if a person has a child, it's that person's duty to care for it, not everyone else's.
This is certainly not my perspective. It's interesting that what I wrote as an obvious posited expression of a different viewpoint could be taken as being plausibly sincere. This implies perhaps that I'm on target, more so than I wish were the case.
I did think that writing "speaking as a man, nobody ever bailed me out because I had an unintended pregnancy" was over the top in this regard!
It is famously said, never criticize another until you have tried walking a mile with his foot in your mouth. Or something like that.
OK! I tried to hit like but it wouldn't let me!
I hear you, but if "It's why I can't be a Democrat again- at least as long as it remains a partisan issue.", then there is zero chance that what Sister Chittister advocates, and what you agree with, will ever happen under a GOP majority.
I would suggest that using the word "hysterical" in response to women being concerned about a decision that would open the door to criminalization of abortion even at the point of conception is itself "hysterical" in phrasing how women should be reacting in the moment. If you don't want hyperbole, then refrain from it yourself. Thanks.
Robert is 100% correct.
Actually Dred Scott was never technically reversed. It was simply made moot by the 13th and 14th Amendments.
Abraham Lincoln said that a house divided against itself cannot stand. A country cannot permanently remain half slave or half free. It will become all one thing or the other.
Now, conservatives and even some liberals often deride any comparison between today and the pre-Civil War period. But tell me, after the violence at the capitol, the increasing vitriol between politicians and between voters, the refusal to find common ground, and the increasing extremism of the right in this country, how can anyone ignore the similarities? We can no longer pretend and must face reality, a national split is becoming a real possibility. Before anyone claims that I am being hyperbolic, consider this:
- In 1846, men like Jefferson Davis, Robert E Lee, US Grant, Stonewall Jackson all fought together in the Mexican American War.
- in 1848, a general from that war was elected POTUS
- In 1852, Jeff Davis, and many other future confederate leaders served in Pierce Administration.
- In 1860, Jeff Davis and Alexander Stephens opposed secession for their respective states, as did Robert E Lee.
- in 1861, we were in active conflict at Bull Run.
Don’t be fooled by the idea that because we are all currently watching football together or working together that somehow it cannot all flip on a dime.
It has happened before and can happen again.
Comparing Dred Scott to Roe v Wade, is false equivalence and intellectually lazy. Alito sounds more like an op-ed than actual legal reasoning.
As opposed to Roe? Roe had no legal reasoning whatsoever. It was strictly a policy decision that had no basis in the constitution or law.
Those claims were made by Mitch McConnell himself. It's one of his goals - to end Social Security and Medicare. Google it.
This is what Mitch did say about social security when he was interviewed on camera many years ago: "there are fifty million piglets sucking on the teats of government". He then proclaimed "this problem" needed to be addressed. It's not unbelievable to think he would want it eliminated. I don't think that would happen because recipients would revolt but he has spent years criticizing it.
You okay with Forbes magazine, or is that "fake news"?
"Donald Trump won’t say it, but Republicans in the Senate will: Social Security and Medicare would be on the chopping block in a second Trump term. Pointing to rising deficits, Republican senators have all but promised to gut entitlements if Trump gets four more years.
Sen. John Thune (R-SD), the second-ranking Senate Republican, expressed hope to the New York Times that Trump would be “interested” in reforming Social Security and Medicare. Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) was even more optimistic. “We’ve brought it up with President Trump, who has talked about it being a second-term project,” Barrasso said. Senate Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has made no secret of wanting to cut Social Security. "
You claimed in your comment that McConnell said he wanted to get rid of social security. Then you post a couple paragraphs from an article which doesn't say that at all.
Agree
Who cares what Senator Scott thinks? He doesn't hold a leadership position in the Senate.
The only reason I have to agree with you about Republicans not taking care of Social Security is -- to do it properly, is governance -- public policy to solve problems (and hopefully also benefit your constituency) --and the party has entirely abandoned governance as even something they have any interest in. And a huge core of their base is the very proletariat that Mitt called "takers" who pay no income tax. The only platform all Republicans publicly acknowledge is whatever Trump (or whichever trick-or-treat Charlie follows or deposes him) says on any given day. That, and squeezing non-base voters out of the electorate.
Yes, I mean by "governance" what one does in a polity to make and execute laws for the benefit of the commonwealth. As opposed to "rule", which is what prevails in a one-party state. And yes, as soon as Trump returns to office, the R's will abolish the filibuster, and "repeal and replace" such things as the voting rights act. Although that will be superfluous, since the voting rights act requires a functional Justice Department, and the Justice Department will be nothing more than a mob of servile consulari serving the gangster in chief and his fellow mobsters.
Oh Charlie - say it isn't so! In their zeal to please the religious right, is it so far-fetched to believe they would try to ban birth control? Do you remember the moment when you finally accepted they were willing to support an attempted coup in their lust for power?
"is it so far-fetched to believe they would try to ban birth control?" Yes, it is extremely far-fetched. Abortion and birth control aren't remotely comparable.
Where do you get your information? We are talking about the RIGHT to something, and the hard-right zealots are to the point that birth control is the next logical step. Look at Holy Lobby, I mean, Hobby Lobby - if an employee is lucky enough to get health benefits, the company's responsibility to include birth control is specifically exempted. That's right, even an unfertilized egg is not allowed "protection" from marauding sperm - that would be tantamount to the same evil as abortion itself.
Do you know what can prevent abortion?
Birth Control. Logic has nothing to do with these people.
Do you know what helps prevent abortion?
The promise of a safety net to make sure that after this "oh-so-precious life
has been saved", the child does not spiral into poverty, poor health, or a
bleak life - nor does the mother, who may have had no options.
Do you know what else prevents abortion?
Vasectomies - check it out and tell your friends.
Hobby Lobby illustrates why health insurance should attached to the insured and be fully portable, not attach to the employer.
Vasectomies are a simple, fully reversible procedure for male birth control.
Voluntary abstinence also 100% prevents abortion, but not a viable public policy because of human nature. See the failure of Abstinence Only programs.
And yet, I know a bunch of Conservative Republicans (Catholic) that went out and put their Daughters on Birth Control the minute they were Seniors in HS or went College. I don't think everyone feels that Birth Control is verbotten. Maybe the Hard Right Evangelicals.
You only need enough in the right places, which they are currently working hard to achieve.
Exactly. I expect Charlie, et al, to hide behind the leak as the most important part of this.
Did you bother to even read today’s newsletter? Not hiding behind anything…
Now now. As a man that used to hope Charlie stepped on a rake that promptly flattened his face. I think he is one of the most centered people in opinion journalism and in fairness has just explained the chasm it will open. He doesn't need to weigh in on his position on abortion to highlight the unneeded rift it causes. While I am emphatically against changing the law. The leeking to place undue influence on the court is horrible. Its exactly the means justify the ends, at all costs, people point at Trumpists for doing. I would like to hear Charlie's take on the leak just like he gave his take on the culture war it will cause.
"Its exactly the means justify the ends, at all costs, people point at Trumpists for doing." - yep. I remember lamenting years ago that elements on the left will be happy to join the right in a race to the bottom. Buckle up.
Bull. I was using it as an example of how the issue can be effectively deployed…
Why's that? I'm just an angry senior woman who has lived my entire adult life with a right that has now been taken away from all women. So much for precedent!
It seems unlikely that anyone here will think you extremist, MoosesMom. Some people will disagree with you. That's different from thinking you an extremist.
Bravo to everything you wrote. Also, over turning Roe won't end abortion. Wealthy women will still find a way for a safe abortion. Poor women will return to back rooms. It's cruel and punitive.
And yet for many reasons, a woman will get one. I know one young woman who had an abortion because the fetus was deformed and would only live a few hours after birth. I know another woman who had an abortion in her twenties because she was raped by an abusive boyfriend and became pregnant from the assault. And when I was in high school a classmate bled out on the toilet after sticking a coat hanger into her uterus to abort an unwanted pregnancy. Some states are not giving exceptions for rape or incest. If they were really pro-life they would make birth control less expensive for women. They would assist financially with prenatal care and hospitalization. Instead Medicaid is being cut. The same people screaming my body my choice over vaccines want to tell a woman what she should do with her body. There will always be abortion. The law just gave access to safe medical care.
Bravo! Birth control is next on their agenda. They want the control over our bodies because it gives them control over us.
That is the point no one understands. They are going to go after ALL birth control. Except vasectomies
btw - why do you support compelling others not to have one?
I believe that no state has the right to assert control over anyone's body. I believe that our sex and reproductive lives are not the business of the state. I believe in a personal right to privacy.
I wonder if Alito thinks the legitimacy of Thomas' marriage is determined by which state he lives in?
I agree that the state has no right to exert control over anyone's body. I also think it is possible to be pro-choice and anti-abortion at the same time. Your last question about Thomas is a good question. Miscegenation was illegal not that long ago. I remember an old guy telling me that blacks and whites could not marry because the Bible says, "Light cannot have fellowship with darkness." On the other hand, for those who believe abortion is murder, Thomas' marriage is irrelevant because no one died.
Appeals to the Bible fail on two grounds 1) Separation of church and state. Legislation cannot promote religious beliefs. If abortion is to be a crime, it must be based on a rationale that [people can accept outside of religion. For example, theft is illegal in every country, even those without the Bible. 2) The only two Biblical passages that touch on abortion both treat it as a property crime against the father. Even pro-lifers do not accept the idea that a fetus is the property of the father.
"The reversal of ROE wouldn't take the right to an abortion away from anyone." - oh, come now, don't play dumb. You and everyone else is well aware of the GOP goals here.
If you fancy yourself a traditional conservative, aren't you the least bit concerned about the fate of other unenumerated rights? Or are you confident that only the "bad" unenumerated rights will disappear and the ones you happen to like at the moment will stick around?
You're right. It should be understood as a right to privacy and a right to freedom over your own body. But for some reason other peoples' pregnancy is something a lot if people feel they have a right to control.
Except you completely overlook the fact that abortion involves another human being. Simply ignoring the fact of prenatal life is a bit disingenuous.
Your definition of what is a human being is not necessarily another's definition. And you don't have the right to govern someone else's body based on your personal beliefs.
Too bad. If I don't want to be pregnant for 9 months, go through the pain of birth, that's my business. Not yours. If you want to save that human you can have it removed from the woman, implant into your wife or daughter who will give birth. You can pay the expense of that as well. Otherwise, mind your own business. And just to be clear. I never had an abortion or miscarriage and did have 2 babies. I loved expecting and giving birth because it was my choice. I wouldn't wish the pain, expense and discomfort on someone unwilling to bear it.
It could be argued that anyone (including men) who is not prepared to take on the responsibility for the care and nurture of another human being should abstain from the activity that potentially produces human beings. But human nature being what it is, the only viable public policy is to make abortion safe, legal and rare. It is very naive of those opposed to abortion to think outlawing it will put an an to it. Did we learn nothing from Prohibition and the War on Drugs?
They don't care they just want to tell people what to do. They hate personal freedom..
You are being disingenious and kind of ignoring the larger picture--which is exactly the response the people who want to take rights away are hoping for...
And as pointed out elsewhere, the basis for abortion and privacy rights exists in the 9th Amendment. The error in Roe V Wade was in not basing it in the 9th.
Lots of rights have been created over time (like corporate personhood rights) or have been changed (like 2nd amendment rights). The reality, if you want to be all constitutional about it is that the government ONLY has the powers enumerated to it with the other rights reserved either to the states or the people. In the case of something like having to give birth to a child and raise it, perhaps that right and decision should be left to the person most affected by it? Meaning NOT the government.
Heh, speaking of non-sequiturs, I see you are desperately trying to avoid the important points here. Pretending that ROE exists in a vacuum is just that: playing pretend. Overturning it is a step in a process. Nothing paranoid about it: it's been broadcast from Conservative Inc for decades. Where have you been?
Ignoring Alito's words is also playing pretend. It's not hard to see how his thinking applies to lots of unenumerated rights. I get that you don't see privacy covering abortion. Swell. Maybe you don't feel privacy should exist as an unenumerated right at all. But *you* aren't necessarily the problem here. It's what others on the authoritarian right don't find as "believable arguments" that should concern you.
I'm trying to be sympathetic to your perspective, but it seems you are operating in a context-free idealized world.
You don't think it's an "emotional argument" to try to equate slavery to a woman's right to choose regarding her own body and health? As to returning it to the States, do a little reading. The first item on their agenda if they retake power is to pass a federal law banning abortion throughout the entire US. The leaked SCOTUS opinion spells that out for them.
Or Congress dominated by one party. A federal law banning abortion is the next step.
These sorts of personal attacks are unbecoming. It is bad enough that other comment sections are full of them. Let's not pollute the Bulwark's comment section.
Hear, hear!
We kind of have a nice thing going here at the Bulwark. Can we please not Breitbart it?
Yep. Don't see him swearing at people and calling them morons. My comment about Breitbart was intended to channel tone, not content.
Your point?
Hmm, are you dishonest or just confused? This thread isn't about your posts. Or, at least wasn't initially. You decided to butt in and defend someone else's rude behavior with a ridiculous whataboutism. BTW, said rude behavior most certainly does include calling others morons.
Did Robert personally attack anyone?
Then refute his claims. But do not equivocate on the meaning of "personally attack."
If you need help untangling yourself, let us know. :-)
Wrong. I was pointing the tweet to show how the politics will play out. And the GOP candidate has been caught taking a bizarrely extreme position.