• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ed Justice Barrett

This is all a trolling red hearing anyway.

Asking a woman to travel to another state to get an abortion is a punishment.

The contrarian trolls can start screaming about "NOW WAIT LET'S SPLIT THE HAIR ABOUT THAT BEING A PUNISHMENT" if they want, but it will just prove my point.

You shouldn't have to cross state lines to get a medical procedure.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I don't know. I didn't say they did, so ask someone who's making that argument.
Click to expand...

If states were interested in doing the kind of thing that's being fantasized about, they've had plenty of opportunties to express that interest already. But it turns out there is no real interest at all in the kind of thing that's being fantasized about.

You can't think of a single state that's tried to criminalize crossing state lines to get access to abortion drugs. But somehow you think it's plausible that they might try to criminalize crossing state lines to get access to other abortion services. Why? What's your evidence?

If states are likely to take action along these lines, why don't we have any examples of states taking action along these lines?
 
theprestige said:
If states were interested in doing the kind of thing that's being fantasized about, they've had plenty of opportunties to express that interest already. But it turns out there is no real interest at all in the kind of thing that's being fantasized about.

You can't think of a single state that's tried to criminalize crossing state lines to get access to abortion drugs. But somehow you think it's plausible that they might try to criminalize crossing state lines to get access to other abortion services. Why? What's your evidence?

If states are likely to take action along these lines, why don't we have any examples of states taking action along these lines?
Click to expand...

Are you confusing me with another poster? I think abortion opponents wouldn't mind if somehow they could magically create the legal nonsense of forbidding interstate abortion travel, but they can't. And they aren't going to try because they have the far more desirable (and realistic) goal of a federal abortion ban that would override whatever goes on in states.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Are you confusing me with another poster? I think abortion opponents wouldn't mind if somehow they could magically create the legal nonsense of forbidding interstate abortion travel, but they can't. And they aren't going to try because they have the far more desirable (and realistic) goal of a federal abortion ban that would override whatever goes on in states.
Click to expand...

My bad. Going back through the chain of replies, I see that you're saying that there's probably a "constituency" for it, in some sense. You're not saying it's likely to ever actually happen (though I think your reasoning for this is spurious).
 
theprestige said:
If states were interested in doing the kind of thing that's being fantasized about, they've had plenty of opportunties to express that interest already. But it turns out there is no real interest at all in the kind of thing that's being fantasized about.

You can't think of a single state that's tried to criminalize crossing state lines to get access to abortion drugs. But somehow you think it's plausible that they might try to criminalize crossing state lines to get access to other abortion services. Why? What's your evidence?

If states are likely to take action along these lines, why don't we have any examples of states taking action along these lines?
Click to expand...

The aim is to make abortion illegal everywhere, so then the state lines won't matter.

It's about the long game, and the baby steps advanced (or attempted) to get there have this ultimate goal in mind.

Arguing about what might not be quite palatable enough to enact legally right now is to lose sight of this long game.
 
Lurch said:
The aim is to make abortion illegal everywhere, so then the state lines won't matter.

It's about the long game, and the baby steps advanced (or attempted) to get there have this ultimate goal in mind.

Arguing about what might not be quite palatable enough to enact legally right now is to lose sight of this long game.
Click to expand...

Tell it to The Don, who is fantasizing about states trying to criminalize crossing state lines to do things that are crimes at the origin but not at the destination. I'm debunking The Don's woo, not opining on the likelihood of a federal abortion ban (which I also consider unlikely).
 
Ziggurat said:
Sure, a lot of abortion opponents would like a federal ban. But that’s not happening either. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, there may not be any constitutional hurdles (unlike interstate laws), but it’s still not popular enough to get something like that through Congress. And yes, public opinion on this sort of thing matters, a lot.
Click to expand...
Ummm... why exactly should we believe that there would not be an attempt at a federal ban?

You don't need to win the popular vote to get control of the presidency and/or congress. And we have seen time and time again that republicans come down on the wrong side of an issue yet still regularly obtain political power. Most people thought that the vacant supreme court seat should be left until after the election, yet the republicans crammed a nominee through.

All that a future republican president/congress would do is to assume that 1) even though most people support Roe v Wade, it wouldn't be a significant enough issue for many people to change their vote, and 2) they would continue to get enough of their hardcore supporters to vote their way.

It wouldn't even have to be a complete abortion ban... they could put restrictions in place to make it harder (but not impossible)... complete ban on things like RU486, shorten the time frame they can be performed, etc. They can make it pretty much impossible to get an abortion, but still leave it technically legal.
 
Looks like the Girl Scouts stepped in it...

From: AOL
The Girl Scouts organization is clarifying its stance on women’s empowerment after facing controversy for a statement congratulating recently confirmed Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett on Wednesday. “Congratulations Amy Coney Barrett on becoming the 5th woman appointed to the Supreme Court since its inception in 1789,” the since-deleted tweet read... Instead of celebratory responses, however, the Girl Scouts’ message was met with replies from critics saying Barrett’s conservative views were at odds with the organization’s message of girl power...The Girl Scouts clarified that it was “not our intent” for the tweet to be viewed as a “political and partisan statement,” explaining that it is a “nonpolitical, nonpartisan organization.”...People on Twitter continued to criticize the organization for both backtracking and posting in support of the controversial figure in the first place.

Really foolish of the Girl Scouts... they should have recognized that confirming a Stepford wife would have been seen as an extremely partisan/political issue, and just remained silent. (Nobody would have faulted them for that). But now, nobody is happy with them... people who favor women's rights aren't happy because of the initial message, and the MAGAchuds aren't happy because they deleted the tweet.
 
Segnosaur said:
Ummm... why exactly should we believe that there would not be an attempt at a federal ban?
Click to expand...

I didn’t say there wouldn’t be an attempt. I said it wouldn’t actually pass.

You don't need to win the popular vote to get control of the presidency and/or congress.
Click to expand...

You need to be pretty damn close to get the House. And abortion opponents aren’t near close enough.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
.
Click to expand...

The fact that you describe me as far right demonstrates that you don't know who I am. I doubt you're even very familiar with my postings.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Segnosaur said:
Really foolish of the Girl Scouts... they should have recognized that confirming a Stepford wife would have been seen as an extremely partisan/political issue, and just remained silent. (Nobody would have faulted them for that). But now, nobody is happy with them... people who favor women's rights aren't happy because of the initial message, and the MAGAchuds aren't happy because they deleted the tweet.
Click to expand...

Right. I don't think handmaidens are the role model the Girl Scouts should be promoting.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Right. I don't think handmaidens are the role model the Girl Scouts should be promoting.
Click to expand...

Because a woman who makes it onto the supreme court, a level of career achievement that's even more exclusive than becoming an astronaut, is just a "handmaiden" who believes women's role is to be subservient to men.

How do you survive this level of cognitive dissonance?
 
Segnosaur said:
Really foolish of the Girl Scouts... they should have recognized that confirming a Stepford wife would have been seen as an extremely partisan/political issue, and just remained silent.
Click to expand...

**** whether or not it was seen as partisan by the crybullies. Was it partisan? No, it wasn't. That tweet hilighted all the Supreme Court women, not just Barret.

Yes, they could have avoided this kerfuffle if they kept silent. Appeasing the mob often works, for a while. But it's not a good long-term strategy. Once you pay the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane.

And it's absurd to call Barret a Stepford wife. She's a Supreme Court justice now, and she was a circuit court judge when she was nominated, which is a pretty damn prestigious position in its own right. Everyone knows who she is. Nobody knows who her husband is. How the hell does that translate into her being submissive to him?
 
Ziggurat said:
The fact that you describe me as far right demonstrates that you don't know who I am. I doubt you're even very familiar with my postings.
Click to expand...

*Snorts whatever I was drinking out of my nose*

I don't which possibility is worse honestly. That you think other people believe your "Oh I'm totally not on the far right, I just defend them in every discussion, am on their side in every discussion, shut down every criticism of them with pointless argumentatives, and pitch a hissy fit whenever they don't get what they want, and speak in nothing but their talking points with no mind of my own" routine or that you actually believe it yourself.
 
Last edited:
thaiboxerken said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...497d8c-0781-11eb-859b-f9c27abe638d_story.html

A 2010 People of Praise directory states that she held the title of “handmaid,” a leadership position for women in the community, according to a directory excerpt obtained by The Washington Post.
Click to expand...

You can't have it both ways. You can't pretend you're using the "Handmaid's Tale" definition of the word to say that the Girl Scouts shouldn't promote it, but then use the People of Praise's definition of the word to say that Barret qualifies as one. They are diametrically opposed.

And why the hell shouldn't the Girl Scouts promote women who take on leadership positions? How regressive are you?
 
JoeMorgue said:
*Snorts whatever I was drinking out of my nose*

I don't which possibility is worse honestly. That you think other people believe your "Oh I'm totally not on the far right, I just defend them in every discussion, am on their side in every discussion, shut down every criticism of them with pointless argumentatives, and pitch a hissy fit whenever they don't get what they want" routine or that you actually believe it yourself.
Click to expand...

+1
I've heard plenty of this kind of thing on talk radio from "I'm not a Trump supporter but.." people.
 
JoeMorgue said:
*Snorts whatever I was drinking out of my nose*

I don't which possibility is worse honestly. That you think other people believe your "Oh I'm totally not on the far right, I just defend them in every discussion, am on their side in every discussion, shut down every criticism of them with pointless argumentatives, and pitch a hissy fit whenever they don't get what they want" routine or that you actually believe it yourself.
Click to expand...

Tell me all about my far right policy preferences. Go on. How do I feel about marijuana legalization? How do I feel about gay marriage? How do I feel about abortion?

I'm sure I'm to the right of you on a lot of stuff. But far right? Yeah, no. If you need to call me far right, it's because you can't engage honestly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom