• 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.

The Roe Countdown

When will Roe v Wade be overturned

  • Before 31 December 2020

    Votes: 20 18.3%

  • Before 31 December 2022

    Votes: 27 24.8%

  • Before 31 December 2024

    Votes: 9 8.3%

  • SCOTUS will not pick a case up

    Votes: 16 14.7%

  • SCOTUS will pick it up and decline to overturn

    Votes: 37 33.9%
  • Total voters
    109
Status
Not open for further replies.
If the right to an abortion is a strongly desired thing, then just rolling over to let 5 or 6 robed radicals installed by a minority to strip said rights should be resisted. How about every woman in the nation who has an interest in this (and the fellas too) go on a general strike? One humongous, convulsive backlash to scare the crap out of the powers that be. I know it would be hard for many, living in poverty because of the system erected in order to make the populace vulnerable and hence disincentivized to take up just such a protest. But sometimes ya gotta fight and sacrifice in order to prevail against tyranny.
 
Lurch said:
If the right to an abortion is a strongly desired thing, then just rolling over to let 5 or 6 robed radicals installed by a minority to strip said rights should be resisted. How about every woman in the nation who has an interest in this (and the fellas too) go on a general strike? One humongous, convulsive backlash to scare the crap out of the powers that be. I know it would be hard for many, living in poverty because of the system erected in order to make the populace vulnerable and hence disincentivized to take up just such a protest. But sometimes ya gotta fight and sacrifice in order to prevail against tyranny.
Click to expand...

If the right to an abortion were that strongly desired, you wouldn't need a general strike. You'd already have new legislation or a constitutional amendment. Meanwhile, judges shouldn't base their interpretation of the law on what kinds of laws some members of the public wish they had.

You can't say the law says what it says, unless people don't like it, and then it doesn't. That way lies madness.
 
theprestige said:
You can't say the law says what it says, unless people don't like it, and then it doesn't. That way lies madness.
Click to expand...

Yeah because doing the wrong thing and going "But it's technically what the law says" is so much better.

I'm so ******* tired of people defending "Evil, but it's by the book"

Especially those who only do it when it's convenient for them. *Cough*
 
theprestige said:
You can't say the law says what it says, unless people don't like it, and then it doesn't. That way lies madness.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what's happening, isn't it? The law said what it said, conservatives didn't like it, so they stacked the courts with people who would say that it doesn't say that after all. This is the culmination of that project.
 
mumblethrax said:
That's exactly what's happening, isn't it? The law said what it said, conservatives didn't like it, so they stacked the courts with people who would say that it doesn't say that after all. This is the culmination of that project.
Click to expand...

Some of the people who got appointed to the SCOTUS also said that it was established law, but they're now willing to change that law. Why? Because some states didn't like it, and now they want to change it.
 
mumblethrax said:
That's exactly what's happening, isn't it? The law said what it said, conservatives didn't like it, so they stacked the courts with people who would say that it doesn't say that after all. This is the culmination of that project.
Click to expand...
Only if by "the law" you mean how SCOTUS interpreted aspects of the 14th Amendment in 1973.

It'd be very nice if we had actual statutes protecting bodily autonomy of pregnant people, but those only exist in blue states at the moment.
 
Last edited:
TragicMonkey said:
Exist for now, you mean. Those will be the next target.
Click to expand...
I doubt they can get five justices to sign on to a nationwide ban on abortion rooted in the right to life of unborn persons, but a more salient question might be how that question could possibly come before the court in the first place.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Exist for now, you mean. Those will be the next target.
Click to expand...

But how will they be targeted? If it's a five-person super-legislature claiming black smudges are persons so that not even states can recognize a "right" to abortion, then that's the ballgame. It certainly seems Thomas will rule in that direction, but I doubt he can bring over a majority. More likely, the court will kick the issue back to the states and most abortions continue. People in states with restrictive laws will increasingly use the Internet and the mail to carry out medical abortions, which will invite a response from the anti-choice lobby.
 
d4m10n said:
Only if by "the law" you mean how SCOTUS interpreted aspects of the 14th Amendment in 1973.
Click to expand...
Either case law is law, in which case Roe v. Wade is law, or case law isn't law, in which case protesting the (anticipated) decision is perfectly legitimate.

It'd be very nice if we had actual statutes protecting bodily autonomy of pregnant people, but those only exist in blue states at the moment.
Click to expand...
No doubt.
 
The Atheist said:
Never mind the bloody Beeb, I say **** off!

This is my thread - how dare you beat me by several seconds?

America, turning the clock back, one state at a time.
Click to expand...

Actually, between the states with “Trigger” laws that go into effect if Roe is overturned, and states that had anti-abortion laws prior to Roe that are still technically on the books, abortion will be outlawed in 17 states instantly.
 
d4m10n said:
I doubt they can get five justices to sign on to a nationwide ban on abortion rooted in the right to life of unborn persons, but a more salient question might be how that question could possibly come before the court in the first place.
Click to expand...

Fetal consent laws...
 
The elephant in the room is that Democrats have had plenty of opportunities to write Roe into law over the last few decades and simply did not. Hell, Obama walked into his first term with complete control of government, a supermajority in the Senate which is extremely rare. If the Democrats cared about protecting Roe, they could have. They didn't, and with a little help from RGB, here we are.


The right wing has been extremely clear over the years that overturning Roe was a high priority, long term project and the Democrats were totally unresponsive (other than demanding our votes and money to do nothing).

ETA: Smart money says Breyer drops dead after the Republicans win the midterm. The legislature actually getting off their ass and having to deal with the supreme court is going to be the most pressing issue in politics in the foreseeable future. I doubt the D's have the necessary stomach for it.
 
Last edited:
mumblethrax said:
Either case law is law, in which case Roe v. Wade is law...
Click to expand...
Until it isn't. I expect the majority opinion in Dobbs will patiently explain how Roe and Casey were reading in liberty interests which were never contemplated by the folks who originally drafted the 14th Amendment.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
The right wing has been extremely clear over the years that overturning Roe was a high priority, long term project and the Democrats were totally unresponsive (other than demanding our votes and money to do nothing).
Click to expand...

This is pretty much all wrong. Some GOP elites are nervous about being the dog that caught the car. For decades, the party's elites have used wedge issues like abortion to get votes, but they deliver tax cuts. You can find staffers on the Hill going back decades saying, "If we could end abortion tomorrow, we wouldn't do it." 2022 was supposed to easy for Republicans, and maybe that will still be the case, but overturning a nearly 50 year-old decision that most Americans say they support could invite a backlash. Greed Over People hope that Americans support Roe the way they support withdrawing from Afghanistan.

Democrats are far more supportive and enthusiastic about abortion rights than they were three decades ago, and more so than Europeans are now. Also, making this a public issue could probably be a good thing for Democrats (though not such a good thing for women birthing people).

The arguments against abortion in the first 15 weeks, which is when the vast majority of abortions are performed, are incredibly weak. Little more than "the Invisible Skywizard implanted a soul..." Activating younger, much more secular people at the polls could be a good thing for Democrats.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
The elephant in the room is that Democrats have had plenty of opportunities to write Roe into law over the last few decades and simply did not.
Click to expand...
I don't believe the political strategy of codifying case law into statute law is politically costless, though in retrospect it would have been worth it to avert the return of back-alley surgery in the states where Dobbs will be celebrated.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Zero hits on google.
Click to expand...

It was an old bit from The Onion. Can't even find it on their website anymore.

It was a parody of the various anti-abortion bills put forward while Roe vs Wade was in effect. The goal, of course, being to keep adding hoops to jump through to obtain an abortion until there was a de facto ban on abortion, even if still technically legal to have one.

Now we just have the Supreme Court throwing out decades of settled law because of their personal preferences, so such tactics are not needed.
 
d4m10n said:
I don't believe the political strategy of codifying case law into statute law is politically costless, though in retrospect it would have been worth it to avert the return of back-alley surgery in the states where Dobbs will be celebrated.
Click to expand...

Nothing is politically costless. Hell, even doing nothing has a political cost, which should be plainly clear as the Biden admin listlessly slides into a resounding midterm defeat.

What is the point of winning elections if not to wield power to achieve your agenda? Time in power in this country always has a short shelf-life, you have to use it efficiently.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom