• 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.
SuburbanTurkey said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's a particularly efficient use of political power, in general, to pass laws which change nothing on the ground.
 
d4m10n said:
I don't think it's a particularly efficient use of political power, in general, to pass laws which change nothing on the ground.
Click to expand...

It would change the precariousness of abortion rights. Rather than some creation of the courts, which was obviously in danger given the decades long judicial project of the right, it would be shored up by legislation.

The coming end of Roe v Wade is a direct consequence of both the right wing focusing on the courts and the liberal's total inaction to protect these rights via legislation.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
It would change the precariousness of abortion rights.
Click to expand...
Try running for reelection on decreasing the precariousness of a civil right people already enjoy.

SuburbanTurkey said:
The coming end of Roe v Wade is a direct consequence of both the right wing focusing on the courts and the liberal's total inaction to protect these rights via legislation.
Click to expand...
Are there any other examples of constitutionally protected civil rights which were later rolled back by the same courts which granted them?
 
d4m10n said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah. That's sort of the problem--the law isn't the law; the law is whatever five or more justices say it is, because the law (especially the unworkably vague constitution) needs interpretation. Given that these interpretations are heavily influenced by the politics of justices who deploy them, and these people are undemocratically appointed by an undemocratically elected president and confirmed by an undemocratic Senate, I'm left wondering how exactly our political obligation is supposed to obtain.

Anyway, a decision that significantly alters Roe v. Wade will settle the question in approximately the same way that stepping on an anthill settles ants.
 
Cain said:
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.
Click to expand...

The GOP elites have become irrelevant. They caught the dog five years ago and have been retiring in droves or learning to love Trump.

You are right there will be a backlash, but the geographical distribution will cause it to be of little effect. Voter suppression and etc. will further dampen the impact. We will see a 2024 election where the GOP candidate loses by ten+ million votes yet wins the EC.

Until the realities of the electoral map change social issues will be a liability for the Democrats. They can advance policies in that area but making it the leading issue in the national platform is a trap.
 
mumblethrax said:
Well, yeah. That's sort of the problem--the law isn't the law; the law is whatever five or more justices say it is, because the law (especially the unworkably vague constitution) needs interpretation.
Click to expand...
The advantage of rooting abortion rights in vague judicial language like "undue burden" is that you don't need to get legislators to agree on exactly what is permitted and what can be regulated.
 
Let's take a trip in the wayback machine

From 2012:

Obama Promised To Sign The Freedom Of Choice Act On Day One, Hasn't Touched The Issue Since
Click to expand...

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/andrewkaczynski/obama-promised-to-sign-the-freedom-of-choice-act-o

Democrats pretend to be fierce advocates for abortion rights, but the evidence of this is pretty thin. They relied on the courts to uphold Roe v Wade and kept punting on doing anything substantial with legislation, despite having supermajority control during Obama's first term. The right wing has been explicit about their decades-long judicial project which is now bearing fruit, and the Democrats did nothing to prepare for the inevitable result.

They talk a big game, but their follow-through is very much lacking.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Presidents don't get to sign legislation which never makes it out of committee.
Click to expand...

Yes, Democratic controlled committees never advanced it. Again, they talk the talk, but the party is not the stalwart defenders of abortion rights they would have you believe. Promises get made during elections and conveniently forgotten.

Hillary's VP choice, Tim Kaine, was anti-abortion for christ's sake. Our current predicament is only possible because the Democratic party has been happy to be fence-sitters on this issue for decades rather than actually shore up Roe with meaningful legislation.
 
d4m10n said:
It only takes one or two anti-abortion Senators to make a (barely) filibuster-proof majority into a filibusterable majority.
Click to expand...

If the Buzzfeed headline ST posted is true, then this seems to be about Obama's failure to use the bully pulpit, as much as anything else.

Upthread, Lurch suggests this issue is popular enough that Americans could launch a general strike to show the government what's what. I countered that if it were that popular, legislators would have seen the writing on the wall and done something about it already.

The biggest power the president has in this kind of situation is the celebrity power of the office. They can use the bully pulpit to drum up public support for whatever policy they like. Legislators, seeing what side their bread is buttered on, and desiring reelection, will respond by passing the laws the voting public clearly desires. Obamacare got passed, so why not abortion rights protections?

---

The other lever of influence is horse trading. Obama hadn't really spent enough time in the legislature to establish a stable of his own, but surely his VP must have had a barnload of horses to trade.
 
d4m10n said:
It only takes one or two anti-abortion Senators to make a (barely) filibuster-proof majority into a filibusterable majority.
Click to expand...

Sure, even with a supermajority and complete control of the government the Democrats are powerless to accomplish their promises.

Not sure that's a message that's going to drive voter turnout.

Why bother voting blue if there's always some revolving villain springing up to explain why important agenda items die on the vine?
 
Last edited:
Another view of where we're headed:
But that’s just the first of a series of ideas Republicans have to regulate women’s behavior and roll back the clock to the early 1960s when women couldn’t get a credit card without their father’s or husband’s permission, had no legal right to birth control in some states, and faced fully legal discrimination in housing, education and employment.

Next up on the GOP’s agenda to strip women of political and economic power will be banning most forms of birth control used today, including birth control pills and the IUD.
Click to expand...
https://hartmannreport.com/p/next-up-on-gops-agenda-stripping
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Sure, even with a supermajority and complete control of the government the Democrats are powerless to accomplish their promises.
Click to expand...
A sixty vote supermajority is every bit as progressive as the least progressive among them.

SuburbanTurkey said:
Why bother voting blue if there's always some revolving villain springing up to explain why important agenda items die on the vine?
Click to expand...
Let's not pretend it was obvious in 2009 which specific laws needed to be passed to avert disaster in 2022.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
A sixty vote supermajority is every bit as progressive as the least progressive among them.

Let's not pretend it was obvious in 2009 which specific laws needed to be passed to avert disaster in 2022.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was a real mystery this could happen as conservatives shrieking about how abortion is a modern day holocaust marched battalions of Federalist Society ghouls into the judiciary. Truly an unforeseeable turn of events.
 
Well, this is nice! Public health, tobacco education and use prevention and... WTF???
https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=76552&SessionId=93 (from a couple hours ago):

General Bill by Grall
Reducing Fetal and Infant Mortality: Revises purpose & requirements for Comprehensive Statewide Tobacco Education & Use Prevention Program; requires DOH to contract with local healthy start coalitions for creation of fetal & infant mortality review committees; prohibits physician from performing abortion if gestational age of fetus is determined to be more than specified number of weeks; provides exception; requires directors of certain medical facilities & certain physicians to submit monthly report to AHCA electronically; requires hospitals participate in minimum number of quality improvement initiatives.
Effective Date: July 1, 2022
Last Event: Filed on Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:01 AM
Lobbyist Disclosure Information
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/20/politics/abortion-texas-sb8-supreme-court/index.html
The dispute settled Thursday centered on whether the appeals court should immediately return what is left of the providers' case to a district court judge who has expressed deep skepticism over the law, or whether the case could remain in the 5th Circuit for proceedings that could take months to resolve, further delaying the providers' case.

The providers asked the justices to step in to demand the 5th Circuit return the case to the district court. Without comment, the Supreme Court's majority denied the request.
The three liberal justices wrote a scathing dissent.

"This case is a disaster for the rule of law and a grave disservice to women in Texas, who have a right to control their own bodies," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan. "I will not stand by silently as a State continues to nullify this constitutional guarantee."
Click to expand...
 
https://successwithsahil.com/missouri-lawmaker-seeks-to-prohibit-residents-from-obtaining-abortions-out-of-state/

An unusual new provision, introduced by state Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman (R), would allow private citizens to sue anyone who helps a Missouri resident obtain an abortion out of state, using the novel legal strategy behind the restrictive law in Texas that since September has banned abortions in that state after six weeks of pregnancy.


Coleman has attached the measure as an amendment to several abortion-related bills that have made it through committee and are waiting to be heard on the floor of the House of Representatives.


Abortion rights advocates say the measure is unconstitutional because it would effectively allow states to enact laws beyond their jurisdictions, but the Republican-led Missouri legislature has been supportive of creative approaches to antiabortion legislation in the past. The measure could signal a new strategy by the antiabortion movement to extend its influence beyond the conservative states poised to tighten restrictions if the Supreme Court moves this summer to overturn its landmark precedent protecting abortion rights.


“If your neighboring state doesn’t have pro-life protections, it minimizes the ability to protect the unborn in your state,” said Coleman, who said she’s been trying to figure out how to crack down on out-of-state abortions since Planned Parenthood opened an abortion clinic on the Illinois-Missouri border in 2019.

[...]
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom