The Roe Countdown

[Meadmaker]

When you mercilessly pummel your wife, do you only leave massive bruises or actually draw blood?

It took me a moment to see what you did there.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Another Savita Halappenavar absolutely will happen here, over and over, the question is whether the US will respond as decisively as Ireland did to protect women's lives.

 

[The Don]

And anyway, how is the SC going to manage tossing interracial marriage without the Thomases noticing?

Do they live in a state where it would likely still be legal ?

 

[Delvo]

Blue states aren't safe. The Democrats are currently working on their plan to throw the next few elections to the Republicans. Next time they have the Federal government, they'll pass their laws for the whole country. And since they're also already gearing up to turn all elections thereafter into banana-republic "elections", they'll have single-party rule indefinitely.

There won't be any way for blue states to defend themselves from it other than completely withdrawing from the country. (The only question then is what to call it; the country of the red states will obviously need to be called "Talibama".)

 

[The Don]

Another Savita Halappenavar absolutely will happen here, over and over, the question is whether the US will respond as decisively as Ireland did to protect women's lives.

Of course not. It's not about women's welfare, or even the welfare of the child, its about remaining in power by pandering to religious dogma.

If the fundies don't want it then it ain't going to happen.

Unless of course it becomes important enough for the 70-80% who support the right to choose to vote Democrat but that won't happen when close to 50% of the population have been convinced that Democrats are gun grabbing God hating commie Muslims.

 

[bruto]

And anyway, how is the SC going to manage tossing interracial marriage without the Thomases noticing?

They can toss it back to states' rights no sweat, and even if they were married in a state that decides to go back to Jim Crow, the Constitution forbids ex post facto laws, so they can smile and say "we got ours, suckers."

 

[Ziggurat]

They can toss it back to states' rights no sweat, and even if they were married in a state that decides to go back to Jim Crow, the Constitution forbids ex post facto laws, so they can smile and say "we got ours, suckers."

This is pure delusion. None of the conservative justices have shown any interest in ruling is this direction. Your paranoia has gotten the better of you.

 

[Meadmaker]

This is pure delusion. None of the conservative justices have shown any interest in ruling is this direction. Your paranoia has gotten the better of you.

I think it's mostly levity.

Not that there isn't plenty of paranoia running amok right now. The initial post on Loving v. Virginia had an element of paranoia, but I think the subsequent comments on Clarence and Ginni Thomas weren't to be taken especially seriously.

 

[Darat]

It's like Republicans don't understand that if you lose the mother you also lose the baby.
They are running a trolley problem and not noticing both people are on the same track.

But again "Your evil doesn't make sense even within it's own context" is something that no longer surprises me.

That's assuming that the life of the mother or the baby are something they value.

 

[smartcooky]

Blue states aren't safe. The Democrats are currently working on their plan to throw the next few elections to the Republicans. Next time they have the Federal government, they'll pass their laws for the whole country. And since they're also already gearing up to turn all elections thereafter into banana-republic "elections", they'll have single-party rule indefinitely.

There won't be any way for blue states to defend themselves from it other than completely withdrawing from the country. (The only question then is what to call it; the country of the red states will obviously need to be called "Talibama".)

The Blue states can call themselves "The United States of America"

The Red states can call themselves "The Peoples Democratic Republic of America"


BTW... "Talibama". Love your work

 

[smartcooky]

They can toss it back to states' rights no sweat, and even if they were married in a state that decides to go back to Jim Crow, the Constitution forbids ex post facto laws, so they can smile and say "we got ours, suckers."

Some states have already gone back to Jim Crow in many ways but name.

 

[smartcooky]

I think it's mostly levity.

Not that there isn't plenty of paranoia running amok right now. The initial post on Loving v. Virginia had an element of paranoia, but I think the subsequent comments on Clarence and Ginni Thomas weren't to be taken especially seriously.

Yup, I think Bruto was fishing, and Zig bit like a 12lb Northern largemouth!!

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Some states have already gone back to Jim Crow in many ways but name.

look, if Blacks wanted to have full voting rights, they should have chosen to be born white.

 

[Warp12]

Some states have already gone back to Jim Crow in many ways but name.

look, if Blacks wanted to have full voting rights, they should have chosen to be born white.

 

[gnome]

The Blue states can call themselves "The United States of America"

The Red states can call themselves "The Peoples Democratic Republic of America"


BTW... "Talibama". Love your work

The "winner take all" color is not really a reflection of the whole state. You'd just be having the same problem in microcosm.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

MSNBC Lawrence O'Donnell interview with Senator Whitehouse: 11:48 minutes relevant to the dishonesty of the Zealot-5

Sen Whitehouse noted what the Justices said and didn't say in their confirmation hearings and why it was dishonest. He added what Alito said in a speech to the Federalists that directly contradicted what he said in his hearing.

Intelligent, articulate with a bit of passion and fire, comes across well on camera (admittedly to a friendly interviewer), presumably experienced (though I'm making an ageist assumption there) - why wasn't this guy one of the leadership candidates for the Democrats?

Don't get me wrong, I liked some of the candidates but I could also see why others (unfairly in my opinion) wouldn't.

ETA Damn, just noticed his age (66)...still, younger than some of them were.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Louisiana advancing a bill that defines life beginning at fertilization and would allow abortions to be criminalized as murder.

The amended text of the bill seems likely to outlaw the use of IUDs, Plan B emergency contraception, and in-vitro fertilization.

https://www.wwno.org/2022-05-05/louisiana-bill-would-allow-murder-charges-for-abortions-opponents-call-it-barbaric

 

[JoeMorgue]

Okay real talk.

How long before we start seeing the first seeds of mandatory pregnancy?

Like it will (probably although at this point who the hell knows they might just come out and say it) start subtle with laws mean to "incentivize" (wink, wink) pregnancy and slowly but surely we start to see things designed to make it harder and harder for woman to do anything but be a brood mare.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Okay real talk.

How long before we start seeing the first seeds of mandatory pregnancy?

Like it will (probably although at this point who the hell knows they might just come out and say it) start subtle with laws mean to "incentivize" (wink, wink) pregnancy and slowly but surely we start to see things designed to make it harder and harder for woman to do anything but be a brood mare.

I could easily see Griswold being overturned and criminalizing contraception being turned to a "states rights" issue in the near future. The argument in Griswold relies on a very similar "right to privacy" line of judicial thinking that was dispensed with in the coming Roe reversal, so it would be pretty stunning hypocrisy for these ghouls to not reverse if it is challenged.

It seems a matter of more when, rather than if, and if this kind of challenge is high enough priority compared to other interests trying to get seen before the court.

 

[The Don]

Okay real talk.

How long before we start seeing the first seeds of mandatory pregnancy?

Like it will (probably although at this point who the hell knows they might just come out and say it) start subtle with laws mean to "incentivize" (wink, wink) pregnancy and slowly but surely we start to see things designed to make it harder and harder for woman to do anything but be a brood mare.

I don't think that there will ever be enforced/mandatory pregnancy but I can see that a combination of a lack of anything other than abstinence only sex education, banning non-barrier contraceptives and a ban on abortion leading to a higher birth rate.

There will of course be soaring levels of unwanted pregnancies which will disproportionately fall on poorer and less well educated groups. This will in turn result in increasingly levels of wealth and income inequality as poor, pregnant girls cannot access education.

All of the above is a feature, not a bug IMO. The only way for middle-aged, middle-class white men to stay in charge is to stomp down on any other demographic.