The Roe Countdown

[Warp12]

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.

More like, "real comical talk".

I mean, people squealing about the overturning of Roe is one thing, but this just pure dystopian fantasy material. I mean, one would think that there was no United States before 1973, the way some of this paranoia is being presented.

 

[BobTheCoward]

More like, "real comical talk".

I mean, people squealing about the overturning of Roe is one thing, but this just pure dystopian fantasy material. I mean, one would think that there was no United States before 1973, the way some of this paranoia is being presented.

America had a lot of awful times for women before 1973

 

[TurkeysGhost]

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.

I doubt banning abortion is going to impact the birth rate much. People will still get abortions, either by travelling out of CHUD country or illegally where they are. Some small fraction will suffer negative consequences, either medically or criminally. Criminalizing abortion doesn't have much of a track record of actually reducing abortion rates much. This country sure does locking people up for perceived vices, but these laws don't really achieve much other than a net increase of misery.

Criminalizing contraception is something that might move the needle a bit, especially if the common birth control pill is outlawed.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

More like, "real comical talk".

I mean, people squealing about the overturning of Roe is one thing, but this just pure dystopian fantasy material. I mean, one would think that there was no United States before 1973, the way some of this paranoia is being presented.

Given the squealing we get when politicians only talk about gun control, this massive intervention of the State into the private affairs of people should be a shocking precedent for any freedom loving American.
The only way you can ignore this is because you don't have a womb.

 

[The Don]

I doubt banning abortion is going to impact the birth rate much. People will still get abortions, either by travelling out of CHUD country or illegally where they are. Some small fraction will suffer negative consequences, either medically or criminally. Criminalizing abortion doesn't have much of a track record of actually reducing abortion rates much. This country sure does locking people up for perceived vices, but these laws don't really achieve much other than a net increase of misery.

Criminalizing contraception is something that might move the needle a bit, especially if the common birth control pill is outlawed.

Sorry, I should have been clearer that I thought the lack of sex education and a restriction on availability to contraception would have the impact on the birth rate - not banning abortion.

Regarding access to contraception I could envisage that in some states, the contraceptive pill may only be prescribed to married women and only with the permission of their husband. IMO condoms would still remain legal but that would be about it.

Unmarried women wouldn't have access to any form of contraception on the grounds that a woman buying condoms would be considered a whore and so there would be considerable stigma in buying them.

 

[bruto]

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.

My point was directed at the question of whether they could, not whether they will.

Long answer snipped, but the point is I think the Court is digging a hole. Whether they fall into it is another matter.

 

[cosmicaug]

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) white Christian 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.

Fixed that for you.

A minimum of two presidential electoral cycles (possibly more) until "great replacement" messaging becomes openly promoted (rather than a subtext or "dog whistle"). Think population concerns about whites not breeding enough vs. invaders from Latin America & the Muslim hordes (direct xenophobic measures can be created eventually but the messaging still applies whether targeting citizens in the country or foreigners outside the country).

 

[cosmicaug]

More like, "real comical talk".

I mean, people squealing about the overturning of Roe is one thing, but this just pure dystopian fantasy material. I mean, one would think that there was no United States before 1973, the way some of this paranoia is being presented.

1973 is not any sort of a cutoff.

What is worse than thinking that 1973 was any sort of a cutoff (no one here has suggested that they think that, as far as I can tell) is thinking that we live in degenerate times & that things used to better in some time of old which is usually understood to be the post-war 1950s and that something happened that set up a slow decline (which we are living in now). That this thing that happened is the 1960s (if you want to touch on sexuality, including the pill) is, without a doubt, a dogma in some conservative circles (if anything, it is a view that extends beyond conservatives; but it is just more of a core belief to be acted upon in the case of the reactionary right).

This is, of course, a complete inversion of reality. I mean, things were probably not so bad if you were a middle class white male. If you weren't in that class, however, it is not too strong a statement that you lived in something that could be considered an authoritarian regime (if anything, I may be understating the case).

 

[Fast Eddie B]

...when close to 50% of the population have been convinced that Democrats are gun grabbing God hating commie Muslims.

You forgot pedophiles.

 

[Ziggurat]

My point was directed at the question of whether they could, not whether they will.

In the sense that the courts could decide anything, sure. But this isn't the precedent you seem to think it is. Laws against miscegenation run very directly into the equal protection clause. The body of work from the Supreme Court interpreting and upholding that is quite extensive and pretty consistent, and there is no push, by voters or by conservative jurists, to throw that out. The biggest challenges to equal protection right now comes from the far left, in the form of quotas and "disparate impact", not from the right.

 

[JoeMorgue]

In the sense that the courts could decide anything, sure. But this isn't the precedent you seem to think it is. Laws against miscegenation run very directly into the equal protection clause. The body of work from the Supreme Court interpreting and upholding that is quite extensive and pretty consistent, and there is no push, by voters or by conservative jurists, to throw that out. The biggest challenges to equal protection right now comes from the far left, in the form of quotas and "disparate impact", not from the right.

"But the left is real racist!"

Get a goddamn new tune.

Are you capable of thinking anything that isn't a Republican talking point?

 

[BobTheCoward]

In the sense that the courts could decide anything, sure. But this isn't the precedent you seem to think it is. Laws against miscegenation run very directly into the equal protection clause. The body of work from the Supreme Court interpreting and upholding that is quite extensive and pretty consistent, and there is no push, by voters or by conservative jurists, to throw that out. The biggest challenges to equal protection right now comes from the far left, in the form of quotas and "disparate impact", not from the right.

While I think the textualist argument wins for gay marriage over an originalism one....I think it is clear under an originalism approach that anti miscegenation laws are constitutional.

I think originalism is the correct interpretation method, even though the results are bad

 

[The Don]

You forgot pedophiles.

You're right

In my defence I was, Trump-like, composing that post on my seat of ease and had intended to add that until I was distracted by a particularly satisfactory movement.

 

[cosmicaug]

Long answer snipped, but the point is I think the Court is digging a hole. Whether they fall into it is another matter.

If this hole is one of precedent & legal logic, you might be overstating its importance.

They will rule ideologically, and as needed when it comes up. Consistency in their legal rulings is simply not going to be that important. There is no 'well, they ruled this way when this one thing came up so therefore they are going to have to rule this other way when that other thing comes up later to remain consistent' happening here.

More important is originalism and originalism will mean whatever they need it to mean at a particular moment; even if it contradicts their own previous rulings (or a reasonable "original" reading interpretation, for that matter).

 

[JoeMorgue]

When we have both a black and a female member of SCOTUS arguing for "originalist" interpretations of anything the idea that we have to prove they are just picking and choosing when to use a buzzword is rather silly.

 

[BobTheCoward]

When we have both a black and a female member of SCOTUS arguing for "originalist" interpretations of anything the idea that we have to prove they are just picking and choosing when to use a buzzword is rather silly.

Why shouldn't they make originalism arguments?

 

[Random]

Why shouldn't they make originalism arguments?

They can if they want to. That way we can have a 3 Liberal, 4.6 Conservative Court.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I am saddened, but not surprised, by conservatives cheering at the loss of rights and freedoms.

But think of the babies... They want to save them all from "execution."

However, they oppose maternity leave, FMLA, children's poverty programs, sex education, contraceptives and any other program that would help stop unwanted preganancies and/or support the healthy lives of children.

But.. think of the babies!

 

[BobTheCoward]

But think of the babies... They want to save them all from "execution."

However, they oppose maternity leave, FMLA, children's poverty programs, sex education, contraceptives and any other program that would help stop unwanted preganancies and/or support the healthy lives of children.

But.. think of the babies!

Well, most people don't think murdering adults are okay, but also don't support a lot of things to benefit those adults.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

A good distillation of the clerical fascist worldview, from our friend Ross Douthat at the NyTimes:

Worth noting that in the 50 yrs since Roe, men have become less likely to find a spouse, less likely father kids or live with the kids they father, and less likely to participate in the workforce.

Harder to measure "big risks" but rates of new business formation and even moving from state to state have also declined.

https://twitter.com/DouthatNYT/status/1522556804252770304

Declining social and material conditions can't be explained by any kind of class or policy analysis, clearly the result of a society that is too permissive of women slutting it up without consequence.

We're living in a world that is increasingly strained by the unchecked depravities of capitalism/neoliberalism, but these fascists will simply ascribe all the various inequities and social inadequacies as the consequence of weak character, then use that logic to turn the screws on segments of the population they determine degenerate.

Sure thing Douthat, turning back the sexual revolution will make every working man a king again.