• 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.
(emphasis added)

Name one.

How about Mississippi govenor Tate Reeves

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/08/abortion-tate-reeves-mississippi-contraception/

I quoted how all the republican attorney general candidates wanted to overturn Griswold, why would they be against it if they were not going to go after contraception?

https://michiganadvance.com/2022/02/20/gop-attorney-general-hopefuls-seek-to-overturn-landmark-contraception-law-push-for-election-audit/

Republicans are certainly lining up to attack Griswold, why shouldn't I believe that they want to outlaw the things it protects?
 
Are people starting to get what I mean when I say people are no longer wrong but intentionally and deliberately wrong while daring us to do something about it?
Today I'm thinking about where this thought leads. I think that everyone agrees that humbly "playing by the rules", doing our bit to vote, to encourage people to vote, and throwing highly visible protests is just not going to wind down the extreme steps that we're seeing by the increasingly powerful lunatic fringe of the right.

The already partisan will not change their banners out of embarrassment, will not decide that they need to put the culture war and wedge issues aside, just because they're so appalled at the hypocrisy, incompetence, and obstructionism of their leaders, or the seditious rhetoric and actions of their extreme wing. Whatever fruit that could bear already happened between 2016-2020, and there's nobody left to peel away that cares enough to make a difference.

"Look how terrible those people are" is not enough to pull centrists or fence-sitters either. The target for these kind of tactics could not have been more suited, and still it barely made a dent in how close the electoral college was. It doesn't work.

So what is needed? Is the democracy game over? Revolution, civil war? Start acting with the same disregard for our civic traditions and rule of law in order to be a match for opponents that are all too willing to go that far themselves?

My answer is no. There's a better way. We've already seen a lot of these in action to learn from, and it can be done by Democrats.

1. A platform of unapologetic, meaningful policy goals, with healthcare reform and affirming reproductive freedom front and center. Stop watering them down to try to gain broader support from the unconvinced. Broaden support by CONVINCING. Reagan knew this, and his campaign managed to shift the Overton Window in a manner that still persists. Democrats are full of popular and valuable ideas, that they are bad at selling. Don't sell policies on the ideology of it. Sell them on the practicality. Show how these policies can help people even if they don't sign on to the political theme that they grew from.

2. Shore up our democratic institutions rather than being tempted to bypass or abandon them. Democrats have practice at this too. There was remarkable effort to bolster the credibility of our election processes and results, to make sure that they were operating as accurately and securely as possible even in the face of baseless accusations. To make sure that the people in sensitive positions were educated enough to resist the spurious claims of a stolen election and make the results binding. It's a more challenging task this time around because in many places there is an attempt to get cronies into those sensitive roles. That battle is not lost, though, and needs all the more effort.

3. Focus more on state and local politics. Another winning strategy that Republicans proved the effectiveness of. Democrats need to get into that game more, and rely less on national politics to trickle support downballot. This applies to the voters as well. Don't just vote, don't just protest. Get involved in shaping the local party organizations. Participation is often relatively low, which means that even a single person and a couple of like minded friends can be highly effective. Will the national party organization dominate still? Likely. But more participation will make it harder to. This is the remedy for that feeling that your party doesn't represent you anymore.

Will gerrymandering still put many efforts to shift state and district level politics at a disadvantage? Yes. Still worth the effort. Stronger efforts and dedicated players can prevail even on an uneven playing field.

Thank you if you've had the patience to read this far. Rant over.
 
Last edited:
I think what he's saying is that those other forms of birth control approach or straddle the line between "birth control" and "abortion." He is saying that those who see the morning after pill as abortion rather than birth control will seek to limit or ban access to it, but will not seek to ban access to condoms, IUDs and birth control pills, the effect of which takes place prior to or prevents fertilization.

But lots of people view IUD's and birth control pills as abortions because they could prevent the implantation of a fertilized embryo. Why are we pretending that those are not viewed as immoral abortion causing things when that was the whole point of the Hobby Lobby ruling? I mean it isn't like you would see much millage from some scientologist run company refusing to cover their employees antidepressants.
 
How about Mississippi govenor Tate Reeves

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/08/abortion-tate-reeves-mississippi-contraception/

I quoted how all the republican attorney general candidates wanted to overturn Griswold, why would they be against it if they were not going to go after contraception?

https://michiganadvance.com/2022/02/20/gop-attorney-general-hopefuls-seek-to-overturn-landmark-contraception-law-push-for-election-audit/

Republicans are certainly lining up to attack Griswold, why shouldn't I believe that they want to outlaw the things it protects?

As I said yesterday, a lot of people don't care about all this philosophy of government stuff. "What would Montesquieu say about this?" is not something a lot of people care about. All they care about is the bottom line. Is it legal, or not?

Despite the fact that you can only see one possible reason to oppose a Supreme Court decision, that doesn't mean there is only one reason to oppose a Supreme Court decision.
 
Because the last such law was passed in 1965. Things have changed.



(emphasis added)

Morning after pill.

Also IUD and hormonal birth control. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly so I don't expect you to learn that it is broader than plan B anytime soon, but they are clear about this.
 
I think what he's saying is that those other forms of birth control approach or straddle the line between "birth control" and "abortion." He is saying that those who see the morning after pill as abortion rather than birth control will seek to limit or ban access to it, but will not seek to ban access to condoms, IUDs and birth control pills, the effect of which takes place prior to or prevents fertilization.
IUDs do not only prevent fertilization.

These things do not straddle the line between abortion and birth control. They're birth control, and banning them will have practical effects.
 
Because the last such law was passed in 1965. Things have changed
......

Morning after pill.
.....

The "morning after" pill is just a larger dose of some standard bc chemicals. You couldn't ban it without banning all bc pills.
 
3. Focus more on state and local politics. Another winning strategy that Republicans proved the effectiveness of.

I agree with most of what you said, but none more than this. It's critical, and the Republicans have used it to great effect.
 
Also IUD and hormonal birth control. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly so I don't expect you to learn that it is broader than plan B anytime soon, but they are clear about this.

Show me a politician saying he or she would ban birth control pills.
 
As I said yesterday, a lot of people don't care about all this philosophy of government stuff. "What would Montesquieu say about this?" is not something a lot of people care about. All they care about is the bottom line. Is it legal, or not?

Despite the fact that you can only see one possible reason to oppose a Supreme Court decision, that doesn't mean there is only one reason to oppose a Supreme Court decision.

Why are you thinking they are treating this as some obscure philosophical point instead of the next move in their strategy, you make that claim please support that it was not strategy but philosophy being debated by the GOP candidates for your states AG.

You are telling me to ignore their words because they are not talking about practical governing effects but rather abstract philosophical principles. Prove it.
 
Why are you thinking they are treating this as some obscure philosophical point instead of the next move in their strategy, you make that claim please support that it was not strategy but philosophy being debated by the GOP candidates for your states AG.

You are telling me to ignore their words because they are not talking about practical governing effects but rather abstract philosophical principles. Prove it.

I don't think "they" are doing anything. I do think that some of "them" are doing one thing, and some of "them" are doing something else, and some of "them" are repeating things they heard somewhere, thoughtlessly parroting the ideas without actually giving them any real thought themselves.

That last group includes most, but not all, of the ones running for office.
 
Last edited:
Show me a politician saying he or she would ban birth control pills.

After you show me some proof that all these attacks on Griswold are some abstract philosophical position and not a concrete practical tactical decision of what to go after next after Roe is overturned.
 
I don't think "they" are doing anything. I do think that some of "them" are doing one thing, and some of "them" are doing something else, and some of "them" are repeating things they heard somewhere, thoughtlessly parroting the ideas without actually giving them any real thought themselves.

That last group is most, but not all, of the ones running for office.

They know it is about contraception so as you are now not claiming they were making some abstract claim about the philosophy of governance and law now it is that they are too dumb to know what they are saying. Way to move the goal posts on that one.

Why not just take them at their word that they want to overturn Griswold, and the logical conclusion that there are some contraceptives they want to outlaw?
 
After you show me some proof that all these attacks on Griswold are some abstract philosophical position and not a concrete practical tactical decision of what to go after next after Roe is overturned.

Especially considering that granting cert is a limited resource. The SCOTUS only hears so many cases a term and nobody is going to waste the effort and precious attention to go through overturning Griswold if there isn't some real right wing interest in criminalizing at least some forms of birth control.
 
Especially considering that granting cert is a limited resource. The SCOTUS only hears so many cases a term and nobody is going to waste the effort and precious attention to go through overturning Griswold if there isn't some real right wing interest in criminalizing at least some forms of birth control.

That's right, but you could have stopped just before the "if".

ETA: Oh, I guess not. They are in fact interested in criminalizing some forms of birth control. Well, "they" aren't, but a non-fringe portion of "them" are.

I don't know what will happen to "Plan B" and others after Roe is gone. It wouldn't surprise me to see them temporarily outlawed in some places. As I have said, I think abortion will be legal again in all 50 states within 15 years, but in the interim, abortion will certainly be illegal in places, and I wouldn't be surprised if those methods are illegal durong all or part of that time.
 
Last edited:
"Come with me... and you'll be... in a world of purely meaningless semantics..."

You are the one being evasive with language.

A zygote is life, and it is a human being. Life clearly begins at conception. But you mean something other than that.
 
But lots of people view IUD's and birth control pills as abortions because they could prevent the implantation of a fertilized embryo. Why are we pretending that those are not viewed as immoral abortion causing things when that was the whole point of the Hobby Lobby ruling? I mean it isn't like you would see much millage from some scientologist run company refusing to cover their employees antidepressants.

I have never heard anyone equate IUDs and birth control pills with abortion. I suppose there may be "lots" of people who view it that way. But a significant fraction of the population? There are "lots" of people who believe the moon landing didn't occur. They are still a fringe.
 
This is another one of these "I wonder what was really said..." quotes.


I haven't looked it up, so here is what I think I will find:

The AZ senate candidate who called for a condom ban:

Option 1) he is one of those fringe weirdo candidates that is technically a US Senate candidate, but not to be taken seriously.

Option 2) He didn't say it.

Marsha Blackburn and contraceptives for married couples only:

It is Marsha Blackburn, so stupidity of that magnitude is possible, but I think that's too stupid even for Blackburn. I think more likely she was discussing an issue about the limitations of Supreme Court power, and saying the court overstepped its authority with Griswold v. Connecticut.

As an aside, I think Griswold was a good decision.

Mitch McConnell and a nationwide anti-abortion ban:

Yes. He said that.
So you think Griswold was a good decision, but you don't think it's "too stupid" to suggest that it should be overturned so that a state can again declare the advocacy of "artificial" birth control a felony?

So what if Mr. condomban is a fringe nut? He should be vociferously opposed by everyone, on both sides of the issue, unreservedly. That he is not is symptomatic of the drift that considers even the most outrageously stupid ideas harmless enough to let slide. There are plenty of fringe nuts in Congress right now, and part of the reason, I think, is that people are afraid to call out stupidity and insanity when it surrounds them.

On another issue, sure I'm sure my vote will be counted. Even if I weren't white, this is Vermont, where people know how voting is supposed to work. But so what? If others who are not so lucky don't get counted it's a flaming injustice that reflects on us all, and if enough of them don't get counted, they quite handily outweigh my, and my state's, influence on national policy. If the Republicans win the next election, and they have their way, there will be a national ban on abortion, and Vermont's pending Constitutional amendment guaranteeing it won't be worth the paper it's printed on.

Here we are, discussing state laws that will outlaw birth control, a Senate minority leader who has made it quite clear that he would support a national law banning abortion, redefinitions of abortion and of murder that put every woman of childbearing age in a position of moral inferiority and suspicion, state laws that explicitly and openly advocate the overturning of election results, a gubernatorial candidate on record as opposed to democracy, an ex-president and potential candidate who fomented a coup and is on record as advocating that protestors be shot, among other stupidities, and sorry, but I don't see much room for complacency.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom