Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Roe vs Wade Overturned

Roe vs Wade Overturned (Page 2)
Thread Tools
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2022, 06:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I have concluded that most of them arguing from the position that abortions are performed a handful of minutes before the baby would have been born naturally
Under Planned Parenthood v. Casey it was legal to electively abort a fetus with a 49% chance of survival outside the womb.

Of course, most doctors would refuse to perform this procedure, but it was unconstitutional to introduce any form of legal impediment to it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2022, 07:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
No chance.

https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the...s-my-abortion/

Abortion is something the "other" does. Until I need one, then the circumstances make it okay, and I probably have the means, resources, and societal leeway to get one.
Thanks for the link - an interesting read.

I was referring to more women's rights than just abortion. Even ones that haven't been universal yet, like equal pay for equal work or position. It seems to me conservative judges and officials have no plan to stop at abortion - anything that threatens patriarchal society will be fair game. So with general attacks expected to continue, I still hope Republican women will finally wake up and fight back.

Women make up 51% of the population. If they were willing to defend their rights from political attacks, they would win *every* election involved, across the nation. ALL of the anti-women's-rights officials would be flushed within one election cycle. Removing corrupt judges would take longer, but would be just as certain. The only reason I see for this not happening, is the ~40% who are Republican women. Who continue to vote for their attackers.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2022, 08:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
Disagree. GOP have had peaceful protest with guns hundreds of times.
Except that I wouldn't describe those as peaceful. Guns were used as an intimidation tactic. And it wasn't all peaceful (the people Kyle Rittenhouse killed come to mind, something that's likely to happen more often when both sides are armed).

Moreover, there is no way that the police would be as calm and collected if BLM protestors “peacefully protested” inside state capitols, especially if they were armed to their teeth. Even scientifically speaking, armed revolutions are less likely to succeed.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
MacNNFamous  (op)
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2022, 10:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
I think the police response to a peaceful BLM protest, where the participants were legally open-carrying, would be pretty damned appalling.
They didn't do shit then:
https://capitolweekly.net/black-panthers-armed-capitol/

They won't do shit now:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-g...-idUSKCN24R025

https://nypost.com/2021/11/23/armed-...-arbery-trial/

Cops do NOT fuck with armed protestors. If you're unarmed they'll provoke and shove people with shields, then beat the shit out of them with batons like literal thugs. Never happens when protestors are packing heat.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2022, 12:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
Are you sure they didn't do anything?
One thing that comes to mind immediately is then-Governor Reagan signing gun control legislation into law, which was targeting the Black Panthers. The NRA back then supported it (try to guess why).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2022, 02:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I'm struggling to see how an abortion ban isn't a flagrant violation of church and state. Clearly pro-lifers will argue its not a religiously motivated thing, but even more clearly, it very much is. Certainly the ban before first trimester.
Religious dictatorship in 3...2...1... In the last weeks the court has:
  1. Overridden state laws that did not give give school funding to religious schools (making states pay to religious schools as a school choice option)
  2. Made it so teachers can lead prayer in public schools (not religious schools). Let's see how they react when the wiccans speak up.
  3. Banned abortion federally (because on THIS one they care about state rights apparently) (not) (plus states rights is whistle for racism, the south lives y'all)

What will next week bring? The court is ruling the land and still doing trump/religious right/GOP cultists bidding. How do we stop that short of
  1. penalizing judges who went back on their word or outright lied about respecting established precedent. Impeachment?
  2. penalizing judges whose spouse was an integral part of the Jan 6 insurrection. Thomas definitely has a conflict of interest.
  3. expanding the court. No one wants to open the slippery slope of doing this in case the Rs decide to expand it further...

How oh how did mcconnell get away with blocking obamas supreme court nomination. It was complete BS. Everyone knew it. If he had not done that RBG would have retired and obama could have nominated 2 judges.

Women's health matters. Women will get murdered for being pregnant. Will be trapped with abusive spouses. Will be trapped in economic straits. Just trapped either way. And all so that the right wing can improve the supply chain of babies for Betsy Devoe to sell.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2022, 02:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Women being doormats was essential to the survival of the species until about 200 years ago, give or take. The impulses which cause it, for both men and women, are hardwired into our biology. Rooting that out will be an ongoing process taking many centuries.
Fuck off.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2022, 02:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Fuck off.
Done.


Edit: to be clear, as offered if requested.
     
bstone
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Boston, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2022, 09:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
Wait until you have to fill-out paperwork and/or testify that a woman’s miscarriage was a legit medical event vs. something she may have brought on herself (knowingly or unknowingly.) Here’s a Harpers backgrounder on the history of policing miscarriages in the US.
Yeah....no. They had a hard enough time attracting medical providers to GOP controlled states, this will just make us even less likely to go there.
Emergency Medicine & Urgent Care.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2022, 01:13 AM
 
Ways to work around the SCOTUS Roe problem.

• Indian reservations have been suggested. Tribes have limited sovereignty, subject to Federal jurisdiction. State laws do not apply on reservations. So in theory, clinics could be set up on reservations, if the tribe supports it. But there are several problems. States and Congress have often encroached on tribal sovereignty, so historically, Indian rights are fragile when inconvenient. So tribes tend to avoid controversy, and won't want the endless lawsuits they'd be harassed with. If it made them a lot of money, like the casinos do, that would be a different matter. But abortion is about freedom, not about profit.

• I've thought about military bases. Those are not part of the states that surround them, and state law definitely doesn't apply to them. The main problem is the Hyde Amendment which forbids federal funding of abortions beyond the usual exceptions. So military bases could offer abortions to the public within those exceptions, ignoring unfriendly states.

As to voluntary abortions outside of danger to the mother, rape, incest, etc. - it appears the Feds can offer it, provided someone else pays for it. Like the patient, or an insurance policy, or a non-profit. Likewise, I suppose military bases could allow a clinic to be built and operated on a corner of their land. So long as the Feds don't pay for any of it.

• Another possibility is foreign embassies. Those are foreign soil. Not sure who would pay, but a clinic on embassy grounds is immune to the laws of the surrounding state. However, most (all?) foreign embassies are in the DC area or the NYC area (UN embassies). There are trade ministries in other states, which offer some embassy services. But I don't know if they have legal immunity like a full embassy.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2022, 04:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Ways to work around the SCOTUS Roe problem.

As to voluntary abortions outside of danger to the mother, rape, incest, etc. - it appears the Feds can offer it, provided someone else pays for it. Like the patient, or an insurance policy, or a non-profit. Likewise, I suppose military bases could allow a clinic to be built and operated on a corner of their land. So long as the Feds don't pay for any of it.
You just know there will be a suit claiming that maintenance or upkeep of the land will somehow make it so the feds are paying for it.
Could Biden establish some sort of legally official scientific agency that could rule on things like viability, define certain abortions as healthcare maybe and then sneak these into laws elsewhere?
Specifically if certain procedures were scientifically and then legally defined as healthcare then some kind of right could be granted to life saving care that got around abortion rules.
And if there was a similar scientifically recognised ruling on viability, this could be utilised to challenge state abortion laws on separation of church and state because any ban encroaching on the science would be inferred to be religious doctrine.

Just spitballing.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2022, 04:13 AM
 
@reader
I think Americans should step back and think about this in the long term. People opposed to abortion have quite literally worked steadily for 50 years, and that won't be wiped out through some cute legal trick over night. Here are just a few issues that spontaneously come to mind:

(1) No legislation on abortion will pass, because of the filibuster in the Senate. I don't see any way to 60 votes even if e. g. Susan Collins were to take all the courage she has and bet it on a bill that mandated minimal exceptions to e. g. clarify what it means to save the life of the mother or have exceptions for rape and incest.
(2) The Hyde amendment makes it impossible to pay for abortions with federal funds. It could be changed, but currently won't be due to issue (1).
(3) President Biden's options are very limited, and I don't think it is a good idea to further expand the reach of the executive. Plus, I am pretty sure the current Supreme Court would be very happy to strike those down with prejudice.
(4) Things like gerrymandering, the strong overrepresentation of small states in the Senate and American territories like Puerto Rico, Washington DC and Guam not being states give the GOP a big edge.

To me the best options are as follows:

(1) Leverage that politics is downstream from culture and culturally, the GOP's and the SCOTUS majority's stance on issues like abortion, gun control and focussing only on Free Exercise clause while killing off the Establishment Clause when it comes to religion are wildly unfavorable and out of step with the vast majority of the population.
(2) Focus on local elections. Try to be competitive and take the long view. Even when the Democratic candidates get few votes, aim to grow it over time. Create structures and make it competitive.
(3) Think of reforms of the system and convince people that they are not meant to just give the Democrats an edge over Republicans. I am thinking of e. g. ranked choice voting, which would also eliminate current issues Republicans claim to have in primaries (Dems are polluting the votes!). Introduce term limits for all federal judges, e. g. until federal retirement age for non-SCOTUS judges and 10 years for justices on SCOTUS. You could also think of federal judges rotating into and out of SCOTUS. Be creative, but make sure that none of the measures are simply meant to counterbalance the advantage the GOP has now.
(4) Make sure more people vote in all elections. Lobby for American territories and DC to become states.
(5) Start with these reforms on the local level, e. g. your city, county or township. Once e. g. ranked choice voting has become normal in your town, move to the state level. And once people understand that politics is still politics, and Republicans aren't screwed by adopting it, then these ideas might migrate to the federal level.
(6) Wait for an opportunity. The GOP seems very strong now, but will be weak when Trump leaves the scene. His children are not popular enough, and De Santis might be more dangerous in the short term, I don't think he has as much lasting support as Trump does.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2022, 04:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
You just know there will be a suit claiming that maintenance or upkeep of the land will somehow make it so the feds are paying for it.
Could Biden establish some sort of legally official scientific agency that could rule on things like viability, define certain abortions as healthcare maybe and then sneak these into laws elsewhere?
I don't think you can sneak anything about abortion into other laws. Viability is not recognized as a relevant factor in the latest ruling, so I don't think SCOTUS thinks this is a relevant factor.
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Specifically if certain procedures were scientifically and then legally defined as healthcare then some kind of right could be granted to life saving care that got around abortion rules.
If you look around the world at other countries, you see that strong rules around abortions have a chilling effect on doctors. Even when there are exceptions to save the life of the woman, in many cases doctors are reluctant as it is a judgement call whether the life of a woman is at stake. E. g. in case of an ectopic pregnancy, we are talking about probabilities here, so a substantial increase in risk, but not certainty. Lastly, it does not take into account other lasting damage. E. g. an ectopic pregnancy could lead to infertility.
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
And if there was a similar scientifically recognised ruling on viability, this could be utilised to challenge state abortion laws on separation of church and state because any ban encroaching on the science would be inferred to be religious doctrine.
SCOTUS's latest ruling on religious freedom makes it clear that they are sidelining the Establishment Clause and mostly focus on the Free Exercise Clause. So while your argument is logically correct, I don't think the current Supreme Court will side with you.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2022, 06:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
1) No legislation on abortion will pass, because of the filibuster in the Senate. I don't see any way to 60 votes even if e. g. Susan Collins were to take all the courage she has and bet it on a bill that mandated minimal exceptions to e. g. clarify what it means to save the life of the mother or have exceptions for rape and incest.
FWIW, republican leadership have been seriously talking about killing the fillibuster in order to get federal anti-abortion laws passed, should they take control of the senate.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2022, 07:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
FWIW, republican leadership have been seriously talking about killing the fillibuster in order to get federal anti-abortion laws passed, should they take control of the senate.
Let them do that. I’m against the filibuster, a 60-seat majority is neither in the Constitution nor necessary. But at least right now the Democrats have a majority in the Senate for abolishing it. If the GOP is more likely to do the deed, ok, let them do it. Majorities in Congress should have consequences — and that cuts both ways.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2022, 01:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
@reader
I think Americans should step back and think about this in the long term. People opposed to abortion have quite literally worked steadily for 50 years, and that won't be wiped out through some cute legal trick over night.
I don't disagree with the suggestions (exceptions below), but unwanted pregnancy is an immediate problem. Leading to bad life changes - eg, poverty, end of education, locked into crap jobs she cannot afford to quit, thrown out by some parents, etc.

This is about saving women's lives and futures, so long-term planning aside, they need options now. Legal tricks they may be, but the victims here cannot afford to wait years for political reforms. I'd take what we can get temporarily, while working on the long-term angles.
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Here are just a few issues that spontaneously come to mind:
...
(2) The Hyde amendment makes it impossible to pay for abortions with federal funds. It could be changed, but currently won't be due to issue (1).
The current version of the Hyde Amendment (follow the link above) includes exceptions, for which the Feds can pay. It also does not forbid abortions per se, only forbidding the Feds to pay for them. If someone else pays, the Feds can provide that service.
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
(3) President Biden's options are very limited, and I don't think it is a good idea to further expand the reach of the executive. Plus, I am pretty sure the current Supreme Court would be very happy to strike those down with prejudice.
Again, time is important for the victims. Opening clinics on reservations or embassies does not affect the Presidents powers in any way - he has no jurisdiction. Providing them on military bases, with others paying, is an existing use of executive orders - he commands the military. Opening a clinic on a disused corner of a military base is a hands-off item, again offering no new authority.
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
(3) ... Introduce term limits for all federal judges, e. g. until federal retirement age for non-SCOTUS judges and 10 years for justices on SCOTUS. You could also think of federal judges rotating into and out of SCOTUS.
Some State judges are appointed for life, others periodically stand for reelection. But Federal judges are all appointed for life - removal mandated for bad behavior, not for any time limits. It would require a Constitutional Amendment to change that. Article 3, Section 1:
... The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive {pay} ... which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2022, 02:03 PM
 
A further thought - there is a possible way around the Hyde Amendment. It's been modified several times. Most especially, when the ACA was passed in 2010, the Hyde Amendment was not included.
However, the Senate bill passed by the House on March 21, 2010, did not contain that Hyde Amendment language. As part of an agreement between Rep. Stupak and President Obama to secure Stupak's vote, the President issued Executive Order 13535 on March 24, 2010, affirming that the Hyde Amendment would extend to the new bill.
As a later law supercedes an earlier law at the same level, the Affordable Care Act already overrode Hyde, within its context. If Biden were to revoke EO# 13535, this would apply immediately. Presumably allowing subsidized health plans to cover voluntary abortions. Considering how unfairly Republicans have played with the rules (refusing hearings on Garland, rushing replacement for RGB), it would be perfectly fair to revoke 13535.

It's an oversimplification to assume the conservative block would blindly rule against abortions in every context. Several of those justices are sticklers for legal fundamental meanings (as they perceive them) and would not declare an earlier law to overrule a later law.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2022, 06:39 PM
 
Alabama cites SCOTUS Roe ruling in urging federal court to let state ban trans health care.
This shit isn’t going to end until it’s 1865 again, only with the south winning. Plus fascism.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2022, 07:52 PM
 
@reader
Just to clarify: I agree with you that this will lead to irreparable harm, a burden mostly carried by women. My objections and my proposed solutions are not satisfactory. I was just pointing to the steep obstacles any quick solution will face.

And I am not against being creative and creating pressure relief valves. But the scope is likely very small and everything could change as soon as the next administration is in power. Your out-of-the-box thinking is useful. We just shouldn’t think of it as a magic bullet.

I’m also aware (and should have explicitly said so) that abolishing life time tenure and the other changes to how federal judges are appointed and have tenure need a Constitutional amendment, something that is not a realistic possibility at the moment. It is sad that the Constitution boxes politicians in here and only allows solutions that would likely be considered extreme (like appointing more Justices). Even if e. g. Biden tripled the size of the court, but keeping the ideological make-up intact, the right would interpret that as court packing. (The idea is that the Supreme Court is handling way more cases and thus, needs to be bigger. Each case would be treated by a randomly chosen panel of, say, 3 or 9 Justices.)

But IMHO we need to go to the root of the problem here: the GOP is overrepresented and the political positions of its representatives are completely out of step with the majority of the population. Moreover, the ancient US political system is creaking, it is too rigid, too inflexible and is showing its age. E. g. when the US has supported states to transition to democracies in recent years, they would not use their own political system as a template but parliamentary democracies.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2022, 05:04 PM
 
     
MacNNFamous  (op)
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2022, 01:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Religious dictatorship in 3...2...1... In the last weeks the court has:
  1. Overridden state laws that did not give give school funding to religious schools (making states pay to religious schools as a school choice option)
  2. Made it so teachers can lead prayer in public schools (not religious schools). Let's see how they react when the wiccans speak up.
  3. Banned abortion federally (because on THIS one they care about state rights apparently) (not) (plus states rights is whistle for racism, the south lives y'all)

What will next week bring? The court is ruling the land and still doing trump/religious right/GOP cultists bidding. How do we stop that short of
  1. penalizing judges who went back on their word or outright lied about respecting established precedent. Impeachment?
  2. penalizing judges whose spouse was an integral part of the Jan 6 insurrection. Thomas definitely has a conflict of interest.
  3. expanding the court. No one wants to open the slippery slope of doing this in case the Rs decide to expand it further...

How oh how did mcconnell get away with blocking obamas supreme court nomination. It was complete BS. Everyone knew it. If he had not done that RBG would have retired and obama could have nominated 2 judges.

Women's health matters. Women will get murdered for being pregnant. Will be trapped with abusive spouses. Will be trapped in economic straits. Just trapped either way. And all so that the right wing can improve the supply chain of babies for Betsy Devoe to sell.
Yeah, but like... immigrants are coming for our jobs, and I ain't no pussy libtard.

Fuck I want covid to get so bad....
     
MacNNFamous  (op)
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2022, 01:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Ways to work around the SCOTUS Roe problem.

• Indian reservations have been suggested. Tribes have limited sovereignty, subject to Federal jurisdiction. State laws do not apply on reservations. So in theory, clinics could be set up on reservations, if the tribe supports it. But there are several problems. States and Congress have often encroached on tribal sovereignty, so historically, Indian rights are fragile when inconvenient. So tribes tend to avoid controversy, and won't want the endless lawsuits they'd be harassed with. If it made them a lot of money, like the casinos do, that would be a different matter. But abortion is about freedom, not about profit.

• I've thought about military bases. Those are not part of the states that surround them, and state law definitely doesn't apply to them. The main problem is the Hyde Amendment which forbids federal funding of abortions beyond the usual exceptions. So military bases could offer abortions to the public within those exceptions, ignoring unfriendly states.

As to voluntary abortions outside of danger to the mother, rape, incest, etc. - it appears the Feds can offer it, provided someone else pays for it. Like the patient, or an insurance policy, or a non-profit. Likewise, I suppose military bases could allow a clinic to be built and operated on a corner of their land. So long as the Feds don't pay for any of it.

• Another possibility is foreign embassies. Those are foreign soil. Not sure who would pay, but a clinic on embassy grounds is immune to the laws of the surrounding state. However, most (all?) foreign embassies are in the DC area or the NYC area (UN embassies). There are trade ministries in other states, which offer some embassy services. But I don't know if they have legal immunity like a full embassy.
I'm not interested in work arounds. These same patriots that bleat on about freedom are the ones taking away the ability to choose/body autonomy. Hypocritical fucks.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2022, 02:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
I'm not interested in work arounds.
To borrow engineering advice, don't let perfection be the enemy of good.

We all want freedom restored. But if workarounds are what we have, and the short-term alternative is diddly squat, then bring on the workarounds. The important parts are that they work, and are available. While we fight for the better answers.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2022, 05:38 PM
 
The problem with workarounds is people get used to them and then it's harder to get real changes made. Like, sure, we can fundraise for flights to get people to clinics but WE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO.

The court is driving this country right now. Into a ditch.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2022, 10:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
The problem with workarounds is people get used to them and then it's harder to get real changes made. Like, sure, we can fundraise for flights to get people to clinics but WE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO.
Indeed. And they are easy to undo.
As bad as this is for women (and also on men to a much lesser degree), this is an issue whose resolution needs time and I am afraid it’ll have to get worse first. E. g. the referendum in Ireland was also kicked off by the death of a pregnant woman who was denied an abortion despite the risks. I remember the podcasters from Nationalreview had to pick up their jaws from the floor, because the best the “pro life” was able to do was just under 50 % in rural areas.

I’m obviously not advocating for waiting until some particularly egregious death that comes as a result of harsh restrictions on abortions acts as a condensation point for the pro choice movement. It really makes me sad, because I can understand reader’s itch to do something so very well.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
MacNNFamous  (op)
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2022, 11:42 PM
 
I don't think being patient while a bunch of poor people die is a good strategy, but I guess that's the official stance on Covid too. 10x higher case count than last year at this time.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2022, 08:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
I don't think being patient while a bunch of poor people die is a good strategy, but I guess that's the official stance on Covid too. 10x higher case count than last year at this time.
I think the official COVID stance now is “let’s not do anything that will get those Trumpists riled-up, cause those assholes are gonna kill somebody”
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2022, 08:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
I don't think being patient while a bunch of poor people die is a good strategy, but I guess that's the official stance on Covid too. 10x higher case count than last year at this time.
I’m not saying “be patient”, that sounds a lot like doing nothing. That’s not what I have in mind. Quite a few blue states are putting abortion legislation on the books that will make a difference. And I think this is the right approach: focus on states and the local level, because on the federal level, I don’t see a path to something changing very meaningfully in the near future. In the states, I think you can do a lot. It’ll be a lot more difficult for Republicans to do something about that if they have to fight a war on 20 fronts rather than 1.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2022, 11:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
I think the official COVID stance now is “let’s not do anything that will get those Trumpists riled-up, cause those assholes are gonna kill somebody”
I think the general pandemic exhaustion is such that any restrictions would be a death sentence for Biden's middling approval rating, even among the more progressive bunch.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2022, 01:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I’m not saying “be patient”, that sounds a lot like doing nothing. That’s not what I have in mind. Quite a few blue states are putting abortion legislation on the books that will make a difference. And I think this is the right approach: focus on states and the local level, because on the federal level, I don’t see a path to something changing very meaningfully in the near future. In the states, I think you can do a lot. It’ll be a lot more difficult for Republicans to do something about that if they have to fight a war on 20 fronts rather than 1.
they've already won in those 20 states though.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2022, 01:43 PM
 
Winning through gerrymandering and voter suppression is not stable. I'm especially interested in those states with Dem governors, but Rep legislatures. Remember, gerrymandering does not affect state-wide elections. Only those elections done by district. There's a reason why some of those states tried to switch their supreme court judge re-elections from statewide to district-based.

So if statewide elections indicate a majority in favor of abortion rights, then we go after the cheaters. Once Gerry's house of cards falls, it's game-over in that state.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2022, 04:00 PM
 
As Ohio restricts abortions, 10-year-old girl travels to Indiana for procedure.
No exceptions for incest or rape, even if you’re 10.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2022, 07:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
they've already won in those 20 states though.
I know, the situation is shitty. Do you have other ideas?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
MacNNFamous  (op)
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2022, 11:31 AM
 
Yup. Large masses of people. Armed. Peaceful. Slowly blockade choke points. Amazon warehouses/shipping hubs if you want to disrupt as much as possible, but maybe blockade state/federal buildings, refuse to let people in or out.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2022, 06:17 AM
 
We’ve been over this:

Either you’re armed because you intend to use the gun, or it is completely useless and can stay at home.

Arming yourself is implicitly violent; otherwise there is absolutely not point in doing so.

Large masses or armed people are either an outright potentially violent insurrection, or — there really isn’t an “or”.

Anyone who claims a large mass of armed people is “peaceful” is either a liar or an idiot.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2022, 12:10 PM
 
There are abortion protests where the police are protecting the anti-choice mob and letting them through but blocking the pro-choice people and threatening to arrest them.
     
MacNNFamous  (op)
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2022, 02:33 PM
 
We have been over this, and I proved that cops don't fuck with protesters if they're packing heat. As soon as they're unarmed, they start action like power tripping assholes.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2022, 07:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
We’ve been over this:

Either you’re armed because you intend to use the gun, or it is completely useless and can stay at home.
Let me add a third use: intimidation. I don’t think that’s a good idea, especially since eventually something will go wrong.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2022, 10:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Let me add a third use: intimidation.
Intimidation literally only works if violence (i.e. intent to use the weapon) is implied.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2022, 04:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Intimidation literally only works if violence (i.e. intent to use the weapon) is implied.
I don't want to nitpick on something that we probably agree on in the end: I think your argument boils down to “the threat of violence is also a form of violence”. If that's it, then yes, I agree. From a practical perspective, it is a lesser degree of violence, obviously.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2022, 04:58 AM
 
The appearance of potential violence would be enough. An actual threat does not need to be present.

Example: pro-choice activists show up to a protest. 10% are wearing visible guns. However, no one brought any ammo. No actual threat. So long as the police do not know that, they'll be respectful of peaceful protesters. Even if some of them carry BLM signs. You know, really pushing the envelope.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2022, 07:09 AM
 
What a bizarre argument. That’s not „peaceful protest“; that’s just tricking police into treating you as armed and dangerous, allowing you to pull the victim card when something happens and it turns out you weren’t either.

A dick move and a recipe for disaster, ensuring that whatever happens, the police will be on the wrong side.

Gross.
     
MacNNFamous  (op)
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2022, 02:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Intimidation literally only works if violence (i.e. intent to use the weapon) is implied.
No, the weapons are protection from the police. Again, armed protestors do NOT get messed with. Unarmed protestors get hit with clubs/shields/teargas/rubber bullets.

Weapons are a DETERRENT of violence.
     
MacNNFamous  (op)
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2022, 02:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
The appearance of potential violence would be enough. An actual threat does not need to be present.

Example: pro-choice activists show up to a protest. 10% are wearing visible guns. However, no one brought any ammo. No actual threat. So long as the police do not know that, they'll be respectful of peaceful protesters. Even if some of them carry BLM signs. You know, really pushing the envelope.
EXACTLY. Police do NOT fuck with armed protestors. This is why stuff like this happens:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...-at-home-order

Armed protestors can do whatever they want as long as they remain peaceful and cops do not escalate.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2022, 06:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Example: pro-choice activists show up to a protest. 10% are wearing visible guns. However, no one brought any ammo. No actual threat. So long as the police do not know that, they'll be respectful of peaceful protesters. Even if some of them carry BLM signs. You know, really pushing the envelope.
How do you know no one brought bullets? Should I take your word for it? IMHO that’d have no material effect when it comes to intimidation. I don’t think bringing weapons to a protest bolsters your cause, be it with or without ammo, it weakens it.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2022, 10:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
No, the weapons are protection from the police. Again, armed protestors do NOT get messed with. Unarmed protestors get hit with clubs/shields/teargas/rubber bullets.

Weapons are a DETERRENT of violence.
Obviously.

This is supported strongly by all statistics.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2022, 03:49 PM
 
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2022, 07:23 AM
 
Kansas voters, yesterday, rejected a proposition to amend the state constitution to outlaw abortion.

The vote was unexpectedly lopsided, by a 59-41 margin.

Apparently, the state supreme court had ruled that the state constitution protected a woman’s right to choose, and only a constitutional amendment could change that. The legislature and special-interest groups did a “hold my beer” and quickly crafted an amendment proposition and forced it onto the ballot of the normally-low-turnout primary election, held yesterday. Turnout, though, was much higher than expected, and the result was an unexpected win for women’s rights.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2022, 11:32 AM
 
They also tried to pull a shenanigan by wording the yes/no options confusingly, and then sending fake texts to people telling them to vote the opposite.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2022, 02:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
They also tried to pull a shenanigan by wording the yes/no options confusingly ...
Man, does that annoy me. Right up there with naming laws, so it sounds like they do the opposite of what they do.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:28 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,