Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

126
This situation has made me realize that the Democrats completely BS their voters 100% and Reps only BS their voters about 50%. At this point, Pelosi is screaming about Women's Rights, but going out of her way to protect Anti-Abortion Democrats from progressives. Democrats messaging has completely left out anyone but cis-women. This entire "leak" is little more than a fundraising tactic. Dems have zero intention of doing anything other than telling voters to go out and vote.
EAT,SLEEP,RANGE,REPEAT

Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

127
The delegates that drafted and eventually signed the Constitution were not only under pressure from their own colonies, but had to agree to compromises with other colonies to get the document written, signed and later ratified. Eight of the signers were born in Britain and Ireland, the rest were born in the colonies so other than reading or by mouth, they had no knowledge or experience with other forms of government. Franklin had lived in Britain and France so he saw two forms of government at work, a parliamentary democracy and an absolute monarchy.

As I've said before, our constitution was written in a debating chamber, a presidential system of government was new. Britain had the oldest parliament and it had plenty of problems, but it was still a check on the monarch. And their parliamentary system was still evolving because Britain doesn't have a written constitution, which is a plus and a minus.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

129
I'm old and so likely forgetful but I seem to remember that there is something related to protestors rights?

Isn't there some document that says citizens have the right to peacefully petition the government for redress of grievances?

Does it limit where citizens must stand before they can peacefully petition the government for redress of grievances?

Wouldn't those sitting as SCOTUS be considered the Government?
To be vintage it must be older than me!
The next gun I buy will be the next to last gun I ever buy. PROMISE!
jim

Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

130
But that only applies to when they protest against Dems and non-Repugs otherwise it is not allowed even when it is for peoples civil rights or other rights not listed in the Constitution.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

131
The 1st Amendment protects the right of assembly which relates to the government, but rallies and marches still require permits from local governments.

The Senate on Monday easily cleared a bill to extend security protections to the immediate family members of Supreme Court justices.

The bill — spearheaded by Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Chris Coons (D-Del.) — passed the Senate by unanimous consent, meaning all 100 senators had to sign off in order for it to pass without a formal vote.

It still now heads to the House for passage.

“Threats to the physical safety of Supreme Court Justices and their families are disgraceful, and attempts to intimidate and influence the independence of our judiciary cannot be tolerated,” Cornyn said in a statement.

“I’m glad the Senate quickly approved this measure to extend Supreme Court police protection to family members, and the House must take up and pass it immediately,” he added.

Coons, in a statement, said that he was “glad to see this bipartisan bill unanimously pass the Senate in order to extend security protection to the families of Supreme Court members.”

The bill would formally allow the Supreme Court of the United States Police to provide around-the-clock protection to family members, in line with the security some executive and congressional officials get.

The bill was introduced by the two senators on Thursday, roughly three days after the leak of the draft decision, penned by Justice Samuel Alito, that would strike down the constitutional right to an abortion. Politico, citing a source, reported that four other justices — Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett — were prepared to vote with Alito, giving them a majority to strike down Roe.

The report sparked near immediate protests outside the Supreme Court, where law enforcement officials subsequently put up a “non-scalable” fence.

Groups gathered over the weekend to protest outside the homes of Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts, while a group is also planning to hold a “vigil” outside Alito’s home on Monday night.
https://thehill.com/news/senate/3482443 ... y-members/
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

132
The office of a conservative political organization that lobbies against abortion rights was vandalized and damaged by fire on Sunday morning in Madison, Wisconsin, in what police are investigating as arson.

The fire and vandalism happened at the office of Wisconsin Family Action, authorities said at a press conference Monday. WFA is a political action committee that lobbies against abortion rights and same-sex marriage, according to its website.

Police Chief Shon Barnes said WFA appeared to have been targeted because of its beliefs.

“There is no room for hate or violence in Madison,” Barnes said. “Hate and violence do not advance any cause. We expect to live in a safe community. We don’t expect these things to happen in Madison.”

No suspects have been detained, he said.

Emergency dispatchers received a call from a passerby who saw fire coming from an office building, Madison police communications supervisor Keith Johnson told CNN. Madison firefighters were called to the building at about 6 a.m. and were quickly able to put out the blaze, officials said. No injuries were reported.

Fire investigators believe the fire was intentionally set and are investigating the incident as arson, the fire department said.

Barnes said Monday that two Molotov cocktails, which did not ignite, were found inside the building. It appears a separate fire was started, police said, and graffiti was also found at the scene.

An image from WISC shows the graffiti written on the wall of the office: “If abortions aren’t safe, then you aren’t either.”
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/08/us/anti- ... index.html

Image

Two Molotov cocktails were thrown at an anti-abortion organization in a suburb of Salem, Oregon, on Sunday after an unsuccessful attempt to break in.

At about 10:40 p.m., one or more people unsuccessfully tried to break a window at the Oregon Right to Life building, the Keizer Police Department said in a news release Monday.

Police said the person or people then ignited two Molotov cocktails and threw them toward the brick building. There was a small fire with minimal damage and no one was in the building at the time, police said.

This case is under investigation and police said they are seeking tips.

The incident happened around the same time someone threw two Molotov cocktails into the office of a Wisconsin anti-abortion lobbying group’s office and after two Catholic churches in Colorado, including one known for its annual anti-abortion display, were vandalized last week.

The leak last week of a draft opinion suggesting that the U.S. Supreme Court was on course to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide sparked protests across the country.

If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, abortion would remain legal in Oregon under state law.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-ne ... on-office/


I support abortion, but arson is a crime and arsonist should be caught and imprisoned.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

138
tonguengroover wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 9:47 pm The religious American taliban have been waging war on Planned Parenthood/womens healthcare for decades. With outright murdering of doctors, bombing clinics and death threats.
And now they cry about this?
Fuck them.
It's generally better to not be a criminal even though you could use the old playground defense; "But they were criminals first!"
To be vintage it must be older than me!
The next gun I buy will be the next to last gun I ever buy. PROMISE!
jim

Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

140
tonguengroover wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 9:23 am Love seeing the protestors at the homes of the supremes.
Saw Cancun Cruz on the Faux news with plastic hair hannity..the shite-head was comparing 'thousands of peaceful protestors' in January 6th to the 'violent protestors' at some of the SCOTUS' houses...dumb ass...both were BS..'peaceful' on 1/6 and 'violent' at SCOTUS's houses..

Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

141
The Supreme Court is set to gather Thursday for the first time since the disclosure that it voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, and there’s no sign that the court is changing course from issuing that ruling by the end of June.

Justice Samuel Alito’s sweeping and blunt draft majority opinion from February overturning Roe remains the court’s only circulated draft in the pending Mississippi abortion case, POLITICO has learned, and none of the conservative justices who initially sided with Alito have to date switched their votes. No dissenting draft opinions have circulated from any justice, including the three liberals.

That could explain why no second draft of Alito’s majority opinion has been distributed, as typically the two sides react to one another’s written arguments and recast their own.

As the nine justices prepare for their scheduled, private, closed-door conference this week, they face one of the greatest crises in modern Supreme Court history, with an internal leak investigation under way, an agitated nation focused on whether the constitutional right to abortion is about to be overturned, and some justices facing angry protests at their homes.

“This is the most serious assault on the court, perhaps from within, that the Supreme Court’s ever experienced,” said one person close to the court’s conservatives, who spoke anonymously because of the sensitive nature of the court deliberations. “It’s an understatement to say they are heavily, heavily burdened by this.”

A second person close to the court said that the liberal justices “are as shocked as anyone” by the revelation. “There are concerns for the integrity of the institution,” this person said. “The views are uniform.”

At the center of the storm is Chief Justice John Roberts, whose power over the court’s decisions and operations has appeared to diminish as the court has shifted rightward and become more polarized.

In the Mississippi abortion case currently before the court, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, it’s not clear if Roberts will join the liberal justices in dissent, craft his own solo opinion in the case or perhaps join a watered-down version of Alito’s draft.

Roberts could still try to lobby one of the five Republican-appointed justices to withdraw their support from Alito and sign onto a more centrist opinion that doesn’t formally overturn Roe, but instead upholds Mississippi’s 15-week cut off for performing most abortions. Such a move would deprive Alito of a majority and could maintain some federal guarantee of abortion rights, although precisely what regulations states could impose on abortion under such a scenario remains murky.

With their traditional summer break looming at the beginning of July, the justices have only about seven weeks to craft a potentially momentous decision on abortion — a process complicated by POLITICO’s publication of Alito’s draft and by the flood of public criticism triggered by that surprise release.

The court’s conservatives have also abruptly become the focus of protests, leading to some tense scenes outside their homes. And concerns about potential security threats prompted the Supreme Court to deploy an imposing, eight-foot-high black fence along the perimeter of the court’s grounds last week.
Meanwhile, the justices face sensitive decisions about how to respond to the highly unusual breach of secrecy demonstrated by the draft opinion’s unauthorized publication, which has unleashed suspicion inside and outside the court. Roberts has promised an investigation, but longtime court observers and other legal analysts say conducting such a probe presents the justices with a slew of thorny questions about who should handle the inquiry, what tactics to employ and how to handle disagreements among the justices about those issues.

Achieving consensus on those issues could be difficult under any circumstances, but may be particularly difficult for Roberts, who has encountered tensions with conservatives both on the court and in the larger political community in recent years.

While Roberts is a conservative and has sided with his Republican-appointed colleagues again and again in cases involving voting rights, campaign finance and affirmative action, he seemed at times more like a swing justice on other issues, particularly over the past decade.

However, in a series of politically-charged cases, Roberts sided with the court’s liberals to uphold the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, reject then-President Donald Trump’s repeal of protections for so-called Dreamers, and foil Trump administration plans to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census.

Of those rulings, the Obamacare one ruffled the most feathers because Roberts reportedly reversed his position days before the decision was announced, ultimately voting to find the law constitutional.

“There is a price to be paid for what he did. Everybody remembers it,” said an attorney close to several conservative justices, who was granted anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the court’s arguments.

Many court watchers see such fallout in the court’s handling of the abortion case it is now considering. Under the court’s usual procedures, Roberts could have assigned the majority opinion to himself if he joined the court’s five other GOP appointees to uphold the Mississippi law banning abortion at 15 weeks.

However, the draft majority opinion wound up being written by Alito, and its strident text signals it is unlikely Roberts will be on board.

That gaping divide on an issue at the forefront of the conservative legal movement for decades threatens to make him a less impactful manager of the judicial branch’s conduct, legitimacy and legacy, many Supreme Court experts contend.

“There are certainly signs that this is not really Roberts’ court,” said Thomas Keck, a professor of constitutional law and politics at Syracuse University.

“There does seem to be some bitterness among the other justices,” said Curt Levey, a conservative attorney and veteran of several Supreme Court confirmation battles. “There probably was a time when Roberts could’ve convinced one of the other conservative justices [in the pending abortion case.] He might well have succeeded in that a few years ago … Maybe this is the ultimate payback that in the most controversial of all cases and the biggest threat to the legitimacy of the court that he no longer has the persuasive power.”

Others say those who expect Roberts to “control” the court misunderstand the job and that a chief justice is little more than a referee.

“This isn’t the Army chief of staff,” said Garrow, whose writings on the history of Roe are cited in Alito’s draft opinion. “It’s one of nine and you’re more an equal than a superior…. The power of the chief justice is a power of persuasion. Period.”

“Anybody who says Roberts has lost control of the court simply doesn’t know any Supreme Court history because there have been plenty of chief justices who did not control the court,” Garrow added.

To some extent, Roberts is also now a victim of the expectations he set for himself by publicly and repeatedly embracing the goal of building consensus on the court. Speaking at a legal conference in Atlanta last week following POLITICO’s disclosure of the draft abortion opinion, he hinted at the perils of that approach and suggested he’d lowered his own horizons a bit.

“I learned on the court unanimous means 7-to-2,” Roberts joked, according to the Washington Post.

Still, some of the challenges Roberts now faces to his ability to lead and influence the court are hard to paint as the product of any failure on his part.
“I think it’s more about the math than anything else,” said historian and American University professor Stephen Wermiel. “He was the swing vote because he was the swing vote. He doesn’t hold that position any more.”

But other court watchers say the situation diminishing Roberts’ power isn’t entirely the product of external forces.

“Part of it is nothing he could have done anything about,” said Levey, who works for the Freedomworks Foundation and the Committee for Justice. “Part of it is who he’s alienated on the court.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/1 ... e-00031648

We don't know what back channel discussions the justices are having that bypass their law clerks and clerical staff. While the internal investigation is going on over the leak, that could be the safest way to proceed on this opinion. We'll have to wait and see like we have to wait and see in the NYSRPA vs Bruen case.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

142
Alito reached back nearly 1,000 years to weaponize ancient misogyny -- and it's nothing short of grotesque
Heather Digby Parton, Salon May 11, 2022

There is much to be shocked by in Justice Samuel Alito's screed of a draft decision overturning Roe v. Wade, but his evocation of centuries-old common law shouldn't be one of them. As it turns out, this is not unusual, particularly among jurists who argue that certain ideas are so firmly entrenched in the culture that there no longer remains any question on their validity. That is not to say, however, that Alito's use of ancient misogyny to undergird his arguments isn't disgraceful. In fact, it's nothing short of grotesque. He goes all the way back to the 13th century to cite Judge Henry de Bracton's "De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae," a text about English law and custom that explained that if a person has "struck a pregnant woman, or has given her poison, whereby he has caused an abortion, if the foetus be already formed and animated … he commits homicide" to argue that abortion has been considered murder for centuries.

As the Washington Post's Dana Milbank points out, Alito failed to mention some of Bracton's other words of wisdom about fraudulent pregnancies and proper torture techniques. Neither did Alito reference the fact that Bracton believed "women differ from men in many respects, for their position is inferior to that of men." As Milbank writes, Bracton did think women have certain rights:

"When a virgin is defiled," Bracton writes, "let her defiler be punished in the parts in which he offended. Let him thus lose his eyes which gave him sight of the maiden's beauty for which he coveted her. And let him lose as well the testicles which excited his hot lust." The truth of the victim's accusation would "be ascertained by an examination of her body, made by four law-abiding women sworn to tell the truth as to whether she is a virgin or defiled."
The truth is that Hale and the centuries of legal thinkers after him didn't believe that women had any autonomy in the first place.

Perhaps the rapidly accelerating right-wing movement to deny abortion even in cases of rape and incest across the country can adopt this process as a compromise? It wouldn't be that far out, after all. A few years back when South Dakota passed an abortion ban, state Rep. Bill Napoli was quoted saying that he might accept a rape exception under similar circumstances:

A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.
Never let it be said that conservatives have no compassion for rape victims — as long as they are virgins who have been horrifically brutalized "as bad as you can possibly make it." Napoli would fit right in 1250.

And Bracton wasn't the only ancient legal expert to whom Alito turned.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Sir Matthew Hale, a 17th-century English jurist whose legal philosophy made women's lives miserable for centuries was also quoted in the draft: "two treatises by Sir Matthew Hale likewise described abortion of a quick child who died in the womb as a 'great crime' and a 'great misprision'" and "Hale wrote that if a physician gave a woman 'with child' a 'potion' to cause an abortion, and the woman died, it was 'murder' because the potion was given 'unlawfully to destroy her child within her."

As it turns out Alito isn't the only one who considers Hale an authority.

Men rationalizing their need to control women's bodies and their reproduction has been going on forever.

All the way up to the 1990s, Hale's views on rape, particularly marital rape, were commonly cited in English and American jurisprudence. He said, "the husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband which she cannot retract." In other words, a woman gives up her bodily autonomy when she marries. But the truth is that Hale and the centuries of legal thinkers after him didn't believe that women had any autonomy in the first place.

By the way, Hale also energetically prosecuted women for witchcraft. There's no word on where Alito stands on that issue.

All of this is simply to point out that men rationalizing their need to control women's bodies and their reproduction has been going on forever. And just because there has been recent progress in that regard doesn't mean that the underlying impulse has gone away, as reflected in Alito's draft decision in which he goes back almost a thousand years to illustrate it in living color. Yes, they are "precedents," but if you want to make the point that some precedents are not well conceived, as Alito claimed was the case with Roe, using such monstrous anachronistic examples is a particularly poor way to do it.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

The old Virginia Slims slogan in the 1970s was "we've come a long way baby." It's true, but it's not nearly as far as we'd like to think. According to Statista:

Back in the 1970s, the U.S. also seemed to be on the verge of granting full legal rights to women with the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution which had first been proposed in 1923. But anti-feminists like Phyllis Schlafly became right-wing heroes for opposing the movement at the final moment of the amendment's passage. So despite clearing the three-quarters threshold then, it has been stymied over and over again in the ensuing years with shifting rationales preventing its adoption.

Finally acknowledging the ratification of the ERA is fundamental if women are ever to fully emerge from the thousands of years of dominion.

Today there is a dispute with the national archivist about whether or not he can simply declare that it is ratified and part of the Constitution because it met the requirements back then or if the original expired deadline must hold (despite it being extended more than once). The Department of Justice says it's moot but President Biden promised he would push for Congress to pass a resolution acknowledging the passage of the Amendment — which he did. The House of Representatives passed it but it has not even been brought up in the Senate.

NOW THIS made a short film about the history of abortion that hits some of the highlights referenced above. It features activist Alyssa Milano who says, "the only thing that can truly ensure full gender equality–including control of our bodies–is the Equal Rights Amendment."

There are many fights that must be waged once Roe is overturned on several different fronts. But finally acknowledging the ratification of the ERA is fundamental if women are ever to fully emerge from the thousands of years of dominion by black robed authorities who seem always to get the last word on what they are and aren't permitted to do with their own bodies. It is long past time.
https://www.rawstory.com/alito-reached- ... grotesque/

When will the Repugs demand burning at the stake or being drawn and quartered?
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

143
The Senate is gearing up for a vote on legislation that would codify abortion rights into federal law. The procedural vote scheduled for Wednesday will mostly be symbolic, given that Democrats lack the needed 60 votes to overcome a GOP filibuster. (May 5)
https://news.yahoo.com/schumer-plans-vo ... 15830.html

If Mitch could ditch the filibuster while he was leader to stuff the court with under qualified toadies, then Chuck can ditch it to codify a woman's right to choose. That would help with the midterms, to drive up Dem participation, showing that the Dems have a spine.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

144
GOP Crusade Against Abortion Could Lead To Contraception Bans

With Roe v. Wade on the chopping block, Republicans have increasingly been speaking up about other Supreme Court cases they don’t like. After all, with conservatives possessing a 6-3 majority, why not make a wish list?

One of the cases that’s coming up is Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 decision that said married couples have a right to contraception access. It struck down a Connecticut law that outlawed the use of birth control devices.

Griswold was a landmark case, ruling against Connecticut on the basis of a married couple’s right to privacy. It set the stage for future decisions ensuring contraception access for unmarried couples, same-sex marriage rights and, of course, abortion access in Roe v. Wade.

Many Republicans abhor Griswold precisely because it is the foundation for so many other decisions.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) recently said it was “constitutionally unsound.” Arizona GOP Senate candidate Blake Masters’ campaign website said he would only support judges “who understand that Roe and Griswold and Casey were wrongly decided, and that there is no constitutional right to abortion.”

In February, Pennsylvania GOP Senate candidate Jeff Bartos called Griswold a “terrible decision.” That same month, Matt DePerno, the Republican nominee for Michigan attorney general, said, “Listen, all these cases that deal — Griswold, Roe v. Wade, Dobbs — these are all state right issues. ... It’s going to be a state right issue on all of these things — as it should be!”

Masters has clarified that he does not favor banning contraceptives.

But if Republicans get what they want ― an overturning of Griswold ― it would kick the issue back to the states and open the door to restrictions or bans on birth control methods, because there would be no federal guarantee of access.

Griswold will not be overturned imminently. Even Amy Coney Barrett admitted as much during her confirmation hearings in 2020, saying, “I think that Griswold is very, very, very, very, very, very unlikely to go anywhere.”

But that doesn’t mean it’s impossible. After all, very few people believed Roe would be overturned too.

Sandra Fluke knows as well as anyone how precarious access to contraception is. In 2012, she gained national attention as a law student at Georgetown University for speaking out on the importance of having health insurance plans cover birth control costs. Republicans barred her from testifying before a House committee, and right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh called her a “slut” and a “prostitute” for her stance on the issue.

“If the Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade and the right to privacy, that has implications for gay marriage, interracial marriage, consensual adult sexual activity, and, yes, access to birth control,” said Fluke, who is now a public interest attorney. “We shouldn’t need to count on public popularity to prevent attacks on those constitutionally protected activities. Majority public support hasn’t protected abortion. Near universal public support didn’t protect birth control when the Supreme Court sided with opponents in cases like Hobby Lobby, and we’re already seeing judges and politicians taking very concerning positions regarding Griswold.”

There’s legislation in Louisiana right now that could test the Supreme Court’s commitment to Griswold. The bill would make abortion a homicide and charge women who undergo the procedure with murder. It could also criminalize certain forms of contraception ― such as IUDs and Plan B ― because it would change the state’s legal definition of a person to a fertilized egg.

Some Republicans have long pushed for federal personhood legislation, which would classify fertilized eggs as persons under the U.S. Constitution, making abortion illegal. And it’s an issue that’s coming up on the campaign trail.

In Senate races, Masters said he backs it. Pennsylvania GOP Senate candidate Dave McCormick said he believes life begins at conception. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who is up for reelection, said it’s “irrefutable” that life begins at conception in 2012. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who is also running this cycle, has backed personhood bills.

In congressional races, Christopher Rodriguez, a Republican running in California’s 49th District, said he plans to “author a bill that will define human life as beginning in the womb and therefore protected by the United States constitution.” Tim Reichert, running in Colorado’s 7th District, has ― in his work as an economist ― given presentations and written opinion articles arguing that contraception harms women economically and psychologically because it makes it harder for them to get married. His campaign has said he does not want to ban birth control.

And at the state level, there’s even more support. Candidates who have endorsed the idea of personhood legislation or the belief that life begins at conception include DePerno in Michigan, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R), Arizona attorney general candidate Tiffany Shedd, Wisconsin GOP gubernatorial candidate Kevin Nicholson, Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidate Lou Barletta and others.

“The crux of this debate centers on when pregnancy begins,” said Osub Ahmed, associate director for women’s health and rights at the Center for American Progress. “Mainstream medical experts and even the federal government define pregnancy as beginning when a fertilized egg implants in a person’s uterus. However, conservative policymakers and advocates have attempted to shift the goal post, arguing that pregnancy begins at the moment of fertilization — well before implantation.”

“If this new definition were to be seriously considered or incorporated in any way into state legislation, it would put at risk access to a number of contraceptive methods that prevent implantation, including emergency contraceptives and intrauterine devices, which disturbingly would be redefined as abortifacients,” Ahmed added.

On Sunday, Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves (R) didn’t give a flat-out “no” when asked whether his state would perhaps target birth control such as Plan B or IUDs.

“My view is that the next phase of the pro-life movement is focusing on helping those moms that maybe have an unexpected and unwanted pregnancy,” Reeves said. “And while I’m sure there will be conversations around America regarding [contraceptives], it’s not something that we have spent a lot of time focused on.”
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/republic ... ad0d829a0a

The GOP/libertarian view of get the government out of my business except for women's rights. But women only have the right to be Barefoot, Pregnant and in the Kitchen. To borrow from German- Kinder, Kirche, Küche - children, church, kitchen- the ideal woman's behavior. It could come down to having husband or boyfriend sign permission for the woman to get prescription Birth Control or IUD implanted.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

145
CDFingers wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 1:14 pm
The Senate is gearing up for a vote on legislation that would codify abortion rights into federal law. The procedural vote scheduled for Wednesday will mostly be symbolic, given that Democrats lack the needed 60 votes to overcome a GOP filibuster. (May 5)
https://news.yahoo.com/schumer-plans-vo ... 15830.html

If Mitch could ditch the filibuster while he was leader to stuff the court with under qualified toadies, then Chuck can ditch it to codify a woman's right to choose. That would help with the midterms, to drive up Dem participation, showing that the Dems have a spine.

CDFingers
I have wanted to see the Senate ether completely get rid of the Filibuster or roll it back to the rules of the early 1960s when the party had to stand and talk. Also the leader of the party that is doing the filibuster should be required to stay in the chamber during the whole time. No bathroom breaks for the person talking or the leader of their party. Let Moscow Mitch piss and shit his pants a couple of times on C-Span and the filibuster will die.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

147
TrueTexan wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 1:28 pm --snp--

I have wanted to see the Senate ether completely get rid of the Filibuster or roll it back to the rules of the early 1960s when the party had to stand and talk. Also the leader of the party that is doing the filibuster should be required to stay in the chamber during the whole time. No bathroom breaks for the person talking or the leader of their party. Let Moscow Mitch piss and shit his pants a couple of times on C-Span and the filibuster will die.
"And the following names are the constituents in my district, nearly all of whom still draw breath..."

No, seriously I would accept where the floor is held with support for the proposal. Let them support their ideas. Let them send out a poll afterwards and show what's what. Punks. We know how to do this. "But muh secret insider trade deals and jobs to nephews..."

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

148
Republicans Block Bill To Codify Roe v. Wade Once Again

WASHINGTON — Legislation aimed at safeguarding abortion rights across the country failed in the Senate for the second time this year as a conservative majority on the Supreme Court prepares to strike down its landmark 1973 ruling Roe v. Wade.

The Women’s Health Protection Act would create federal protections for providing and accessing abortion services. The House already passed the bill, but Senate Republicans blocked it from advancing earlier this year.

Faced with few legislative options in the narrowly divided Senate, Democrats are hoping their renewed effort to codify abortion rights will help galvanize voters ahead of the November midterm elections and make clear which party is standing in the way of protecting a woman’s right to choose.

“Tens of millions of women are watching what will happen to the rights they’ve relied on for decades, and all of us will have to answer for this vote for the rest of our time in public office,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday ahead of the vote.

“Before the day is over, every member of this body will make a choice: stand with women to protect their freedoms, or stand with MAGA Republicans and take our country into a dark and repressive future,” he added.

Neither Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) or Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), two pro-choice Republicans, supported the bill despite efforts by Democrats to make it less divisive. The senators argued it does not provide sufficient protections for anti-abortion health providers, a charge Democrats contest as unwarranted.

West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin was the lone Democratic vote against advancing the bill. He, too, claimed the legislation went too far.

A leaked draft opinion showing that a majority of Supreme Court justices voted to overturn Roe in February has created a firestorm in Washington, leading to protests in front of the homes of several justices. The draft isn’t final; an official decision is expected this summer. But according to several news outlets, the majority holding in the draft opinion hasn’t changed.

Polling has long suggested that most voters don’t favor overturning Roe. Sixty-one percent of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 37% believe it should be illegal in all or most cases, according to a Pew Research poll conducted in March.

But Republicans who supported all three of the most recent GOP-appointed Supreme Court justices and who believe that Roe was wrongly decided are betting that other issues, such as the economy, will resonate more with voters in November.

“I don’t see [overturning Roe] as being a decision point for Iowa voters,” Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) said on conservative Hugh Hewitt’s radio show last week. “They are concerned about 40-year high inflation, prices at the pump, a bad economy. That’s what they’re worried about, so I think it might have a little blip here, but not overall.”

More than half of the U.S. is poised to outlaw or severely limit abortion access if the Supreme Court follows through on its draft opinion. Moreover, many of the laws already passed in GOP-controlled states have no exceptions for rape or incest.

Republican legislatures aren’t stopping there, either. Some state lawmakers are pushing forward with even more draconian measures, such as efforts to “criminalize contraceptive care, in vitro fertilization and post-miscarriage care, dragging our nation back to a dark time decades into the past,” as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) warned in a letter to her colleagues this week.

Some Republicans in the Senate are even dreaming about the prospect of a national ban on abortion — undercutting rhetoric from many in their party about simply wanting to leave the issue up to each individual state.

Over the weekend, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) suggested in an interview with USA Today that a nationwide ban on abortion is “possible” if his party retakes control of the Senate, though he added he wasn’t willing to eliminate the filibuster to do so. He later told reporters there isn’t a “widespread sentiment” in his caucus that it’s necessary to push for such a measure.

“There’s not the votes for a federal abortion ban at this point, but I think every child is valuable and I think we will get there eventually,” Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), a proponent of a national ban, told HuffPost last week.

Democrats immediately went on offense by seeking to tie McConnell’s comments to GOP candidates across the country. Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), one of the most vulnerable Senate Democrats up for reelection this year, released a digital ad linking her opponents to what the narrator calls “McConnell’s decade-long crusade to criminalize abortion.”

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), meanwhile, argued that maintaining Democratic control of the Senate would be critical in a post-Roe world.

“We need to make sure that every single voter understands that the Republican Party and Mitch McConnell does not believe that their daughters, that their mothers, that their sisters have rights to make fundamental life and death decisions,” Gillibrand said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“We are half-citizens under this ruling. And if this is put into law, it changes the foundation of America.”
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/abortio ... a811c74800

Of course MoscowMitch believes that women don’t have rights to make fundamental life and death decisions, that is to be decided by their husbands or fathers.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

150
Schumer knew he didn't have the votes to pass it, it was all political drama. Democrats had to show their supporters that they were doing something. It went beyond making Roe a federal statute by invalidating all state abortion restrictions, so it didn't get Collins or Murkowski's votes and even Manchin's. Yes this should have been done decades ago before politics became toxic and religious groups had organized opposition.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-con ... /3755/text
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests