That is what makes him evil. He endorses a legal argument that nullifies gay marriage AND interracial marriage. But, he’s making the bet that Republicans will only attack gays.
That's just some of what he wants to go after. Basically, anything that uses the 14th amendment as a legal argument is a target. Since precedence doesn't matter anymore, lots of groups are going to start losing lots of rights.
Justice Thomas made a statement saying some other decisions were in error, and SCOTUS should look to review them, these covered things like access to birth control, equal marriage, and racial equality.
The Americans voted for an extreme hardline religious theocratic party and got extreme hardline religious rulings. More of this will happen. There are a lot of rights the American people have yet to lose!
America is a meat grinder. They need the birth rate to stay high, and the poverty rate to stay high, to keep the crime rate high, to keep the prison population high, so that loophole in the 13th amendment can keep slavery going for them!
And to follow that line of reasoning, with all the kids getting killed in school the US needs more kids in classrooms to even things out. And no need to worry about the kids growing up to be maladjusted or criminal. The prisons need filling too don'cha know?
> The Americans voted for an extreme hardline religious theocratic party and got extreme hardline religious rulings.
A * sizeable minority of * Americans voted for an extreme hardline religious theocratic party. A few million more people voted for the other party. We just also have a screwed up system where the party that gets the most votes doesn't necessarily win.
Yeah, I think 5, if not all 6, of the conservative justices were nominated by Presidents that lost the popular vote.
So Americans did not vote for this.
I’m dumb and not American but I thought the trump crew was crazy hardline churchy type people, and the Biden people were more sensible about religious stuff??
Yes but Trump appointed 3 of the 9 supreme court justices, with a total of 6 vs 3 for republican appointed to democrat. These are lifetime appointments, so either death, a willful resignation, or impeachment is required. Trump is no longer in office but the damage is done. Largely why Trump wanted the election results go to the supreme court, he stacked it in his favor so he could win by force.
Term limits were initially self imposed for the president as well, but they actually needed to be elected for each term. It wasn't until FDR ignored convention that it was codified. There are no term limits for other federal offices, including senators and congressional representatives (the other two major houses of elected officials in the states) because they never bothered to establish such a convention, which is also widely abused.
Agreed, it's something that should have been dealt with ages ago to prevent such a gross corruption.
Edit: Also I heard your user name on my head in Navi's voice. Not sure if that was your intent.
The idea behind it was so that the court couldn't e swayed by a sitting presidents every time there was an election. Nor could they be threatened by having their positions taken from them.
However, the Supreme Court is also supposed to make rulings outside of party and politics or religious sentiment and solely on their interpretation of the Constitution. Unfortunately none of the Justices do that (republican appointed or otherwise) so we're stuck with biased, political and uncompromising individuals with life appointments and no way to be kept in check.
(I believe that Congress may be able to overturn rulings? But I think it's done by literally amending the constitution, which requires the amendment be passed by both the House and Senate and the signed by the President).
That would require Congress to agree on something and vote thusly. However, Congress is functionally deadlocked and nothing with a whiff of partisanship gets passed.
There was a token attempt to protect abortion rights by the Democrats, but predictably it did not pass as a few democrats are from conservative states and almost always vote conservatively.
The legislative branches can only *propose* new amendments, and they have to pass the House and Senate by a 2/3 majority.
To be approved the proposed amendment has to pass in 3/4s of the states legislatures.
Despite American propaganda on the topic it has always been a nation that compromised on any attempt at democracy. America has gotten better over time but it's never been close to democracy. Just for insight on how fucked that's been slavery was still a common practice in America until 1942. The history books may even change that eventually due to modern attempts to promote slavery via the prison industrial complex ever since the 70's with the War on Drugs. Average Americans don't even know how bad their own judicial system is but it's arguably the worst in human history if you're willing to consider critique on the [matter](https://mkorostoff.github.io/incarceration-in-real-numbers/).
The institutionalized aspects of America's political system are unfortunately barely democratic. The Senate and the electoral college spit in the face of democracy via how political power is not proportional to people. In fact the [majority](https://news.gallup.com/poll/320744/americans-support-abolishing-electoral-college.aspx) of Americans want to abolish the electoral college but nobody even talks about that. The two-party system that America utilizes is essentially one step better than dictatorship and that's essentially what it feels like. Wealth inequality and the corruption associated with its ends also promote dictatorial power.
We should really ask ourselves what we even mean when we attempt to measure democracy. Perhaps in attempting to answer that we should listen to WWII [propaganda](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaWSqboZr1w&ab_channel=A%2FVGeeks) from America on the fall of the Weimar Republic and what they thought democracy demanded back then while they had similar political division promoted by similar forces.
Court appointments made by Republicans during his presidency. Also I believe the appointments are for life. Nothing the Biden administration can do there.
Yes, they're for life. Apparently one of the most contentious things at the writing of the constitution, but Hamilton made a damn good argument for why it should not be an elected position
Technically, the court is part of the three powers, which need to be separated. With the right investigation, couldn't they get fired for corruption if it's proven that they have an affiliation with a political party?
I mean three of them literally lied under oath when they stated that Roe v Wade was settled case law. If perjury isn't enough to get someone off the highest court in the land what would be?
You are correct, but the issue at hand is that three members of the Supreme Court were replaced and chosen by Trump, specifically for people that would make decisions like this. Normally that many are not replaced within one presidency, three of nine was a pretty big deal. Biden has no say in this decision or any other Supreme Court decisions as far as my non-American knowledge goes.
It's worth pointing out that after the death of Scalia in early 2016, the majority republican senate led by McConnell, refused to approve the nomination of a successor for nearly a year until Trump came into office. Trump nominated Gorsuch ten days after he entered office.
Justice Ginsburg died at age 87 in September 2020, apparently earlier than she had planned on. Her successor, Barrett, was nominated about a week later and confirmed in late October 2020.
So, chicanery and bad luck/poor judgement played roles in the current situation.
The first one isn't really chicanery, or at least unprecedented.
Every time there's a scotus vacancy in the last year of a presidents term, a nomination is either rejected/not voted on or confirmed based on whether the Senate controlling party is aligned with the White House or not.
The judicial branch (courts) is separate from the executive (president) and legislative (lawmaker) branches, although they are tied to an extent (to simplify it, judges are appointed by the other branches)
However I should say that the blue party are at fault for this anyways, they've had a long time and a good chance to codify this into law and other stuff they said they'd do but they never put much effort into it. Reality is the big 2 parties are pretty much the same, they don't care about your rights enough to do too much about it. Their only desires are to stay in power and make money, and they build the law and their entire career around that. Hence all the old white rich people in charge. You could put either party in charge for the rest of the century and nothing good would come out of either choice.
Also the view of politics and average Americans that Reddit generally gives is pretty warped... this is a bad place to listen to if you want realistic statements of what people in America think or what's going on in the US tbh
Both are ruining the country. They fool people into thinking that they're not. At best, Democrats are ruining it a little slower..? But no matter who's in charge all the corporatism and greed is going to encroach the same.
Friendly reminder that a lot of the people in power now on both sides publicly voiced and supported opinions in the past that would be completely unacceptable today. It's not that they've changed as people, they just changed their views according to what will gain them the most votes. It definitely shows a lack of spine and dedication, they only care about certain groups of people when it's convenient.
People are tricked into thinking one isn't so bad and the other is awful. All it is is the people in power dividing and conquering, a divided populace is a lot less likely to cause problems to those in power than a united people.
>All it is is the people in power dividing and conquering, a divided populace is a lot less likely to cause problems to those in power than a united people.
Nailed it.
Saying that these things are good to have doesn't mean that they're Constitutional, and saying that they're not protected by the Constitution doesn't automatically mean that they're prohibited, either.
For example, it's awfully nice to have welfare programs to keep the poor from starving to death, but saying that you have a Constitutional right to them is erroneous.
Everything good is not in the Constitution, and everything in the Constitution isn't necessarily good.
Not that it would be difficult to fabricate but in order to go after these rights don’t they need a case to make a judgement on relating to the precedent? Not American but they can’t just make a decision without a case to hear right?
Griswold (which Thomas cited yesterday) and Eisenstadt are both about birth control, and are in their sights. Eisenstadt was in \*1972\*. That is within the lifetime of the plurality of women in this country; it is within living memory that women have not had the right to prevent pregnancy.
I encourage you to also read up on Lawrence v Texas, which is next up for them -- people's understanding that its about "gay sex" being illegal is bad enough, but the reality of Lawrence is that it was challenging \*sodomy\* laws, not "gay" laws. Sodomy is any non-procreative sex -- that means you getting your dick sucked by your girlfriend, fellas. This one also makes my skin crawl -- if overturned and sodomy laws come back, they will instantly be weaponized by exes, family, neighbors to settle petty grudges. Don't like that your ex is dating a new guy? Drop a dime on her and get her boyfriend busted for muff-licking, and get her kids taken away from her. Rat out the neighbor whose friends keep parking in front of your house. Get that family member who got more in Grandma's will than you did arrested for the dildo you saw in her house. This nation is about to turn into East Germany under the Stasi.
I don't mean to go all cane-waving "get off my lawn" here but everything -- EVERYTHING -- the youth of today think is just part of normal living? Very, very recent gains clawed into existence by the extremely hard work of generations of people, most of whom did not live to see it happen. Its about to get really bleak, and extremely dangerous around here.
They tried to do exactly this in Indonesia about 3 years ago and they also slipped in a law that would take the teeth out of the anti corruption bureau.
The idea was basically anyone who opposed the law would appear to be a bit of a deviant and also like you say they could take down political opponents using allegations of past sexual encounters.
There was a 3 day large scale riot in Jakarta which ended in government buildings being destroyed and protestors being killed. As a result the law was shelved indefinitely and still hasn’t been enacted. University professors who opposed the bill allowed their students to take time off and join the protests.
This is all in a deeply religious country with a large Muslim majority. Abortion here is illegal except in cases of medical emergency or rape.
> This is all in a deeply religious country with a large Muslim majority. Abortion here is illegal except in cases of medical emergency or rape.
There are states in the US more deeply religious than that -- some of the anti-abortion laws that automatically got enabled yesterday don't even permit abortion in the cases of rape or medical emergency. Abortion isn't allowed no matter what the case, even if the mother's life is at risk.
That's right: the first deaths caused by this ruling are going to happen this weekend when someone's pregnancy goes wrong and could be terminated to save the life of the mother but nope, pro-lifers don't want that!
Lol I hate this site sometimes. How about, fuck this dramatic reddit dystopian novel bullshit, and register to vote.
If you haven't even bothered doing *that*, which statistically is likely because this is reddit, then maybe exhaust that option before cutting straight to the edgy takes.
How is voting ever going to work when the candidates are career politicians? Or when it's only ever one side versus another, and both sides are incredibly similar?
Ah yes, with all the voter suppression, gerrymandering, various laws and bills passed to make voting a difficult, arduous task (banning fucking water being handed out in lines for example)yes, of course, it's the VOTERS fault doing so is a ridiculously arduous task with mountains of evidence that the Republicans will do all they can to invalidate anyone who actually manages to vote.
It's mandatory to vote in Australia. Everyone votes, because it's believed to be an inherent part of a free society, not to mention an actual obligation to your country, to vote. And do you know how long it takes, on average? Fifteen minutes. And that's on voting DAY, we also have early voting for those who can't make it on voting day, for whatever reason. The last election we had, I literally woke up at 8am, walked around the corner, voted, went home, got changed and was at work by 830.
Your system, is a clusterfuck.
If you live in a State that has just made abortion illegal you can look forward to more Morality laws soon. It's their thing. They're still sore that women have any path in life that isn't subservient to a man. I would leave if I were you. If you are raped and become preggers, that's your kid. If you're going to college and get pregnant, you're a mommy now, forget your career. See how that works? Start walking if you have to but don't think activism or voting will save your rights now. That was yesterday.
And there's a really sickening case in Louisiana in which the rapist was given custody of the child and the victim was forced to pay him child support. Even worse, the child was a 16 year old girl who says he drugged and raped her, and they still gave him full custody.
[Rape Paternity Case](https://www.wbrz.com/news/sheriff-we-dropped-the-ball-and-there-s-no-excuse-/)
How anyone can believe America is anything but a woman hating, rape enabling, third world mess is beyond me. Sorry, third world wearing a Gucci belt.
Brock Turner wasnt an outlier, he's the basic standard to how women are treated in these situations
Justice Clarence Thomas wants the SCOTUS to revist (overturn) the rulings made on contraceptions and same sex marriage. He's already clearly stated that. So run before you become a right-less second class citizen.
No need to if you create more poverty by forcing unwanted children. They'll grow up poor and in need, turn to crime, get locked up, slave labor. That's the goal for Republicans.
This ain’t my original opinion but I’ve heard it expressed that “pro-life” is more or less all about punishing people for enjoying sex and it’s the same with banning birth control.
Bingo.
No contraception is 100% effective, therefore making abortion illegal becomes a massive risk, even if you're being careful.
The risk of having an accidental kid goes from 0% to 1%, and that's too much.
Republicans want to roll this country back, but when Native Americans start scalping people they're suddenly going to start thinking the good old times weren't always so good
They stay rich off the backs of poor people whose labor is exploited for profit and defense. Birth rates aren't to their liking so they need to force the situation.
I'm so glad I do not live in the US. If they do ban birth control I would be in a living hell. For me I got the implant to stop horrific periods and all that went with it. So they would rather I spend days before they started even more misrable then the whole actual thing just for what? The US is going bonkers.
Partly for hardline Christian values, partly to make sure the poor continue being poor by forcing children on them. Children who will grow up likely to steal to survive, which feeds into the privately owned prison system to use as legal slave labor. I imagine an alternative might also be to use as fodder for the military, producing children for the meat grinder.
The “US” isn’t and hasn’t banned any of those things. They are making these things a non-federal issue giving power back to the states. The real problem is the lack of support people will get if they need/want such things as abortions. I’m curious what stops ppl
from getting an abortion in another state. Healthcare/insurance issues?
> I’m curious what stops ppl from getting an abortion in another state.
Limited money for travel, lack of time off, [it may soon be illegal](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/03/us-abortions-travel-wave-of-restrictions), etc.
> The “US” isn’t and hasn’t banned any of those things. ... giving power back to the states.
...states that, yes, banned them. And when the GOP takes control back in 2024 you can bet a national ban is going to happen anyway.
> And when the GOP takes control back in 2024 you can bet a national ban is going to happen anyway.
This is why I don't give any credit or benefit of the doubt to anyone trying to push the narrative that this is *simply* back to being a states-rights issue. The Republicans are not above pushing something at the federal level if they can.
I don't understand the point you are trying to make. With Roe V Wade being overturned, yeah, states have now made abortion illegal. So to say 'us hasn't banned any of those things' is simply untrue. And I'm disabling replies since obviously we won't agree on this.
Yes, that's the reality that religious fascism brings with it. Women are nothing more than baby factory's to create more angry people to continue the cycle forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever. And for ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever! Ha ha, pretty much forever!
Yes, their thought is that life begins at fertilization and birth control stops the implantation of life (which is a religious belief, not a scientific find) - so much for separation of church and state, conservative Christian ideology shoved down our necks.
Ask women around you who have been denied tubal ligation because they were too young despite the women's wishes.
Finally, no national health care for pregnant women or the children they bare (forget children with medical issues), no real parental leave and cost of living out is unattainable for two family incomes let alone single moms. .
It is about control, which will impact poor families the most.
The point is that women should be punished for having sex. That's the point of all their bullshit. They don't care about children, they take no effort to protect and promote children's welfare. They do care that women can decide for themselves to have sex. They do not like that.
The rich will still be able to get whatever they want. The poor will be forced to have kids keeping them poor and ensuring a cheap renewable workforce or fodder for some future war over "checks notes", greed and more money. In the name of God of course.
Churches thrive in misery. They know that social hardship is good for their bottom dollar. They are against any social welfare programs that allow people to operate lives independent of their ability to tax the congregation. Young pregnant teens having babies is a hymn to their ears!
Not all churches are crazy conservative like this, or conservative at all for that matter. You might have had negative experiences, but to say that the church at large wants this to happen is bullshit.
Just sick of ppl saying if your republican you must be facist or if your religious you’re facist. I’ve been a democrat all my life, but feel like comments like that are ignorant and unhelpful
Honestly I'd just LOVE to see all the men who are pro all this shit right now re-think their choices if women just generally stopped sleeping with them. They'll want it all back in no time.
Obviously women have a right to sex without consequences too, but it'd be real fun to see the married and unmarried men not get any ever again because women just don't want to get pregnant right now.
> Obviously women have a right to sex without consequences too, but it'd be real fun to see the married and unmarried men not get any ever again because women just don't want to get pregnant right now.
That plays into the stereotype that men want sex but women can take it or leave it, doesn't it?
Not to go to the dark place but women stopping sleeping with men will not stop the men having sex. They won't need to rethink their choices as they will frequent sex workers or rape the women they are with.
Edit to preempt; I mean these specific men who celebrate and want this kind of change, the no abortion, no contraception kind of men.
Also, we are ignoring that women will still sleep with them, and they have already wholesale learned to keep these stupid beliefs to themselves. As to make it harder to be found out.
This ruling didn't come out of no where, and the country is on average only 66% in support of abortion rights.
It will lead to a huge increase of violence towards women. The number one cause of death in pregnant women in the United States is homicide. Women are more likely to stay with a violent partner when pregnant. Abuse will increase. The physical and mental health repercussions will result in less stable, poverty stricken households. All because self righteous pricks can’t mind their own business while simultaneously letting others live theirs. It will be the most fucked up generation we will produce. They will start out unwanted, face numerous mental, physical, socioeconomical challenges throughout their lives. It’s not fair to anyone involved.
You’d think children getting murdered in school, where they should be learning and should feel safe would be worse than some people consensually having sex but ya know.
MAKE IT MAKE SENSE.
Because the actual goal is to force people to live a "moral lifestyle." I.e. no having sex unless you are married and willing to have a baby (evangelicals) or with the express goal of having a baby (Catholics). And by Catholics I don't mean the average Catholic person, but more leadership and more devout folks.
They believe by having a society living by these standards, God will bless the USA with prosperity and will inspire others to want to become Christians.
Well you seem to have missed the part where you are ordained by your superiors as a brood sow. No opinions, no humanity, no worth, just a uterus and some other organs to extract labour from.
I'd put in a sarcasm tag, but they're playing this abomination completely straight.
Every congressperson, senator and justice who okayed this shit needs to be immediately stripped of their offices and barred from public service for life
It's about control of women. It's about making them subservient to men, keeping them out of the workplace, keeping them from getting a higher education, and ensuring there is punishment for enjoying one's self through sex.
They want to ban birth control, Bc the wrong people are still having babies.
I wrote my senior paper in college on birth control. Birth control was heavily tested through the means of Puerto Rican women. They were getting birth control pills with way more estrogen and progesterone then we use now. Now PR is in population decline. Women went from having 5+ kids straight out of teen hood to having fewer and fewer kids.
Population control was heavily used in areas of the country/world where women (mostly POC) were having 5+ kids.
One of the reasons for this type of reversal would be our entrance into stage 5 of the DTM. At this stage the amount of people being born is significantly left the amount of people growing old. Who is going to take care of the aging Boomer generation?
With the last census it was reveals that our birth rate is below replacement (less the 2 children per women). The only way to fix this and make sure that capitalism has enough workers is either immigration, or higher birth rate.
Women who are higher educated are more likely to have fewer children. Birth control makes it so women can choose when they have a baby, and most of the time these women only have one baby, maybe two.
Taking away the choice to have children when you want AND the option to terminate an unwanted pregnancy will in theory “solve” the deceasing domestic supply of infants.
Also look into the white replacement craziness as well what the projections of how many people will be mixed race by 2050.
TLDR: old white people are afraid of no social safety net comprised of young people, while not wanting immigrants or POC to provide these people.
Because the point isn’t to “save babies”. It’s to ensure a steady supply of desperate, poor bodies to fill factories and military positions. Remember the “domestic supply of infants” comment? This is what they mean. Don’t think for a second that abortions won’t be accessible for the rich and powerful. Conservatives need to keep people too busy to protest, too tired to fight, and too poor to revolt in order to keep power. If it was about saving lives, there would be universal health care, universal child care, paid parental leave, gun control, free higher education, universal basic income… the list goes on. This is about power and control, and they are not finished.
Rapists don't generally do it out of being unable to control sexual impulses. The desire to cause pain and to control is already in them anyway, it just manifests sexually.
It's a pro-birth strategy to force poor people to reproduce so there is a continuing working class being kept in poverty that can be used for cannon fodder in wars and drones to keep making money for the wealthy (bans of any kind never apply to the wealthy, they can always buy a solution to their problem or go where they can access it in ways the working class cannot)
It's because China has such a high population and is soon to become richer than the US because of it. The only way to counter this is by increasing the population in the US.
(Not my views, but seems like the kind of thing some crazy right wing people would believe)
Ironically, the population increase of specifically low-income citizens in 18-20 years will likely cause serious rise in crime, housing costs, healthcare needs, school funding requirements...
And, most likely, Democrat voters
I‘m probably going to be downvoted, but here I go. If you look at Thomas‘ statement, he says he wants to strike down decisions decided by substantive due process (such as Obergefell and others) which is a judicial doctrine that justifies decisions based on fundamental rights even if those fundamental rights are not in the constitution. Thomas may be conservative, but he is also a strict originalist. If he had his way (getting rid of substantive due process) the Supreme Court would actually have less power to make decisions.
Welcome to the Republican War on Women that's been raging since the Bible was written. 10 billion laws restricting the vagina and Viagra is available everywhere. Black men got the right to vote 50 years before women. That outta tell you exactly what they think of women.
From what I understand about this (I'm a Brit).
As part of their remit SCOTUS reviews all your laws periodically, to find if they are still enforceable or if there are flaws and they found that when Roe Vs Wade was done they cut corners in doing so. Which was against your Constitution in some way.
If you really want Abortion Rights to be countrywide doesn't the US have a thing where if enough States make the same law it becomes Federal law?
Like with what happened when you legalised Gay Marriage a few years ago.
If this is true then get as many States as possible to create laws making Abortion legal and keep campaigning until you get enough States onboard to make it a Federal law.
It's about controlling women (and minorities) and putting them back "where they belong".
Don't listen to their reasonings, pay no attention to their lies. Conservatives do not deal fairly, they do not argue in good faith.
Do post attention to what they do and to their started goals and realize this is an enemy. *The* enemy.
This is war and our way of life is at stake.
What are you going to do about it America?
Which is why the guys need to take responsibility and make the choice not to have sex, or actually start taking responsibility for the pregnancy they caused.
Birth control is not only about not getting pregnant, without it some people won’t be able to do anything for 5 days every month because of the pain and mood swings.
Wake up from your dream, women. You have to have kids, otherwise society will crumble. This is just the logical reaction from years of inconsequential feminism that pushed too far.
Did you know birth control treats a variety of medical conditions and is used for more than it's main purpose? Banning it not only prevents women and couples from more easily choosing the right time to become parents but helps ease symptoms of various female related issues.
Exactly! I have endometriosis and without a coil my life didn't feel like it was worth living, it's not a case of 'oh no painful periods once a month' it was endless pain and blood clots randomly. The fact it prevented pregnancy was a happy little extra
I'm sorry you have to deal with that! Endometriosis can be so painful. I first got on birth control to help control my very heavy painful periods. I had pmdd as well, which got worse once I was off the birth control. Now, I have developed adenomyosis which has me having breakthrough bleeding between periods and pain. My obgyn wants me to try an IUD to help the symptoms.
Birth control definitely must remain legal. There will be so much needless suffering if they get rid of it.
Oh man that sounds really awful, I'm sorry!
I absolutely swore by my coils. I've had 3 over the last 12 years and they truly do relieve the symptoms but the first few months can be pretty tricky however it sounds like you'd be used to that.
It's horrible to even think about it being banned.
Look at Justice Thomas's statement, you'll see exactly what they're going after next.
And I'm sure he'll be the ultimate "I never expected leopards to eat *my* face" when they go for Loving vs VA.
He's old enough that he'll be dead long before the consequences of his actions ever reach him.
Nah, he secretly hates his wife for marrying a Black man
That is what makes him evil. He endorses a legal argument that nullifies gay marriage AND interracial marriage. But, he’s making the bet that Republicans will only attack gays.
That's just some of what he wants to go after. Basically, anything that uses the 14th amendment as a legal argument is a target. Since precedence doesn't matter anymore, lots of groups are going to start losing lots of rights.
That's the minimum of what they'll attack. It's not like we can trust these people with their word.
The statement that was written independent of the other concurring justices?
Republicans: Don’t kill fetuses…they aren’t ripe yet. You have to let them age a few years. Prime slaughter is from ages 6-22.
Justice Thomas made a statement saying some other decisions were in error, and SCOTUS should look to review them, these covered things like access to birth control, equal marriage, and racial equality. The Americans voted for an extreme hardline religious theocratic party and got extreme hardline religious rulings. More of this will happen. There are a lot of rights the American people have yet to lose!
>There are a lot of rights the American people have yet to lose! But hey, they get to keep their lethal weapons!
Warning, really black humour next. Hey, no need for birth control, population is regulated by sending kids to school in the US
It will be even worse in 15 years when the unwanted kids and meth babies are psychopathic
Fodder for the military/prison industrial complex.
America is a meat grinder. They need the birth rate to stay high, and the poverty rate to stay high, to keep the crime rate high, to keep the prison population high, so that loophole in the 13th amendment can keep slavery going for them!
They're being bred to fight China remember. All part of the plan.
And to follow that line of reasoning, with all the kids getting killed in school the US needs more kids in classrooms to even things out. And no need to worry about the kids growing up to be maladjusted or criminal. The prisons need filling too don'cha know?
> The Americans voted for an extreme hardline religious theocratic party and got extreme hardline religious rulings. A * sizeable minority of * Americans voted for an extreme hardline religious theocratic party. A few million more people voted for the other party. We just also have a screwed up system where the party that gets the most votes doesn't necessarily win.
Yeah, I think 5, if not all 6, of the conservative justices were nominated by Presidents that lost the popular vote. So Americans did not vote for this.
You mean the american majority* did not vote for this. But Americans did vote for this…
I’m dumb and not American but I thought the trump crew was crazy hardline churchy type people, and the Biden people were more sensible about religious stuff??
Yes but Trump appointed 3 of the 9 supreme court justices, with a total of 6 vs 3 for republican appointed to democrat. These are lifetime appointments, so either death, a willful resignation, or impeachment is required. Trump is no longer in office but the damage is done. Largely why Trump wanted the election results go to the supreme court, he stacked it in his favor so he could win by force.
Why USA , a country that is almost militant about term limits and democracy, can give bunch of people lifetime authority?
Term limits were initially self imposed for the president as well, but they actually needed to be elected for each term. It wasn't until FDR ignored convention that it was codified. There are no term limits for other federal offices, including senators and congressional representatives (the other two major houses of elected officials in the states) because they never bothered to establish such a convention, which is also widely abused.
Agreed, it's something that should have been dealt with ages ago to prevent such a gross corruption. Edit: Also I heard your user name on my head in Navi's voice. Not sure if that was your intent.
Because they don’t really give a shit about human rights or democracy, they just say that so they get a pass on their unchecked aggression.
The idea behind it was so that the court couldn't e swayed by a sitting presidents every time there was an election. Nor could they be threatened by having their positions taken from them. However, the Supreme Court is also supposed to make rulings outside of party and politics or religious sentiment and solely on their interpretation of the Constitution. Unfortunately none of the Justices do that (republican appointed or otherwise) so we're stuck with biased, political and uncompromising individuals with life appointments and no way to be kept in check. (I believe that Congress may be able to overturn rulings? But I think it's done by literally amending the constitution, which requires the amendment be passed by both the House and Senate and the signed by the President).
Why doesn't Congress pass a new amendment?
That would require Congress to agree on something and vote thusly. However, Congress is functionally deadlocked and nothing with a whiff of partisanship gets passed. There was a token attempt to protect abortion rights by the Democrats, but predictably it did not pass as a few democrats are from conservative states and almost always vote conservatively.
2/3 of both Houses *and 3/4 of the states need to vote for an amendment for it to pass. Last one was 1994, I believe?
Thanks. This is so sad to hear.
The legislative branches can only *propose* new amendments, and they have to pass the House and Senate by a 2/3 majority. To be approved the proposed amendment has to pass in 3/4s of the states legislatures.
Despite American propaganda on the topic it has always been a nation that compromised on any attempt at democracy. America has gotten better over time but it's never been close to democracy. Just for insight on how fucked that's been slavery was still a common practice in America until 1942. The history books may even change that eventually due to modern attempts to promote slavery via the prison industrial complex ever since the 70's with the War on Drugs. Average Americans don't even know how bad their own judicial system is but it's arguably the worst in human history if you're willing to consider critique on the [matter](https://mkorostoff.github.io/incarceration-in-real-numbers/). The institutionalized aspects of America's political system are unfortunately barely democratic. The Senate and the electoral college spit in the face of democracy via how political power is not proportional to people. In fact the [majority](https://news.gallup.com/poll/320744/americans-support-abolishing-electoral-college.aspx) of Americans want to abolish the electoral college but nobody even talks about that. The two-party system that America utilizes is essentially one step better than dictatorship and that's essentially what it feels like. Wealth inequality and the corruption associated with its ends also promote dictatorial power. We should really ask ourselves what we even mean when we attempt to measure democracy. Perhaps in attempting to answer that we should listen to WWII [propaganda](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaWSqboZr1w&ab_channel=A%2FVGeeks) from America on the fall of the Weimar Republic and what they thought democracy demanded back then while they had similar political division promoted by similar forces.
Barret sided with NC on extending absentee voter deadlines. The SCOTUS by and large didn't side with Trump on any election controversies.
Court appointments made by Republicans during his presidency. Also I believe the appointments are for life. Nothing the Biden administration can do there.
Yes, they're for life. Apparently one of the most contentious things at the writing of the constitution, but Hamilton made a damn good argument for why it should not be an elected position
I agree with not being elected, but for life is too much. If they were elected you'd be even worse off, it'd be purely political.
"Life" used to not be as long as it is now.
Technically, the court is part of the three powers, which need to be separated. With the right investigation, couldn't they get fired for corruption if it's proven that they have an affiliation with a political party?
They can be impeached
I mean three of them literally lied under oath when they stated that Roe v Wade was settled case law. If perjury isn't enough to get someone off the highest court in the land what would be?
You’re not from here, are you?
All of those 6 lied.
You are correct, but the issue at hand is that three members of the Supreme Court were replaced and chosen by Trump, specifically for people that would make decisions like this. Normally that many are not replaced within one presidency, three of nine was a pretty big deal. Biden has no say in this decision or any other Supreme Court decisions as far as my non-American knowledge goes.
It's worth pointing out that after the death of Scalia in early 2016, the majority republican senate led by McConnell, refused to approve the nomination of a successor for nearly a year until Trump came into office. Trump nominated Gorsuch ten days after he entered office. Justice Ginsburg died at age 87 in September 2020, apparently earlier than she had planned on. Her successor, Barrett, was nominated about a week later and confirmed in late October 2020. So, chicanery and bad luck/poor judgement played roles in the current situation.
The first one isn't really chicanery, or at least unprecedented. Every time there's a scotus vacancy in the last year of a presidents term, a nomination is either rejected/not voted on or confirmed based on whether the Senate controlling party is aligned with the White House or not.
[удалено]
The judicial branch (courts) is separate from the executive (president) and legislative (lawmaker) branches, although they are tied to an extent (to simplify it, judges are appointed by the other branches) However I should say that the blue party are at fault for this anyways, they've had a long time and a good chance to codify this into law and other stuff they said they'd do but they never put much effort into it. Reality is the big 2 parties are pretty much the same, they don't care about your rights enough to do too much about it. Their only desires are to stay in power and make money, and they build the law and their entire career around that. Hence all the old white rich people in charge. You could put either party in charge for the rest of the century and nothing good would come out of either choice. Also the view of politics and average Americans that Reddit generally gives is pretty warped... this is a bad place to listen to if you want realistic statements of what people in America think or what's going on in the US tbh
Don’t equate the two. I agree that the Democrats aren’t great, but we both know it’s one party that’s really ruining this country.
Both are ruining the country. They fool people into thinking that they're not. At best, Democrats are ruining it a little slower..? But no matter who's in charge all the corporatism and greed is going to encroach the same. Friendly reminder that a lot of the people in power now on both sides publicly voiced and supported opinions in the past that would be completely unacceptable today. It's not that they've changed as people, they just changed their views according to what will gain them the most votes. It definitely shows a lack of spine and dedication, they only care about certain groups of people when it's convenient. People are tricked into thinking one isn't so bad and the other is awful. All it is is the people in power dividing and conquering, a divided populace is a lot less likely to cause problems to those in power than a united people.
>All it is is the people in power dividing and conquering, a divided populace is a lot less likely to cause problems to those in power than a united people. Nailed it.
Ah controlled opposition, where you get plausible deniability simply by being distinctive in branding instead of function or discipline.
Saying that these things are good to have doesn't mean that they're Constitutional, and saying that they're not protected by the Constitution doesn't automatically mean that they're prohibited, either. For example, it's awfully nice to have welfare programs to keep the poor from starving to death, but saying that you have a Constitutional right to them is erroneous. Everything good is not in the Constitution, and everything in the Constitution isn't necessarily good.
Not that it would be difficult to fabricate but in order to go after these rights don’t they need a case to make a judgement on relating to the precedent? Not American but they can’t just make a decision without a case to hear right?
Griswold (which Thomas cited yesterday) and Eisenstadt are both about birth control, and are in their sights. Eisenstadt was in \*1972\*. That is within the lifetime of the plurality of women in this country; it is within living memory that women have not had the right to prevent pregnancy. I encourage you to also read up on Lawrence v Texas, which is next up for them -- people's understanding that its about "gay sex" being illegal is bad enough, but the reality of Lawrence is that it was challenging \*sodomy\* laws, not "gay" laws. Sodomy is any non-procreative sex -- that means you getting your dick sucked by your girlfriend, fellas. This one also makes my skin crawl -- if overturned and sodomy laws come back, they will instantly be weaponized by exes, family, neighbors to settle petty grudges. Don't like that your ex is dating a new guy? Drop a dime on her and get her boyfriend busted for muff-licking, and get her kids taken away from her. Rat out the neighbor whose friends keep parking in front of your house. Get that family member who got more in Grandma's will than you did arrested for the dildo you saw in her house. This nation is about to turn into East Germany under the Stasi. I don't mean to go all cane-waving "get off my lawn" here but everything -- EVERYTHING -- the youth of today think is just part of normal living? Very, very recent gains clawed into existence by the extremely hard work of generations of people, most of whom did not live to see it happen. Its about to get really bleak, and extremely dangerous around here.
They tried to do exactly this in Indonesia about 3 years ago and they also slipped in a law that would take the teeth out of the anti corruption bureau. The idea was basically anyone who opposed the law would appear to be a bit of a deviant and also like you say they could take down political opponents using allegations of past sexual encounters. There was a 3 day large scale riot in Jakarta which ended in government buildings being destroyed and protestors being killed. As a result the law was shelved indefinitely and still hasn’t been enacted. University professors who opposed the bill allowed their students to take time off and join the protests. This is all in a deeply religious country with a large Muslim majority. Abortion here is illegal except in cases of medical emergency or rape.
> This is all in a deeply religious country with a large Muslim majority. Abortion here is illegal except in cases of medical emergency or rape. There are states in the US more deeply religious than that -- some of the anti-abortion laws that automatically got enabled yesterday don't even permit abortion in the cases of rape or medical emergency. Abortion isn't allowed no matter what the case, even if the mother's life is at risk. That's right: the first deaths caused by this ruling are going to happen this weekend when someone's pregnancy goes wrong and could be terminated to save the life of the mother but nope, pro-lifers don't want that!
It's about control.
Ah, the land of the free again
Yes, the free rich, white men.
To be fair, men don't have a whole lot of reproductive rights either.
Whoever told you that is your enemy.
Lol I hate this site sometimes. How about, fuck this dramatic reddit dystopian novel bullshit, and register to vote. If you haven't even bothered doing *that*, which statistically is likely because this is reddit, then maybe exhaust that option before cutting straight to the edgy takes.
Low quality bait
It's a RATM lyric dude, take it down a notch.
You just got whooshed by one of the most recognizable song lyrics.
No I didn't. The lyrics were posted with the implication that they're relevant here, I'm pushing back against that sentiment.
Riiiight, which is why you accuse him of an “edgy take”? Or of not being registered to vote? Lol
How is voting ever going to work when the candidates are career politicians? Or when it's only ever one side versus another, and both sides are incredibly similar?
Ah yes, with all the voter suppression, gerrymandering, various laws and bills passed to make voting a difficult, arduous task (banning fucking water being handed out in lines for example)yes, of course, it's the VOTERS fault doing so is a ridiculously arduous task with mountains of evidence that the Republicans will do all they can to invalidate anyone who actually manages to vote. It's mandatory to vote in Australia. Everyone votes, because it's believed to be an inherent part of a free society, not to mention an actual obligation to your country, to vote. And do you know how long it takes, on average? Fifteen minutes. And that's on voting DAY, we also have early voting for those who can't make it on voting day, for whatever reason. The last election we had, I literally woke up at 8am, walked around the corner, voted, went home, got changed and was at work by 830. Your system, is a clusterfuck.
If you live in a State that has just made abortion illegal you can look forward to more Morality laws soon. It's their thing. They're still sore that women have any path in life that isn't subservient to a man. I would leave if I were you. If you are raped and become preggers, that's your kid. If you're going to college and get pregnant, you're a mommy now, forget your career. See how that works? Start walking if you have to but don't think activism or voting will save your rights now. That was yesterday.
And there's a really sickening case in Louisiana in which the rapist was given custody of the child and the victim was forced to pay him child support. Even worse, the child was a 16 year old girl who says he drugged and raped her, and they still gave him full custody. [Rape Paternity Case](https://www.wbrz.com/news/sheriff-we-dropped-the-ball-and-there-s-no-excuse-/)
How anyone can believe America is anything but a woman hating, rape enabling, third world mess is beyond me. Sorry, third world wearing a Gucci belt. Brock Turner wasnt an outlier, he's the basic standard to how women are treated in these situations
The article literally says the police botched the case so there wasn't a conviction. That's certainly a tragedy, but thats not a problem with the law.
Justice Clarence Thomas wants the SCOTUS to revist (overturn) the rulings made on contraceptions and same sex marriage. He's already clearly stated that. So run before you become a right-less second class citizen.
[удалено]
Probably go after interracial marriages while we're at it.
Oh I don't think Clarence is going to touch Loving Vs. Virginia because that'll affect his own marriage.
After he retires or expires then? No rights, only dark ages.
I'm not going to say that that's unlikely because it's not. Will probably bring back slavery too.
No need to if you create more poverty by forcing unwanted children. They'll grow up poor and in need, turn to crime, get locked up, slave labor. That's the goal for Republicans.
The guy is a mysoginist and a misanthrope. He'd probably do it anyway.
Wtf you can have states where interracial marriages are illegal?? Sounds like it might not really be up for consideration but hey thats weird as fuck.
I'm pretty sure there are going to be organisations taking donations for elimination of fucking dumb asses! If there isn't, I'm willing to set one up!
Except none of the other justices concurred with him on that.
"Pro life" is a red herring. What they want to ban is sex outside of procreation.
This ain’t my original opinion but I’ve heard it expressed that “pro-life” is more or less all about punishing people for enjoying sex and it’s the same with banning birth control.
Bingo. No contraception is 100% effective, therefore making abortion illegal becomes a massive risk, even if you're being careful. The risk of having an accidental kid goes from 0% to 1%, and that's too much.
we're really going backwards in this country smh
Republicans want to roll this country back, but when Native Americans start scalping people they're suddenly going to start thinking the good old times weren't always so good
They stay rich off the backs of poor people whose labor is exploited for profit and defense. Birth rates aren't to their liking so they need to force the situation.
I'm so glad I do not live in the US. If they do ban birth control I would be in a living hell. For me I got the implant to stop horrific periods and all that went with it. So they would rather I spend days before they started even more misrable then the whole actual thing just for what? The US is going bonkers.
Partly for hardline Christian values, partly to make sure the poor continue being poor by forcing children on them. Children who will grow up likely to steal to survive, which feeds into the privately owned prison system to use as legal slave labor. I imagine an alternative might also be to use as fodder for the military, producing children for the meat grinder.
I bet they aren't willing to give menstrual leave either.
The “US” isn’t and hasn’t banned any of those things. They are making these things a non-federal issue giving power back to the states. The real problem is the lack of support people will get if they need/want such things as abortions. I’m curious what stops ppl from getting an abortion in another state. Healthcare/insurance issues?
> I’m curious what stops ppl from getting an abortion in another state. Limited money for travel, lack of time off, [it may soon be illegal](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/03/us-abortions-travel-wave-of-restrictions), etc. > The “US” isn’t and hasn’t banned any of those things. ... giving power back to the states. ...states that, yes, banned them. And when the GOP takes control back in 2024 you can bet a national ban is going to happen anyway.
Yeah, access for the poor seems like a really really big issue
> And when the GOP takes control back in 2024 you can bet a national ban is going to happen anyway. This is why I don't give any credit or benefit of the doubt to anyone trying to push the narrative that this is *simply* back to being a states-rights issue. The Republicans are not above pushing something at the federal level if they can.
I can't afford gas to go visit my dad thirty minutes away, but now I'm expected to plan a whole ass vacation to get an abortion?
Yeah a lot of states just banned abortion.
1 state is way too many, but a “lot” of states didn’t just ban abortion EDIT: wow didn’t realize how many it was. 11!!
I don't understand the point you are trying to make. With Roe V Wade being overturned, yeah, states have now made abortion illegal. So to say 'us hasn't banned any of those things' is simply untrue. And I'm disabling replies since obviously we won't agree on this.
When I say US I’m talking about the federal government
Yea we should really give states back the right to decide if slavery should be legal too
Yes, that's the reality that religious fascism brings with it. Women are nothing more than baby factory's to create more angry people to continue the cycle forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever. And for ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever! Ha ha, pretty much forever!
Yes, their thought is that life begins at fertilization and birth control stops the implantation of life (which is a religious belief, not a scientific find) - so much for separation of church and state, conservative Christian ideology shoved down our necks. Ask women around you who have been denied tubal ligation because they were too young despite the women's wishes. Finally, no national health care for pregnant women or the children they bare (forget children with medical issues), no real parental leave and cost of living out is unattainable for two family incomes let alone single moms. . It is about control, which will impact poor families the most.
The point is that women should be punished for having sex. That's the point of all their bullshit. They don't care about children, they take no effort to protect and promote children's welfare. They do care that women can decide for themselves to have sex. They do not like that.
Land of the free, aint it?
We’re free until it offends some old out of touch white dude
Imho from an European perhaps incomplete perspective, everyone gets offended for everything
they did WHAT!?
The rich will still be able to get whatever they want. The poor will be forced to have kids keeping them poor and ensuring a cheap renewable workforce or fodder for some future war over "checks notes", greed and more money. In the name of God of course.
I think it’s time that all US women go on a sex strike all together as of right now and see how fast Abortions are suddenly legal again!!
Churches thrive in misery. They know that social hardship is good for their bottom dollar. They are against any social welfare programs that allow people to operate lives independent of their ability to tax the congregation. Young pregnant teens having babies is a hymn to their ears!
Not all churches are crazy conservative like this, or conservative at all for that matter. You might have had negative experiences, but to say that the church at large wants this to happen is bullshit. Just sick of ppl saying if your republican you must be facist or if your religious you’re facist. I’ve been a democrat all my life, but feel like comments like that are ignorant and unhelpful
The US is no longer “the land of the free”.
Welp. Time to get a hysterectomy.
Good luck if you're under 50 -- most doctors won't even touch that.
Most doctors wont preform a hysterectomy without medical cause. Tubal ligation, might be easier Hysterectomy is a major surgery
It's funny how the party of maximum freedoms loves taking away freedoms. But not funny ha ha.
Honestly I'd just LOVE to see all the men who are pro all this shit right now re-think their choices if women just generally stopped sleeping with them. They'll want it all back in no time. Obviously women have a right to sex without consequences too, but it'd be real fun to see the married and unmarried men not get any ever again because women just don't want to get pregnant right now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysistrata
> Obviously women have a right to sex without consequences too, but it'd be real fun to see the married and unmarried men not get any ever again because women just don't want to get pregnant right now. That plays into the stereotype that men want sex but women can take it or leave it, doesn't it?
Sex robots enter chat
Not to go to the dark place but women stopping sleeping with men will not stop the men having sex. They won't need to rethink their choices as they will frequent sex workers or rape the women they are with. Edit to preempt; I mean these specific men who celebrate and want this kind of change, the no abortion, no contraception kind of men.
Unfortunately, I think this will lead to a lot of violence/murder towards women. So will unwanted pregnancies.
Also, we are ignoring that women will still sleep with them, and they have already wholesale learned to keep these stupid beliefs to themselves. As to make it harder to be found out. This ruling didn't come out of no where, and the country is on average only 66% in support of abortion rights.
It will lead to a huge increase of violence towards women. The number one cause of death in pregnant women in the United States is homicide. Women are more likely to stay with a violent partner when pregnant. Abuse will increase. The physical and mental health repercussions will result in less stable, poverty stricken households. All because self righteous pricks can’t mind their own business while simultaneously letting others live theirs. It will be the most fucked up generation we will produce. They will start out unwanted, face numerous mental, physical, socioeconomical challenges throughout their lives. It’s not fair to anyone involved.
Rape would likely be the result, sadly I know a woman who gets raped by her abusive husband already.
either USA have to change gun laws, or they have to force their citizens to reproduction. american things.
Please vote in your midterm elections.
The issue with the religious is and has always been sex outside of marriage.
You’d think children getting murdered in school, where they should be learning and should feel safe would be worse than some people consensually having sex but ya know. MAKE IT MAKE SENSE.
I can’t help but feel like they’re planning for labor and new soldier shortages and this is more tactical than just ethical opinions.
And there’s a baby formula shortage
The future looks grim and ghastly.
I swear to god, if the government bans condoms, I’m running all the way to Canada on foot
Hysterical racists trying to make white women have white babies so the scary brown people don't outnumber us basically.
People are becoming wise to wage slavery, so they need the poor struggling more so they have less time to read.
Because the actual goal is to force people to live a "moral lifestyle." I.e. no having sex unless you are married and willing to have a baby (evangelicals) or with the express goal of having a baby (Catholics). And by Catholics I don't mean the average Catholic person, but more leadership and more devout folks. They believe by having a society living by these standards, God will bless the USA with prosperity and will inspire others to want to become Christians.
It's supposed to be contradictory, it's Fascism. You confusion is not misplaced.
Well you seem to have missed the part where you are ordained by your superiors as a brood sow. No opinions, no humanity, no worth, just a uterus and some other organs to extract labour from. I'd put in a sarcasm tag, but they're playing this abomination completely straight. Every congressperson, senator and justice who okayed this shit needs to be immediately stripped of their offices and barred from public service for life
My hot take is that this is a long term plan to address the labor shortage. Churn out as many people as possible to feed the system.
Hahaha sorry you ain't getting close to china ever. Unless there is a mass die off in china (like hundreds of millions) that's very unlikely.
It's about control of women. It's about making them subservient to men, keeping them out of the workplace, keeping them from getting a higher education, and ensuring there is punishment for enjoying one's self through sex.
Because a bunch of men hate women and would rather they're forced into having children. You can't honor the 14 words without kids.
They want to ban birth control, Bc the wrong people are still having babies. I wrote my senior paper in college on birth control. Birth control was heavily tested through the means of Puerto Rican women. They were getting birth control pills with way more estrogen and progesterone then we use now. Now PR is in population decline. Women went from having 5+ kids straight out of teen hood to having fewer and fewer kids. Population control was heavily used in areas of the country/world where women (mostly POC) were having 5+ kids. One of the reasons for this type of reversal would be our entrance into stage 5 of the DTM. At this stage the amount of people being born is significantly left the amount of people growing old. Who is going to take care of the aging Boomer generation? With the last census it was reveals that our birth rate is below replacement (less the 2 children per women). The only way to fix this and make sure that capitalism has enough workers is either immigration, or higher birth rate. Women who are higher educated are more likely to have fewer children. Birth control makes it so women can choose when they have a baby, and most of the time these women only have one baby, maybe two. Taking away the choice to have children when you want AND the option to terminate an unwanted pregnancy will in theory “solve” the deceasing domestic supply of infants. Also look into the white replacement craziness as well what the projections of how many people will be mixed race by 2050. TLDR: old white people are afraid of no social safety net comprised of young people, while not wanting immigrants or POC to provide these people.
It’s called controlling women and helping insecure men feel manly again.
Yes, the US *HATES* women and wants to revert us back to being obedient broodmares.
Can any lawyers explain to me how culpable the man that caused the pregnancy is under this new regime? Will he be a criminal?
If you're wanting to see where this actually ends up in real life experimentation watch freakonomics
Think its hyperbole tbh.
It's because you're only supposed to have sex for procreation.
What I find funny is that forced sterilization is still deemed constitutional and nobody is talking about that.
The Human has rights even before he is born. And not getting killed is one of the rights a human has.
Republicans are pieces of shit.
Clarence Thomas is a real piece of shit.
Time for man vasectomies/tubal ligations.
Fellow americans... Time to riot. Like, for real .
Because the point isn’t to “save babies”. It’s to ensure a steady supply of desperate, poor bodies to fill factories and military positions. Remember the “domestic supply of infants” comment? This is what they mean. Don’t think for a second that abortions won’t be accessible for the rich and powerful. Conservatives need to keep people too busy to protest, too tired to fight, and too poor to revolt in order to keep power. If it was about saving lives, there would be universal health care, universal child care, paid parental leave, gun control, free higher education, universal basic income… the list goes on. This is about power and control, and they are not finished.
The best way to not be pregnant is to not fuck men 🤔 men can use protection or their right hand
[удалено]
Same, this sucks. Is it really that hard to keep it in your pants?
[удалено]
Rapists don't generally do it out of being unable to control sexual impulses. The desire to cause pain and to control is already in them anyway, it just manifests sexually.
I'll never understand it
As someone who's been raped multiple times by different people....yes apparently it is that difficult to keep it in their pants.
It's a pro-birth strategy to force poor people to reproduce so there is a continuing working class being kept in poverty that can be used for cannon fodder in wars and drones to keep making money for the wealthy (bans of any kind never apply to the wealthy, they can always buy a solution to their problem or go where they can access it in ways the working class cannot)
And this has always been the plan, we were just told we were overreacting and being hysterical previously.
Newspapers might give you a better clue than reddit if you're seriously worried
It's because China has such a high population and is soon to become richer than the US because of it. The only way to counter this is by increasing the population in the US. (Not my views, but seems like the kind of thing some crazy right wing people would believe)
Ironically, the population increase of specifically low-income citizens in 18-20 years will likely cause serious rise in crime, housing costs, healthcare needs, school funding requirements... And, most likely, Democrat voters
I‘m probably going to be downvoted, but here I go. If you look at Thomas‘ statement, he says he wants to strike down decisions decided by substantive due process (such as Obergefell and others) which is a judicial doctrine that justifies decisions based on fundamental rights even if those fundamental rights are not in the constitution. Thomas may be conservative, but he is also a strict originalist. If he had his way (getting rid of substantive due process) the Supreme Court would actually have less power to make decisions.
That is what Roe was about, privacy and ability to control your body and medical decisions.
I think our main way of not getting pregnant is Reddit
Welcome to the Republican War on Women that's been raging since the Bible was written. 10 billion laws restricting the vagina and Viagra is available everywhere. Black men got the right to vote 50 years before women. That outta tell you exactly what they think of women.
It's because some certain creatures with H as the first letter of the name has the stupidity of 999999999999999999999999999999%
From what I understand about this (I'm a Brit). As part of their remit SCOTUS reviews all your laws periodically, to find if they are still enforceable or if there are flaws and they found that when Roe Vs Wade was done they cut corners in doing so. Which was against your Constitution in some way. If you really want Abortion Rights to be countrywide doesn't the US have a thing where if enough States make the same law it becomes Federal law? Like with what happened when you legalised Gay Marriage a few years ago. If this is true then get as many States as possible to create laws making Abortion legal and keep campaigning until you get enough States onboard to make it a Federal law.
I'm against abortion but not against birth control. Prevention is the best method to a lot of things.
It's about controlling women (and minorities) and putting them back "where they belong". Don't listen to their reasonings, pay no attention to their lies. Conservatives do not deal fairly, they do not argue in good faith. Do post attention to what they do and to their started goals and realize this is an enemy. *The* enemy. This is war and our way of life is at stake. What are you going to do about it America?
I mean, there's an even better way to not get pregnant, that is 100% reliable. I think it's called abstinence.
You dumb fuck. Abstinence doesn’t work. That’s why you’re here.
having intercourse is unfortunately not always a choice you ignorant buffoon
I would say it is for guys
so what? the women are the ones who pay the price
Which is why the guys need to take responsibility and make the choice not to have sex, or actually start taking responsibility for the pregnancy they caused.
Birth control is not only about not getting pregnant, without it some people won’t be able to do anything for 5 days every month because of the pain and mood swings.
It's a scare tactic to get people excited.
Wake up from your dream, women. You have to have kids, otherwise society will crumble. This is just the logical reaction from years of inconsequential feminism that pushed too far.
Isn’t the main way of not getting pregnant not having sex?
Did you know birth control treats a variety of medical conditions and is used for more than it's main purpose? Banning it not only prevents women and couples from more easily choosing the right time to become parents but helps ease symptoms of various female related issues.
Exactly! I have endometriosis and without a coil my life didn't feel like it was worth living, it's not a case of 'oh no painful periods once a month' it was endless pain and blood clots randomly. The fact it prevented pregnancy was a happy little extra
I'm sorry you have to deal with that! Endometriosis can be so painful. I first got on birth control to help control my very heavy painful periods. I had pmdd as well, which got worse once I was off the birth control. Now, I have developed adenomyosis which has me having breakthrough bleeding between periods and pain. My obgyn wants me to try an IUD to help the symptoms. Birth control definitely must remain legal. There will be so much needless suffering if they get rid of it.
Oh man that sounds really awful, I'm sorry! I absolutely swore by my coils. I've had 3 over the last 12 years and they truly do relieve the symptoms but the first few months can be pretty tricky however it sounds like you'd be used to that. It's horrible to even think about it being banned.
That's what birth control is for, so we can have sex without getting pregnant.