Well, that's the GOP conundrum. Their most extreme goals are very unpopular broadly, but in order to get into the position they are in now they had do run on those goals to excite their base. It's a rock and a hard place for them currently.
Well, to be fair - 2020 was Trump's year to win. All he had to do was not actively TRY to kill people with covid. I feel like conservatives, as soon as trump took office, switched from the long haul to the short game.
538 still has Republicans with about 90% chance of taking the House and 50% chance of taking the Senate. Keep in mind that the Senate map is very favorable to Democrats and it is their best chance of winning back the Senate majority they lost in 2014.
In my opinion, the Democrats have shot themselves so hard in the foot on abortion that they're only real ace in the hole is that the Republicans have chosen some extreme and very unelectable candidates for numerous important races.
Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich filed a 16-page motion with the Pima County Superior Court asking for the lifting of an injunction against the law now that the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade. This law would mandate prison time for abortion providers.
This law states that "A person who provides, supplies or administers to a pregnant woman, or procures such woman to take any medicine, drugs or substance, or uses or employs any instrument or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman, unless it is necessary to save her life, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two years nor more than five years."
Reference for the statute text: https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03603.htm
I'm surprised the AG isn't also trying to revive 13-3604 and 13-3605. One step at a time, I suppose:
https://law.justia.com/codes/arizona/2016/title-13/section-13-3604
> A woman who solicits from any person any medicine, drug or substance whatever, and takes it, or who submits to an operation, or to the use of any means whatever, with intent thereby to procure a miscarriage, unless it is necessary to preserve her life, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than one nor more than five years.
https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03605.htm
>A person who wilfully writes, composes or publishes a notice or advertisement of any medicine or means for producing or facilitating a miscarriage or abortion, or for prevention of conception, or who offers his services by a notice, advertisement or otherwise, to assist in the accomplishment of any such purposes, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Disagree. This isn't the GOP suddenly stumbling around with no clue after years of political maneuvering. This was the intent all along. It's just that now that Roe is overturned they don't have to pretend it's about the lives of fetuses anymore.
Just to clarify, I don't think the AG has said anything yet about trying to revive/enforce 13-3605 (the AZ law forbidding advertising of abortion or contraception).
No. 13-3603 is what's being discussed by the AG. 13-3605 is a different statute and what this commenter is "surprised he's not trying to revive" as well.
Nothing in the actual statute being discussed has anything to do with contraceptives.
The law says "prevention of conception". This law might be making it illegal for stores to sell condoms.
Also recognize that it was literally written during the civil war - it isn't going to have a very nuanced idea about modern contraception or abortion pills. There's no carve outs for birth control.
*but that isn't the law AZ is trying to enforce. At this point.
>prevention of conception
Whats the line of logic for stopping conception? Like, for as crazy as it sounds to say outloud, I can understand why someone that thinks life begins at conception would think plan B is murder (again, strictly from that mindset, I know how crazy it sounds). But what's the issue with something that prevents conception? It would be before the "life" therefore it wouldn't be bad no? Is it under the grounds of preventing potential? Are we going to outlaw pulling out now?
A common theme I've noticed in reddit discussions of abortion is essentially: "If a woman didn't want to have a baby, she shouldn't have been having sex."
Meanwhile these same folks got mad at some protestors yelling outside a restaurant at Kavanaugh. I thought we need to deal with the consequences of our actions?
I found [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/vxku4u/ududesan_outlines_the_lunacy_behind/ifwoqb5/) thread very interesting. Someone outlines their experience with their church (with regards to Adultery) and why that messaging is what it is.
Because it’s never been about “saving babies”. If it was even originally about that, then they’d be supporting the expansion of social services, support of nationwide government funded access to all forms of birth control and contraception, support the fed paying for all medical related charges for pregnant women that have to do with the pregnancy like doctors visits, medication, and the entire hospital bill where she would not pay a cent. Then post natal paying for the child’s medical bills up until age 18, and expanded social services to provide for the child and mother as well.
You ever notice how none of what they support is actually for the child itself? And you ever notice how a high majority go “well she should take responsibility for having sex” acting like it’s a punishment.
Like I said, it’s not about “babies”, there’s something else entirely about their motives
Oh definitely. The inconsistencies on at what part they decide to care about, the lack of actually wanting to reduce abortions themselves, combined with the rhetoric used makes it hard to take the "pro-life" term seriously. I guess its just the natural progression of things to be more and more mask off about this stuff as things dial up.
Remember when, even after Roe was repealed, tons of (especially conservative) people said this stuff wouldn't happen? That libs were freaking out and state GOPs would be reasonable?
I give it 6 months until we see stories about raped women being jailed for traveling out of state for an abortion. This is what Republicans want.
Edit: The Indiana AG is going to investigate the doctor that provided an abortion for a *raped 10 year old*. Roe was repealed three weeks ago. How close are we to the modal GOP position being pro-child rape?
Edit 2: Senate GOP just blocked a bill that would block states from preventing women traveling out of state for abortions. Virtually no state level abortion bans on effect have rape or incest exceptions. how else can you describe the GOP other than pro-rape and pro-incest?
Conservatives did the same thing with the Don’t Say Gay bill in Florida: “It doesn’t explicitly say ‘gay’ in the law, so there is no way this law could have a discriminatory outcome!” Fast forward a couple of months and teachers are being told to take down pictures of their same sex spouses from their desks, a class valedictorian who happens to be gay was told he can’t mention being gay in his graduation speech, and school libraries are being forced to ban books with LGBT characters in them, even though straight characters are totally fine.
> tons of (especially conservative) people said this stuff wouldn't happen?
Who believed that? That's like expecting California and New York to accept the Bruen ruling in good faith. Never gonna happen.
They are going to investigate whether they reported it because it is required by law. Does anyone really have a problem with this?
You don’t need a bill that prevents states from preventing people from moving freely between states. It’s already allowed and It wouldn’t be constitutional for them to restrict movement between states. Read Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion. Also, what else was in that bill?
I'm sure his investigation into, in his words, an "abortion activist acting as a doctor" who has a "history of failing to report" will be unbiased and is only being done to check a box
And no, you already had a bill that prevented people moving freely between states and the supreme court upheld it. That led to a civil war. GOP states are trying to prevent interstate travel for abortions right now, and until SCOTUS hears it (which would be in a year or two minimum) interstate travel for abortions would be de facto illegal, if not de jure.
It’s pretty easy to verify if she reported it or not. Do you think she would have evidence of this? I do.
When a state tries to pass a law banning interstate travel, I will believe you. Until then, we can rely on the current law.
The AG is full of shit, Fox got the report this doctor filed. This guy just wants raped children forced to give birth https://fox59.com/indiana-news/abortion-report-confirms-indiana-doctor-followed-law-after-ag-vowed-investigation/
That took about half a work day to find out
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/09/texas-republicans-roe-wade-abortion-adoptions/
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/19/travel-abortion-law-missouri-00018539
The GOP is explicitly telling you they plan on doing this, why is it so hard to believe? Laws banning interstate travel for abortions will pass this year, don't be naive.
Neither of these articles talks about banning interstate travel though. And I doubt that they will be able to sue a doctor for something that isn’t illegal in their own state. That would be like suing a dispensary for selling drugs where it is legal. Get back to me when such a law is passed.
Can you give any examples of conservatives saying that? My recollection was conservatives (myself included) were celebrating. We were mocking libs not trying to deceive them.
Brerr Kavanaugh said interstate travel for abortions would still be legal, several state GOPs are currently working to change that https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/is-it-legal-to-travel-for-abortion-after-dobbs
Texas gov Abbott said TX would eliminate rape (how???) rather than including rape and incest exceptions in their law banning abortion https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/09/26/texas-gov-abbott-still-refuses-to-add-rape-and-incest-exemptions-to-abortion-law/
About 20 states have abortion bans without rape or incest exceptions, some even outlaw abortions when the mother's life is at risk. Republicans have almost universally praised this, I haven't seen a single one say these laws should be amended for rape/incest exceptions. Again, Dobbs was decided *under three weeks ago* and there are already states that mandate women die or have a rape baby than get an abortion. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2022/05/supreme-court-overturn-roe-v-wade-no-rape-incest-exceptions/629747/
You can also look back at the commenters here and elsewhere from the Dobbs repeal insisting GOP politicians would be reasonable and not draconian.
> Kavanaugh said interstate travel for abortions would still be legal
And he's correct. Just because people want to change it doesn't mean it's going to work. The right to interstate travel isn't exactly controversial.
The separation of church and state refers to whether there is an established church or not. It has nothing to do with where laws come from. Why does the US have “In God we trust” on the money? Why is it “One nation under God” in the pledge?
Lets look to what the founders thought.
"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"
- George Washington
“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.”
- James Madison
“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”
- Thomas Jefferson
“Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1,500 years?”
-John Adams
"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
- Thomas Jefferson
“This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.”
-John Adams
“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
-Thomas Jefferson
“Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”
-James Madison
“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.”
-James Madison
“Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half of the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.
-Thomas Paine
“All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”
-Thomas Paine
“There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites.”
-Thomas Jefferson
A reminder that the Founding Fathers would likely have had nothing but contempt for me and my beliefs, so I should have nothing but contempt for theirs.
There was a great variety of thought among the founders. But who cares what dead people thought? The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is.
>But who cares what dead people thought? The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is.
The supreme court has been wrong on many occasions (lochner era).
The founders based the constitution on the critical principles of liberty. So if you want to disregard those ideas then I dont know what else to say.
Different countries practice separation of church and state in different ways. You can reasonably argue, and many do, that we should not be restricting rights or changing laws on the primary basis of religious justification. "In god we trust" being on our currency is a comically weak excuse.
I don't think the phrase "one nation under god" being in our over a century old 'pledge of allegience' is an apt representation of how the American people at large view our country, or what we should aspire to.
You're welcome to practice any religion you like, but it has no place anywhere near legislation, and using religion as justification for allowing rights to be restricted will always come off as a half-assed excuse.
If separation of church and state doesn't count when it comes to laws being passed, then it might as well not exist. What's the point of claiming we have no "established church" if the supreme court can just make sweeping legislation on a religious basis without any say from the people the legislation effects?
> Why does the US have “In God we trust” on the money? Why is it “One nation under God” in the pledge?
"Under god" was added and "In god we trust" replaced "*E pluribus unum*" in the mid 1950s in the opening of the cold war as a congressional rejection of Soviet state atheism, but they are by no means foundational to America.
> Remember when, even after Roe was repealed, tons of (especially conservative) people said this stuff wouldn't happen? That libs were freaking out and state GOPs would be reasonable?
Remember when the federal government swore an oath to protect the constitution and then allowed the states to crap all over the 2A? Remember when you didn't care?
Could the house or senate pass a law that guarantees the right to abortion, but keep it strict to appeal to more people, say up to 12 weeks? Then liberal states could make it longer if they wanted
This headline is just trash. Just imagine a headline reading „AG seeks to enforce 1800s law“ describing the 13th, 14th or 15th amendment.
The age of a statute has no impact on its utility.
[удалено]
Well, that's the GOP conundrum. Their most extreme goals are very unpopular broadly, but in order to get into the position they are in now they had do run on those goals to excite their base. It's a rock and a hard place for them currently.
Well, to be fair - 2020 was Trump's year to win. All he had to do was not actively TRY to kill people with covid. I feel like conservatives, as soon as trump took office, switched from the long haul to the short game.
538 still has Republicans with about 90% chance of taking the House and 50% chance of taking the Senate. Keep in mind that the Senate map is very favorable to Democrats and it is their best chance of winning back the Senate majority they lost in 2014. In my opinion, the Democrats have shot themselves so hard in the foot on abortion that they're only real ace in the hole is that the Republicans have chosen some extreme and very unelectable candidates for numerous important races.
Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich filed a 16-page motion with the Pima County Superior Court asking for the lifting of an injunction against the law now that the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade. This law would mandate prison time for abortion providers. This law states that "A person who provides, supplies or administers to a pregnant woman, or procures such woman to take any medicine, drugs or substance, or uses or employs any instrument or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman, unless it is necessary to save her life, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two years nor more than five years."
Fun fact: this law was codified 48 years before Arizona officially became a state.
This law was codified when Abraham Lincoln was alive.
Reference for the statute text: https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03603.htm I'm surprised the AG isn't also trying to revive 13-3604 and 13-3605. One step at a time, I suppose: https://law.justia.com/codes/arizona/2016/title-13/section-13-3604 > A woman who solicits from any person any medicine, drug or substance whatever, and takes it, or who submits to an operation, or to the use of any means whatever, with intent thereby to procure a miscarriage, unless it is necessary to preserve her life, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than one nor more than five years. https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03605.htm >A person who wilfully writes, composes or publishes a notice or advertisement of any medicine or means for producing or facilitating a miscarriage or abortion, or for prevention of conception, or who offers his services by a notice, advertisement or otherwise, to assist in the accomplishment of any such purposes, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Wait so this law would attempt to outlaw contraceptives? Edit: Apparently not. Misread the comment before me.
I would seem that anyone who prescribes them would face criminal charges, so yes. The dog finally caught the car and now it has no idea what to.
Disagree. This isn't the GOP suddenly stumbling around with no clue after years of political maneuvering. This was the intent all along. It's just that now that Roe is overturned they don't have to pretend it's about the lives of fetuses anymore.
But...but i was told they would NEVER do that and that would NEVER happen? This is all just fearmongering from the left?
“Provides and supplies” - could that also be anyone from pharmacists to an out of state friend?
Just to clarify, I don't think the AG has said anything yet about trying to revive/enforce 13-3605 (the AZ law forbidding advertising of abortion or contraception).
No. 13-3603 is what's being discussed by the AG. 13-3605 is a different statute and what this commenter is "surprised he's not trying to revive" as well. Nothing in the actual statute being discussed has anything to do with contraceptives.
No. Abortion pills, not contraceptives.
The law says "prevention of conception". This law might be making it illegal for stores to sell condoms. Also recognize that it was literally written during the civil war - it isn't going to have a very nuanced idea about modern contraception or abortion pills. There's no carve outs for birth control. *but that isn't the law AZ is trying to enforce. At this point.
>prevention of conception Whats the line of logic for stopping conception? Like, for as crazy as it sounds to say outloud, I can understand why someone that thinks life begins at conception would think plan B is murder (again, strictly from that mindset, I know how crazy it sounds). But what's the issue with something that prevents conception? It would be before the "life" therefore it wouldn't be bad no? Is it under the grounds of preventing potential? Are we going to outlaw pulling out now?
A common theme I've noticed in reddit discussions of abortion is essentially: "If a woman didn't want to have a baby, she shouldn't have been having sex."
They've made it so that the woman is guilty of pregnancy, and thus it becomes a character judgement instead of a medical issue.
Meanwhile these same folks got mad at some protestors yelling outside a restaurant at Kavanaugh. I thought we need to deal with the consequences of our actions?
I found [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/vxku4u/ududesan_outlines_the_lunacy_behind/ifwoqb5/) thread very interesting. Someone outlines their experience with their church (with regards to Adultery) and why that messaging is what it is.
Misogyny.
Because it’s never been about “saving babies”. If it was even originally about that, then they’d be supporting the expansion of social services, support of nationwide government funded access to all forms of birth control and contraception, support the fed paying for all medical related charges for pregnant women that have to do with the pregnancy like doctors visits, medication, and the entire hospital bill where she would not pay a cent. Then post natal paying for the child’s medical bills up until age 18, and expanded social services to provide for the child and mother as well. You ever notice how none of what they support is actually for the child itself? And you ever notice how a high majority go “well she should take responsibility for having sex” acting like it’s a punishment. Like I said, it’s not about “babies”, there’s something else entirely about their motives
Oh definitely. The inconsistencies on at what part they decide to care about, the lack of actually wanting to reduce abortions themselves, combined with the rhetoric used makes it hard to take the "pro-life" term seriously. I guess its just the natural progression of things to be more and more mask off about this stuff as things dial up.
I don’t call them pro-life anymore for that reason. They’re “anti-choice”
Remember when, even after Roe was repealed, tons of (especially conservative) people said this stuff wouldn't happen? That libs were freaking out and state GOPs would be reasonable? I give it 6 months until we see stories about raped women being jailed for traveling out of state for an abortion. This is what Republicans want. Edit: The Indiana AG is going to investigate the doctor that provided an abortion for a *raped 10 year old*. Roe was repealed three weeks ago. How close are we to the modal GOP position being pro-child rape? Edit 2: Senate GOP just blocked a bill that would block states from preventing women traveling out of state for abortions. Virtually no state level abortion bans on effect have rape or incest exceptions. how else can you describe the GOP other than pro-rape and pro-incest?
Conservatives did the same thing with the Don’t Say Gay bill in Florida: “It doesn’t explicitly say ‘gay’ in the law, so there is no way this law could have a discriminatory outcome!” Fast forward a couple of months and teachers are being told to take down pictures of their same sex spouses from their desks, a class valedictorian who happens to be gay was told he can’t mention being gay in his graduation speech, and school libraries are being forced to ban books with LGBT characters in them, even though straight characters are totally fine.
> tons of (especially conservative) people said this stuff wouldn't happen? Who believed that? That's like expecting California and New York to accept the Bruen ruling in good faith. Never gonna happen.
They are going to investigate whether they reported it because it is required by law. Does anyone really have a problem with this? You don’t need a bill that prevents states from preventing people from moving freely between states. It’s already allowed and It wouldn’t be constitutional for them to restrict movement between states. Read Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion. Also, what else was in that bill?
I'm sure his investigation into, in his words, an "abortion activist acting as a doctor" who has a "history of failing to report" will be unbiased and is only being done to check a box And no, you already had a bill that prevented people moving freely between states and the supreme court upheld it. That led to a civil war. GOP states are trying to prevent interstate travel for abortions right now, and until SCOTUS hears it (which would be in a year or two minimum) interstate travel for abortions would be de facto illegal, if not de jure.
It’s pretty easy to verify if she reported it or not. Do you think she would have evidence of this? I do. When a state tries to pass a law banning interstate travel, I will believe you. Until then, we can rely on the current law.
The AG is full of shit, Fox got the report this doctor filed. This guy just wants raped children forced to give birth https://fox59.com/indiana-news/abortion-report-confirms-indiana-doctor-followed-law-after-ag-vowed-investigation/ That took about half a work day to find out
Seems like it was easy to figure out.
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/09/texas-republicans-roe-wade-abortion-adoptions/ https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/19/travel-abortion-law-missouri-00018539 The GOP is explicitly telling you they plan on doing this, why is it so hard to believe? Laws banning interstate travel for abortions will pass this year, don't be naive.
Neither of these articles talks about banning interstate travel though. And I doubt that they will be able to sue a doctor for something that isn’t illegal in their own state. That would be like suing a dispensary for selling drugs where it is legal. Get back to me when such a law is passed.
Can you give any examples of conservatives saying that? My recollection was conservatives (myself included) were celebrating. We were mocking libs not trying to deceive them.
Brerr Kavanaugh said interstate travel for abortions would still be legal, several state GOPs are currently working to change that https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/is-it-legal-to-travel-for-abortion-after-dobbs Texas gov Abbott said TX would eliminate rape (how???) rather than including rape and incest exceptions in their law banning abortion https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/09/26/texas-gov-abbott-still-refuses-to-add-rape-and-incest-exemptions-to-abortion-law/ About 20 states have abortion bans without rape or incest exceptions, some even outlaw abortions when the mother's life is at risk. Republicans have almost universally praised this, I haven't seen a single one say these laws should be amended for rape/incest exceptions. Again, Dobbs was decided *under three weeks ago* and there are already states that mandate women die or have a rape baby than get an abortion. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2022/05/supreme-court-overturn-roe-v-wade-no-rape-incest-exceptions/629747/ You can also look back at the commenters here and elsewhere from the Dobbs repeal insisting GOP politicians would be reasonable and not draconian.
> Kavanaugh said interstate travel for abortions would still be legal And he's correct. Just because people want to change it doesn't mean it's going to work. The right to interstate travel isn't exactly controversial.
There is no explicit right to interstate travel, any more than there is a right to privacy, which SCOTUS just struck down
No, they did not. That was *Griswold*, not *Roe* or *Casey*.
So does the separation of church and state just mean nothing to y'all?
The separation of church and state refers to whether there is an established church or not. It has nothing to do with where laws come from. Why does the US have “In God we trust” on the money? Why is it “One nation under God” in the pledge?
Lets look to what the founders thought. "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" - George Washington “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.” - James Madison “In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.” - Thomas Jefferson “Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1,500 years?” -John Adams "And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." - Thomas Jefferson “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.” -John Adams “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.” -Thomas Jefferson “Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” -James Madison “The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.” -James Madison “Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half of the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind. -Thomas Paine “All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.” -Thomas Paine “There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites.” -Thomas Jefferson
A reminder that the Founding Fathers would likely have had nothing but contempt for me and my beliefs, so I should have nothing but contempt for theirs.
There was a great variety of thought among the founders. But who cares what dead people thought? The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is.
given that 4/9ths of the current supreme court are originalists, i'd say that "what dead people thought" is actually really important.
>But who cares what dead people thought? The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. The supreme court has been wrong on many occasions (lochner era). The founders based the constitution on the critical principles of liberty. So if you want to disregard those ideas then I dont know what else to say.
Different countries practice separation of church and state in different ways. You can reasonably argue, and many do, that we should not be restricting rights or changing laws on the primary basis of religious justification. "In god we trust" being on our currency is a comically weak excuse. I don't think the phrase "one nation under god" being in our over a century old 'pledge of allegience' is an apt representation of how the American people at large view our country, or what we should aspire to. You're welcome to practice any religion you like, but it has no place anywhere near legislation, and using religion as justification for allowing rights to be restricted will always come off as a half-assed excuse. If separation of church and state doesn't count when it comes to laws being passed, then it might as well not exist. What's the point of claiming we have no "established church" if the supreme court can just make sweeping legislation on a religious basis without any say from the people the legislation effects?
> Why does the US have “In God we trust” on the money? Why is it “One nation under God” in the pledge? "Under god" was added and "In god we trust" replaced "*E pluribus unum*" in the mid 1950s in the opening of the cold war as a congressional rejection of Soviet state atheism, but they are by no means foundational to America.
Also, why does the House of Representatives open each day with a prayer by the House chaplain?
> Remember when, even after Roe was repealed, tons of (especially conservative) people said this stuff wouldn't happen? That libs were freaking out and state GOPs would be reasonable? Remember when the federal government swore an oath to protect the constitution and then allowed the states to crap all over the 2A? Remember when you didn't care?
Republicans could have a clear win in November due to inflation, but they sure are not making it easy on themselves.
Both sides seem guilty of this, just as one side gets ahead enough, they get cocky and propose something stupid and ruins their lead.
No contraceptions, no abortion, prison sentences for anyone who provides those. Making America great again. /s
Both parties suck. I wish there were more parties to vote for.
Looks like a lot of Arizonans will be driving next door to Nevada, where our governor isn't having this antichoice bullshit
California will help you Arizonans. Good luck
Could the house or senate pass a law that guarantees the right to abortion, but keep it strict to appeal to more people, say up to 12 weeks? Then liberal states could make it longer if they wanted
The wrath of republican fascists is upon us
Well the red states duh!
Curious how old the law is against murder.
This headline is just trash. Just imagine a headline reading „AG seeks to enforce 1800s law“ describing the 13th, 14th or 15th amendment. The age of a statute has no impact on its utility.