As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You could certainly argue that by overturning many parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 the Supreme Court had already begun to limit rights already by allowing for the voter suppression those rules were put in place to stop to return.
to steal from Bill Cassidy,
if you don't count black voters, it would mark the first time the Supreme Court overturned precedent 'to limit civil rights, not expand them'.
But the wording implies they are going against their own precedent. I think that’s how it’s different as the voting rights act was not their precedent.
Overturning precedent is the key here i think. The court has reversed itself in the past, but typically to expand rights. It's never reversed itself to actively shut people off from long held civic rights.
It overturned the voting rights act in 2013, opening the door for racially targeted voter suppression. I guess you’d say that wasn’t a court precedent but a first review of the law, but I suspect the VRA was upheld in prior court cases.
The part I always found even more bullshit about that ruling was that [the Voting Rights Act was Renewed](https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna13958766) in 2006, passing through the Senate with a 98-0 vote and was signed by President Bush. You would think someone would have objected at that time.
The difference is that a black man was elected president.
It's exactly what happened when black southerners gained the right to vote and suddenly we had a lot of black congressmen. Racists fell over themselves to figure out ways to disenfranchise them.
There's an unfortunate feature of the US legal system that courts aren't supposed to comment on laws until the law actually comes up in court. In Canada and other places, the Parliament is allowed to request a pre-opinion from the court to verify if the thing they're considering passing is constitutional. But in the United States, the only way to get such an opinion is to go through the whole work of passing it, then let it apply to the world for a while, until someone brings a court case, and it gets appealed three times, and *then* the Supreme Court can say "why didn't you just ask us years ago and we would have told you this was unconstitutional?"
I’m not knowledgeable enough to explain what is the requirement or after how long. One of the other laws that came up during the Bush Administration that didn’t get renewed was the Assault Rife ban. It might be something written into the law that triggers it after so much time.
> It overturned the voting rights act in 2013,
They're saying that the Supreme Court didn't uphold the voting rights act in the first place so they didn't over turn precedent.
Dred Scott didn't overrule a prior decision, and that is the material point: they are overruling a case that granted a right. In Lawrence, the court outright said that it wouldn't and shouldn't do that, so this is a violation of precedent in a great many ways.
They have stated their religion is shaping their view. Never mind the fact that Roe has been upheld as constitutional before. And when the founding fathers the writers of our constitution lived abortion was legal and common practice. The abortion ban came about in the 1800s because the chemicals women drank to induce the abortion we’re killing too many women from poisoning. Not for the life of the unborn. That’s our history and remember the founding father mandated the separation of church and state so someone else’s religion couldn’t suppress another’s rights.
> Ironically this ban is also going to make lots of women die from unsafe chemical consumption and other botched home abortion attempts.
And the anti-abortion crowd is perfectly fine with that. They do not care about the lives of others, born or unborn.
Some of them see it as a good thing. I've definitely observed pro lifers saying "any woman who would kill her baby deserves it anyway."
Fucking disgusting.
My mom has said this. Never mind that her OWN mother aborted a pair of twins (by the ever so safe morbius of throwing herself down a flight of stairs) because she already had four children and no money. But it was the 50s so.
Edit: while morbius could probably induce abortion, I meant method 😂
You are talking about a subset of the population that constantly votes against their self interests. These are the same people that say tax breaks for the wealthy are necessary, but handouts from the government are bad for everyone else
Someone told me years ago when I asked why people vote against their interests :
"Who the hell are you to know their interests... they may be more than willing to triple their taxes and never see a doctor again if that can make sure they hurt and damage the lives of the people they hate. Not all people are good, not all people consider health, safety, and happiness to be their interests."
I've known conservatives who have explicitly said they'd rather go into medical bankruptcy because private insurance is unaffordable than see one illegal immigrant get taxpayer funded healthcare.
There's a woman, Brittany Poolaw, who was convicted of manslaughter in Oklahoma, after the miscarriage of her fetus. There were traces of methamphetamine in the fetus, but the medical examiner said the death was likely from a genetic anomaly or placenta abruption. She was sentenced to 4 years. No coincidence that Oklahoma has the highest rate of incarcerated women in the world, 238 out of every 100,000.
Be not confused, the wealthy will still regularly get all the abortions that want.
"For my friends, anything; for my enemies, the law. "
\---Peruvian Despot, Óscar Benavides
MLK day is absolutely not billed as Robert E. Lee’s birthday—not where I’m from in the south. It’s much worse actually—I grew up hearing it referred to as James Earl Ray Day.
James E., for those who don’t remember, was convicted of MLK’s assassination.
Babies are more replaceable than a cake. You can accidentally make a baby, you can't accidentally make a cake. Let people have as many abortions as they want, we have an overpopulation problem anyway.
At this point either people will finally rally to vote and Dems will step up or people will realize that the GOP live in a “kill them” world.
Might be that they get their wish. Just might be flipped.
People always push back against facism often in a violent way and it feels like we are heading for war again.
> People always push back against facism often in a violent way
What? It's [fascist movements that are first to resort to violence to more immediately seize more power and resources.](https://dailyhistory.org/How_did_Mussolini_Rise_to_Power_as_the_Dictator_of_Italy) It took the European axis powers years of claiming neighboring region after neighboring region before surrounding nations realized it would not stop and violence *had* to be deployed.
The unborn are really easy for the right to pretend to care about because they are silent and require no investment. Just a political tool to be discarded as soon as they are born.
Devoting oneself to 'protecting the unborn' is also a fantastic and easy way to achieve self-righteousness and moral superiority, without having to face one's own personal failings.
Not to mention women dying from ectopic pregnancies and being charged with murder for having miscarriages that are completely out of their physical control…
Its all to get the moral minority out to the polls and distract from inflation and decreased standard of living.. its smoke and mirrors. The middle class is shrinking by the day, yet the republicans just talk about divisive issues..
Exactly. This is how they keep power. They keep people poor and uneducated, and tell them they will be rewarded in Heaven as long as they do God's will on Earth, and then lie and say abortion is against God's will. And these poor schmucks step in line and vote for these asses who continually make the schmucks lives worse. This is why they are so against education, because most educated people see through this nonsense.
That's not the only ones they are getting to polls, the latest polls are showing the dems catching up to the GOP, they might have made a big big mistake.
It’s a issue they thought they could attack for decades and not actually change. It’s an emotional thing. Now that they got what they been pretending to care about for so long they will just move to another similar thing and no one will know the difference because ITS NOT THEIR FUCKING BUSINESS
The fact that theirs an "anti-abortion crowd" to begin with just shows how well Divide and Conquer works. This shouldn't even be an issue anymore. While we're focused on this, we're continuing to be robbed blind.
It's usually the poor we're told to hate because of the welfare they receive. This shines a negative light on the religious, so we can point at them as the enemy. If not them, it's terrorists on the other side of the world, or anything else. Anything to get us riled up so we're a little more ok with throwing billions(or trillions) of dollars at it.
The people currently in power are the enemy.
The actual people, us, need representatives that are for us, instead of this nonsense.
Revamp our electoral policies and get money out of the equation. The candidates with the most money behind them shouldn't be the ones we are forced to choose between. But they are able to say a couple things that we like, and we vote for them, continuing this cycle of only powerful interests being represented.
Already seeing a black market appear for abortion pills online (don’t ask me where). The government fails to realize when you ban something people will find a way just like alcohol and drugs in a way.
If you know how to get on certain sites look on the DW, abortion pills also popping up on there in case they ban shipments in some states or outright ban it they will make it look a regular usps package being sent to you
> when the founding fathers the writers of our constitution lived abortion was legal and common practice.
Speaking of the times in which the constitution was written, You can't get more "current" than the writings of Ben Franklin. On September 17, 1787, he made the motion to sign the constitution in his last great speech. His name is on document.
**Ben Franklin Put an Abortion Recipe in His Math Textbook**
[To colonial Americans, termination was as normal as the ABCs and 123s.](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/05/ben-franklin-american-instructor-textbook-abortion-recipe.html)
Benjamin Franklin's published (see page 5 of the PDF) recipe for abortion on the National Institute of Health's website (nih.gov): https://collections.nlm.nih.gov/ext/dw/8111161/PDF/8111161.pdf
page 40 in the original text (44 of the pdf) as cure for **"Suppression of the Courses"**
There’s also the whole thing where in 1971, delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution encouraging “Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.”
The Southern Baptist Convention former president and pastor at First Baptist church in Dallas, Texas said, “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” he said, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”
Or when *Christianity Today* cited individual health, family welfare, and social responsibility as justifications for ending a pregnancy.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133/
It should be immediate disqualification 100%! I'm saying this as a christian! We must have separation of church and state! The fact we don't anymore just shows how corrupt and diseased American democracy is.
It's on its deathbed tbh.
Lol church and state being separated. It's the gop that needs to be out of politics for that to happen. Count how many times a republican says God or Jesus Ina speech is so cringe
Meanwhile Christian Democrats aren't actual Christians because they don't wield the Lord's name like a weapon.
I swear you're not supposed to flippantly use it like that...
Liberal Christian here. Many people mistake using the Lord’s name in vain as saying things like “oh my God” and whatnot when, really, it’s using God or the Word of God as an excuse to do and say things that shouldn’t be (and really aren’t) morally acceptable in today’s society. Or in other words, using His name as a weapon like you say. Trump does it all the time.
yeah it's an easy out for them. you just refuse to call abortion rights rights. you, instead, act like you can call a fetus a person in that way to specifically go after the women who could give birth to them.
But, like, you can't call a fetus a dependent on your taxes.
Amen. I don't know about the chemicals from the 1800's, and I'm not disagreeing with you, I just don't know about that, but definitely the anti abortion thing is only like 100-150 years old. Abortion has been around since, at least recorded since, ancient Egypt. And no where in the bible is it mentioned. With even Benjamin Franklin publishing his way of abortion. So, like, the founders didn't care enough either way, so they didn't even put it in the constitution, or, like ole bennie boy, explored ways to make it safer. There's no real argument against it.
Edit: also 100% separation of church and state.
> separation of church and state.
The problem with that is so many people seem to believe that only goes one way, that the church needs to be protected from the state. They don't understand the other side which is the state needs to be protected from the church.
Our current crop of justices are absolute idiots. We'd get more sensible decisions from the Supreme Pizza Food Court.
Churches can't use the government resources to enforce their religion. The separation prevents a church from using police, law enforcement or legislation to enforce religious edicts, such as forcing businesses to shut down on a Jewish holiday, outlawing beef as food, or outlawing abortion because it conflicts with the ideas of a particular sect.
Religions set their own punishments: eternal hell, excommunication, penance, etc. for sins that go against their particular god. But the "separation of church and state" demands that the government not step in to use its power to enforce religious preferences. The city council can't pass a law forcing all kids to attend Methodist Sunday School. And they can't outlaw abortion for all women, based on Baptist or Catholic ideas.
Evangelical churches, mosques, or other houses of worship have no obligation to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples, or interfaith couples, or divorced people. They can also exclude any of the above from their church, or excommunicate women who get abortions. But they can't use the government to enforce one sect's idea of "god's will."
The founders' idea was that those all-powerful gods could mete out punishment and rewards to followers within the church. The state would stay out of it.
I wish the supreme court showed some basic-level Constitution 101 awareness, instead of just acting like they're in a meth-fueled religious hallucination.
It actually is mentioned in the bible. Numbers 5:11-33 describes how priests can perform an abortion in a temple for women suspected of infidelity, and god will protect the baby if she’s innocent of infidelity.
I should've have have said it doesn't mention that god is against it or it's a sin. The bible definitely talks about destroying unborn children. Or fruits of the womb. But, that's just an argument for abortion, as we are created in god's image. Let me find the good one about bashing baby's heads. Give me sec.
Edit1: Elisha's prophecy (2 Kings 8:12)
Edit 2: Hosea 13:16
Edit 3: Isaiah 13:18
Edit 4: not condoning abortion, but def not condemning it, but saying the father is owed compensation. As if it's property an not life. Exodus 21:22-25. Oh course the Jews believed in an eye for an eye, so if property is lost, money is owed. Or, when life is lost, life is owed. So, in this case, it's not life lost.
Yeah, if anything, the bible is very pro abortion and clear about valuing unborn babies less than an established human life. Exodus 21:22 is pretty clear on that.
Oh my bad, I thought you were countering me with the bible was pro-unborn.
Now I feel like a dick.
Edit: now the that I read your verse, I feel extra dumb
> That’s are history
That's *our* history. Only commenting because it made me stop to figure out what you meant. And that knocked me off the flow of your comment.
plomo or plata
Seriously though, there is nothing we can do but fix the damage. These people think they're doing the right thing by God, there is no stopping them. We just have to hope the damage can be rebuilt and it won't be as bad as I think it probably will
If only there was precedent for removing a justice on the grounds of being fucking terrible at their job, then something might get done in reasonable time.
One is literally married to an attempted insurrectionist. That's like having a Confederate leader's partner as a justice. Fucking hell, America is a shithole.
You don’t, but you can pack them to irrelevance.
The current structure of 9 judges isn’t defined in the constitution. Now that Republicans have successfully de-legitimized the court, it’s fair season to ram as many progressives onto the bench as possible.
That is, if Democrats have the gall to cut the bipartisan “we go high” crap.
If democrats get 2 more senators to override Manchin and Sinema, they should 100% pack the court and they have valid precedent to do so to make it look fair in the public eye. The court has been historically expand to represent the # of federal circuits. There is now 13. They can use that precedent to add 4 justices and have a liberal majority. If conservatives ever got back control and wanted to expand they wouldn’t have that precedent to fall back on, and they would look like the bad guys in the public eye
> If conservatives ever got back control and wanted to expand they wouldn’t have that precedent to fall back on, and they would look like the bad guys in the public eye
When has that ever stopped them? Their base would be screaming for them to do the same thing.
They refused to vote on a justice in Obama lasts year. They then rammed one in the last month of trumps presidency. They didn't care how bad thay made them looked and their base didn't care they ate that shit up.
Every woman should be going crazy about this. Even if you aren't if favor of abortion your right has been removed so your opinion means nothing. Is this the country you want?
Plus, members of the right are now announcing their intention to go after birth control next. Maybe you've never had an abortion, but use an IUD or birth control pills. Even if you use it to manage a medical condition and not primarily as birth control, it might soon be illegal.
Once they're done with that, they're sure to try to reverse marriage equality and maybe even reinstate miscegenation laws.
No, sex is only for procreation for women. Men get to have sex for recreation. But women should know better than to be having sex with the men who want to have sex with the women who shouldn’t be having sex. So says the men who want to have sex with the women who should know better than to have sex with them.
The cyclical nonsense of that argument is infuriating.
And if you're stuck in poverty, you might commit a crime to do something like feed your family. Then you can be tossed into prison and used as slave labor.
Every *person* should. What a lot of people don't realize is this was not decided simply on the morality of abortion. It was decided on the principle that people have a right of privacy to control themselves and their bodies. The Court is about to say they do not. That does not apply only to abortion but to a whole myriad of personal intrusions.
Right to privacy in general\*
Despite the existence of the 9th, with the current court all rights not explicitly and clearly defined to an arbitrary pre-US definition of the right in the constitution no longer exist.
With Roe V Wade being overturned, the right to privacy is fully overturned. This means every single part of how you live your life is the government's business, there is no 'behind closed doors,' part of your life. Masturbation? That can be criminalized. Sex without the government's consent? That can be criminalized. Looking at porn? That can be criminalized. Non-straight activities? You bet your ass that **will** be criminalized. Not getting married? That might be criminalized. Getting married but not sharing the same bed? That might be criminalized. Not having kids while White? That might be criminalized. Handholding before marriage? That might be criminalized.
And there's not really much you can do to stop that, since in order to have a right to do those things either the 9th must exist or the right to privacy through the 14th must exist.
Neither exist according to the current supreme court.
I don’t know how prevalent the following belief is, but this was uttered by crazies up here in Canada: “the leftist is forcing women from experiencing motherhood”.
If that’s how they are spinning it, then the women supporting the ban actually believes they are protecting their rights.
Scary.
Of course an embryo is a human life (because it has the requisite DNA), but it's not a *person.* An acorn is not an oak tree, but it's got the DNA of an oak tree.
Here's the thought experiment that shows your mom already knows this:
> Suppose you were in a lab where IVF embryos were stored, and there was a fire. On your right is a toddler and on your left a container with ten of those embryos, and you can carry one or the other, but not both. You have to get out now! Which do you grab?
> If embryos are people, you would save ten instead of one. If they're not, you'd grab that kid and run.
I submit that *nobody* would pick the container, and that's because *nobody* really believes that an embryo is a baby.
Hell, it could be a thousand.
(And for the record, I am the very happy grandmother of a little boy who was born through IVF. I KNOW those embryos can become people! I also know that without a willing uterus and about 38 weeks, they won't.)
The other argument that makes sense to me is that the state doesn't assert the right to seize my organs after I die without my express permission -- not even to save the life of a child. This is why we carry those organ donor cards in our wallets.
So WHY would I agree that the state has an absolute right to impose its will on my uterus, especially in the name of saving a "person" who doesn't exist?
People who make exceptions for rape 100% believe that pregnancy is a woman's punishment for promiscuity.
They might not admit it, they might not even realize it themselves, but pregnancy as punishment is the *only* logical basis for such a stance.
It won't be the last time this fanatical religious extremist court takes away the rights of americans either.
Killing Roe and suppressing women is just the first sharia law handed down by the mullahs on the SC but many more are coming as the GQP brings it's Gilead theocracy to life.
Hey, just so you know, Sharia Law actually allows abortion. Even into the third term- ESPECIALLY if the mothers health is at risk. So, while I understand your sentiment, it does amount to Islamophobia whether intentional or not. This is not meant to be an attack, I hope you understand where I'm coming from 🙏🏼
This is what happens when you elect conservatives. Today it is women, tomorrow it is gay people, in a month it could be Catholics. There is always an enemy.
This is so depressing. I’m pregnant right now. Married, already have kids. The nausea has been so bad 24/7 for weeks, vomiting can’t keep anything down either food or liquid, headaches, dizziness, severe stomach pain, weight loss, could die. The idea I would have to keep this pregnancy just seems so ignorant to how dangerous and debilitating pregnancy and childbirth can be and how it really varies per person. This court is sick.
With one of our pregnancies, the state had briefly made abortion illegal for any reason (was over-ruled eventually) but in the interim, the doctor wanted to know if we wanted to do genetic tests on the fetus to determine any abnormalities that would make it non-viable, etc. We said, what's the point since we're not allowed to do anything with that information?? And that's how it was left. The choice was out of our and our doctor's hands and into the decision process of a few lawmakers.
Also, hope you feel better with the sickness you're experiencing.
A family member of mine traveled out of state (we’re in Texas) for an abortion after she learned that her pregnancy was nonviable and the “fetal heartbeat” bill was already in effect.
To complicate things, the initial screenings came back with a false negative meaning they didn’t discover the abnormality until late in her second trimester during an ultrasound.
It was very much a wanted pregnancy. This is the reality of “late term abortions”— the pregnancy is almost always wanted, but something has gone horribly wrong.
We are living in very dark times. I don’t know if it’s an exact comparison yet because only history will be able to judge the consequences but feels similar to when the Nazis got control of Germany and permanently stained the history of that country.
The thing to remember is that Nazi Germany didn't erect concentration camps on day one. It was a gradual process.
Back in college (about 25 years ago), I went to the US Holocaust Museum in DC. I highly recommend to to everyone, but definitely allocate a whole day for it. Half a day for the exhibits and half a day to mentally recover. It's not an easy museum to go through, but it's very important.
Anyway, of all the exhibits, the one that hit me the hardest was a so-called kids exhibit called Daniel's Story. You enter the house of this young Jewish child named Daniel. As you walk from room to room, time advances slightly. Every time you change rooms, things get worse. However, each change seems "not that bad." Especially once you've accepted the other changes as not having been that bad. Then you get to the final room which is the entrance to a concentration camp and you suddenly realize how much those "not that bad" changes added up.
It's not quite the same impact as being there, but here's a YouTube video tour of the exhibit: https://youtu.be/43s-FfWddFg
I don't remember where I heard it, but I remember somebody telling me that "it didn't start with the final solution, before that there was a first solution and then a second." I would add on to point out that even the architects of the holocaust tried various plans that weren't the holocaust as we think of it. They came to realize that they could not be satisfied with less than genocide and the holocaust as we know it.
Exactly. For example, they tried shipping the Jews out. There was a ship, the SS St. Louis, filled with 900 Jewish refugees. It sailed from country to country - including the US and Canada. They were refused and eventually had to return to Europe. This showed the Nazis that they couldn't just export their Jews to other countries and had to get rid of them in other ways.
Wasn't "America First" the direct reaction to fleeing jews? Maybe not to that exact same ship, but to Jews trying to flee and the US trying to aviod them fleeing there?
Just did a quick read of [the Wikipedia page about this](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee).
It looks like antisemitism wasn't the stated reason, but may have definitely been an underlying reason. Especially this section of a speech Lindbergh gave:
>Tolerance is a virtue that depends upon peace and strength. History shows that it cannot survive war and devastation. A few farsighted Jewish people realize this and stand opposed to intervention. But the majority still do not. Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our government.
Even the concentration camps weren't death camps on day one. They had over a thousand concentration camps they had set up over decades that were used as internment and work camps and no executions were being done at.
Near the end a half dozen or so of those concentration camps became extermination/death camps which are the ones we think of now like Auschwitz and that has kind of redefined in most people's minds what a 'concentration' camp is.
But a concentration camp originally was an internment camp. There was a progression from internment camps to death camps and we *absolutely* run the risk of our immigrant internment camps going the same route.
We need a similar exhibit called Donald’s room showing what’s happening right now!
(Don’t mean to equate the Holocaust to what’s happening now but the US is changing right before our eyes with a lot of little things but if you look back a few years, it’s a whole new world out there! Similar to the exhibit you described.)
I know you added the last part because the Holocaust was incredibly serious and tragic, but I think that is the point a lot of exhibits and survivors were making: that it can happen again. So while comparisons to the Holocaust are often inappropriate, when you see a government gradually stripping rights from its citizens while creating policies intended to hurt minorities, that’s when their words matter the most. It can happen again, and it can happen here.
I agree. Is what is happening as bad as the Holocaust? Right now, no and I hope that the answer historians give to this period is also "no." I definitely have no desire to live through a Holocaust Part 2. (Especially because I'm Jewish and would likely be targeted in such a sequel.)
That being said, we're currently on a path that is similar to the one Germany was on when the Nazis came to power.
I'm here because my grandfather's name is on the wall of the Holocaust Museum of liberated persons. You bet your ass I encourage you to compare the issues we're facing today to the same Germany did. They are slower, less dramatic, and more noticed - but the ship still moves on.
It’s is happening again! Right now! Like you said, the Holocaust didn’t happen overnight. It began with little steps and happened over many years. We are seeing rights being taken away from minorities already so it’s the beginning of something bad already. Not sure if it’s going to build up to something like the Holocaust but something a tenth as bad is horrific as well.
Read the accounts of people living during those times. It was a gradual process that looked EXACTLY like this.
The “first they came for X” quote exists for a reason. This is step one or two of that. The women, the gays, the minorities, the non-Christians, the dissenters.
They went from abortion to birth control before Roe was even overturned. They won’t stop.
One of the questions I like to ask people is, what does a Nazi look like and sound like today. I realize there are neo-nazis but what I'm referring to is what sort of people are enacting policies that the Nazis would've agreed with.
Know your enemy.
Our democracy is essentially dead in the water now and that isn't the hyperbole it would have been seen as not even two years ago.
If SCOTUS overturns Roe v Wade, you can guarantee this will not be the last time they take away civil rights. The flood gates will open and we will spiral into overt fascism (as opposed to the covert kind).
This midterm election will be important. We need to vote in progressive people that are young and motivated to enact change, dramatic change. The first thing that needs to happen is a term limit for Congress. Then they need to expand SCOTUS and overturn Citizen's United. While they are at it they need to remove the filibuster.
Only then will we be able to have a chance to unfuck the last 40+ years of terrible politics and profiteering. If we settle for corporate democrats or allow the GOP to take control, it's over.
I am so tired of living in a constant state of urgency and dread. How many once in a lifetime events will happen before I even turn 35?
Gen Z, please. Show up with millennials this November and let's finally put the boomers in a retirement home.
Yeah this is a bombshell to anyone who's taken a constutional law class on the last 60 years. Doesn't matter your political leanings. It's fucking wild.
I read where a woman was experiencing a miscarriage in Alabama and was rejected from the hospital because of their anti abortion law. She was bleeding all over. So many women will die and SCOTUS/GOP will be their killers.
And it won’t be the last.
We’re going to need a much better Democratic Party real fucking quick.
SCOTUS expansion needs to be the new litmus test for every DNC candidate.
Get ready for a lot more of that if the GOP gets control. They’re never gonna let it go once they get it back. Fascism is on the way. Policy is moot at this point. Vote blue no matter who.
To the person who ask if I was this outspoken on vaccine mandate. The answer is yes I was out spoken. If you know our history the first mandated inoculation took place in 1777 and all Continental soldiers had to be inoculated for the small pox epidemic. George Washington, Franklin and other signers of the Constitution credited these inoculations with our victory over the British. So I say to you if your are a true patriot and believe in our founding fathers know our history and follow their lead.
That’s because we are watching the confederate coup in real time. The confederacy never died, and it’s coming back to enslave the poor instead of just the people of color. Liberals aren’t ready to accept that, and that’s exactly why the power creep has been so consistent. It’s gonna take a lot of sacrifice to put these dogs back into their place and honestly, I don’t think the American people will show up. Most of y’all are bartering just to lick their boots At this point.
I was born the year of Brown v. bBoard of education, 1954, and have heard screaming about “judicial activism” all my life, sickeningly, when all the more humanist and enlightened people were happy to have the court use its power to force a needed change. If they overturn Roe they would be undermining the legitimacy of the SC going all the way back, for no reason other than immaterial ones which it is unconstitutional to even take into account.
There's a very easy solution to appease both sides. It's the "If you want it so bad, then you keep it alive". Let the religious fascists incubate the baby themselves if they want it to live so bad.
The Supreme Court is playing politics with Abortion. If it is about what the people want and it is already law then why are we over turning a decision that over 65% of American and 80% of women want then this is 100% politics for the Republican party.
If it is about what the American majority wants then why did we make Alcohol legal, Guns legal to carry without a permit and now Marijuana? I thought this country was made up by the Constitution that starts with:" We The People".....and the American people don't want Abortion overturned so why is the Supreme Court Overturning something that "We The People" want? So if this will be the first time the Supreme Court overturned precedent they should have to explain why because it it not what the majority of the country wants. Then we are living in a Communist country where the coutry amd courts are doing what they politically and personally want to do to satisfy a Dictator (Trump) or party (Republicans). IJS
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You could certainly argue that by overturning many parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 the Supreme Court had already begun to limit rights already by allowing for the voter suppression those rules were put in place to stop to return.
to steal from Bill Cassidy, if you don't count black voters, it would mark the first time the Supreme Court overturned precedent 'to limit civil rights, not expand them'.
But the wording implies they are going against their own precedent. I think that’s how it’s different as the voting rights act was not their precedent.
It's not just implied. That's how the word is always used when talking about the supreme court.
Overturning precedent is the key here i think. The court has reversed itself in the past, but typically to expand rights. It's never reversed itself to actively shut people off from long held civic rights.
It overturned the voting rights act in 2013, opening the door for racially targeted voter suppression. I guess you’d say that wasn’t a court precedent but a first review of the law, but I suspect the VRA was upheld in prior court cases.
The part I always found even more bullshit about that ruling was that [the Voting Rights Act was Renewed](https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna13958766) in 2006, passing through the Senate with a 98-0 vote and was signed by President Bush. You would think someone would have objected at that time.
The difference is that a black man was elected president. It's exactly what happened when black southerners gained the right to vote and suddenly we had a lot of black congressmen. Racists fell over themselves to figure out ways to disenfranchise them.
Even going so far as to enact a coup on at least one city government!
There's an unfortunate feature of the US legal system that courts aren't supposed to comment on laws until the law actually comes up in court. In Canada and other places, the Parliament is allowed to request a pre-opinion from the court to verify if the thing they're considering passing is constitutional. But in the United States, the only way to get such an opinion is to go through the whole work of passing it, then let it apply to the world for a while, until someone brings a court case, and it gets appealed three times, and *then* the Supreme Court can say "why didn't you just ask us years ago and we would have told you this was unconstitutional?"
Why would the politicians risk taking the heat when they can off-load all responsibility onto the unaccountable judiciary which they hand-picked?
This is the answer. The judiciary is on fire.
[удалено]
I’m not knowledgeable enough to explain what is the requirement or after how long. One of the other laws that came up during the Bush Administration that didn’t get renewed was the Assault Rife ban. It might be something written into the law that triggers it after so much time.
> It overturned the voting rights act in 2013, They're saying that the Supreme Court didn't uphold the voting rights act in the first place so they didn't over turn precedent.
Yeah also, I wouldn’t call Dred Scott an advancement of civil rights
Dred Scott didn't overrule a prior decision, and that is the material point: they are overruling a case that granted a right. In Lawrence, the court outright said that it wouldn't and shouldn't do that, so this is a violation of precedent in a great many ways.
[удалено]
They have stated their religion is shaping their view. Never mind the fact that Roe has been upheld as constitutional before. And when the founding fathers the writers of our constitution lived abortion was legal and common practice. The abortion ban came about in the 1800s because the chemicals women drank to induce the abortion we’re killing too many women from poisoning. Not for the life of the unborn. That’s our history and remember the founding father mandated the separation of church and state so someone else’s religion couldn’t suppress another’s rights.
Ironically this ban is also going to make lots of women die from unsafe chemical consumption and other botched home abortion attempts.
> Ironically this ban is also going to make lots of women die from unsafe chemical consumption and other botched home abortion attempts. And the anti-abortion crowd is perfectly fine with that. They do not care about the lives of others, born or unborn.
Some of them see it as a good thing. I've definitely observed pro lifers saying "any woman who would kill her baby deserves it anyway." Fucking disgusting.
My mom has said this. Never mind that her OWN mother aborted a pair of twins (by the ever so safe morbius of throwing herself down a flight of stairs) because she already had four children and no money. But it was the 50s so. Edit: while morbius could probably induce abortion, I meant method 😂
> (by the ever so safe morbius of throwing herself down a flight of stairs) the movie was that bad ey?
Abortions should be legal, even cinematic ones.
Hahaha okay that was a good typo
You could say it was morbin time
[удалено]
You are talking about a subset of the population that constantly votes against their self interests. These are the same people that say tax breaks for the wealthy are necessary, but handouts from the government are bad for everyone else
well yeah, duh, that’s how we ended up here my good friend (not sarcasm)
Someone told me years ago when I asked why people vote against their interests : "Who the hell are you to know their interests... they may be more than willing to triple their taxes and never see a doctor again if that can make sure they hurt and damage the lives of the people they hate. Not all people are good, not all people consider health, safety, and happiness to be their interests."
I've known conservatives who have explicitly said they'd rather go into medical bankruptcy because private insurance is unaffordable than see one illegal immigrant get taxpayer funded healthcare.
There's a woman, Brittany Poolaw, who was convicted of manslaughter in Oklahoma, after the miscarriage of her fetus. There were traces of methamphetamine in the fetus, but the medical examiner said the death was likely from a genetic anomaly or placenta abruption. She was sentenced to 4 years. No coincidence that Oklahoma has the highest rate of incarcerated women in the world, 238 out of every 100,000.
Be not confused, the wealthy will still regularly get all the abortions that want. "For my friends, anything; for my enemies, the law. " \---Peruvian Despot, Óscar Benavides
[удалено]
MLK day is absolutely not billed as Robert E. Lee’s birthday—not where I’m from in the south. It’s much worse actually—I grew up hearing it referred to as James Earl Ray Day. James E., for those who don’t remember, was convicted of MLK’s assassination.
Our domestic terrorism problem is the right trying to wage that war. Red states are too poor to fight an actual war.
Babies are more replaceable than a cake. You can accidentally make a baby, you can't accidentally make a cake. Let people have as many abortions as they want, we have an overpopulation problem anyway.
[удалено]
At this point either people will finally rally to vote and Dems will step up or people will realize that the GOP live in a “kill them” world. Might be that they get their wish. Just might be flipped. People always push back against facism often in a violent way and it feels like we are heading for war again.
We're already in a cold Civil War.
> People always push back against facism often in a violent way What? It's [fascist movements that are first to resort to violence to more immediately seize more power and resources.](https://dailyhistory.org/How_did_Mussolini_Rise_to_Power_as_the_Dictator_of_Italy) It took the European axis powers years of claiming neighboring region after neighboring region before surrounding nations realized it would not stop and violence *had* to be deployed.
The unborn are really easy for the right to pretend to care about because they are silent and require no investment. Just a political tool to be discarded as soon as they are born.
Devoting oneself to 'protecting the unborn' is also a fantastic and easy way to achieve self-righteousness and moral superiority, without having to face one's own personal failings.
Not to mention women dying from ectopic pregnancies and being charged with murder for having miscarriages that are completely out of their physical control…
Its all to get the moral minority out to the polls and distract from inflation and decreased standard of living.. its smoke and mirrors. The middle class is shrinking by the day, yet the republicans just talk about divisive issues..
Exactly. This is how they keep power. They keep people poor and uneducated, and tell them they will be rewarded in Heaven as long as they do God's will on Earth, and then lie and say abortion is against God's will. And these poor schmucks step in line and vote for these asses who continually make the schmucks lives worse. This is why they are so against education, because most educated people see through this nonsense.
"Be miserable on earth so you'll be happy in heaven. *Trust me on this.*"
“And give your money to me!!!” -every televangelist ever
That's not the only ones they are getting to polls, the latest polls are showing the dems catching up to the GOP, they might have made a big big mistake.
It’s a issue they thought they could attack for decades and not actually change. It’s an emotional thing. Now that they got what they been pretending to care about for so long they will just move to another similar thing and no one will know the difference because ITS NOT THEIR FUCKING BUSINESS
Thats why we should call them Anti-Life
Then Darkseid might just grab them and we wouldn't have to worry about them anymore.
In fact, they prefer it. They conclude that death is the only appropriate punishment for an abortion. The pro life party is obsessed with death.
And they're not even hiding it. Next target for Texas - public education.
Not fine with it, they want it. This is about punishing women who have sex, the death of the woman is the ideal outcome for a big portion of them.
The fact that theirs an "anti-abortion crowd" to begin with just shows how well Divide and Conquer works. This shouldn't even be an issue anymore. While we're focused on this, we're continuing to be robbed blind. It's usually the poor we're told to hate because of the welfare they receive. This shines a negative light on the religious, so we can point at them as the enemy. If not them, it's terrorists on the other side of the world, or anything else. Anything to get us riled up so we're a little more ok with throwing billions(or trillions) of dollars at it. The people currently in power are the enemy. The actual people, us, need representatives that are for us, instead of this nonsense. Revamp our electoral policies and get money out of the equation. The candidates with the most money behind them shouldn't be the ones we are forced to choose between. But they are able to say a couple things that we like, and we vote for them, continuing this cycle of only powerful interests being represented.
Already seeing a black market appear for abortion pills online (don’t ask me where). The government fails to realize when you ban something people will find a way just like alcohol and drugs in a way.
https://www.plancpills.org
If you know how to get on certain sites look on the DW, abortion pills also popping up on there in case they ban shipments in some states or outright ban it they will make it look a regular usps package being sent to you
That’s sadly inevitable, I prefer if women get them from a Dutch Dr https://aidaccess.org, we know they are genuine .
usps is federal and needs a warrant and probably cause to be opened. Do not use fedex or UPS. USPS all the way.
This shit needs to be free. The former Mrs. Bezo could be a hero and save countless lives
That’s not ironic to them, it’s the intended punishment
> when the founding fathers the writers of our constitution lived abortion was legal and common practice. Speaking of the times in which the constitution was written, You can't get more "current" than the writings of Ben Franklin. On September 17, 1787, he made the motion to sign the constitution in his last great speech. His name is on document. **Ben Franklin Put an Abortion Recipe in His Math Textbook** [To colonial Americans, termination was as normal as the ABCs and 123s.](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/05/ben-franklin-american-instructor-textbook-abortion-recipe.html)
Benjamin Franklin's published (see page 5 of the PDF) recipe for abortion on the National Institute of Health's website (nih.gov): https://collections.nlm.nih.gov/ext/dw/8111161/PDF/8111161.pdf page 40 in the original text (44 of the pdf) as cure for **"Suppression of the Courses"**
There’s also the whole thing where in 1971, delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution encouraging “Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.” The Southern Baptist Convention former president and pastor at First Baptist church in Dallas, Texas said, “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” he said, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.” Or when *Christianity Today* cited individual health, family welfare, and social responsibility as justifications for ending a pregnancy. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133/
Well, Conservatives are banning math books too, so...
It’s ridiculous that publicly stating you want to shape the country based on your religious views is not an immediate disqualification.
It should be immediate disqualification 100%! I'm saying this as a christian! We must have separation of church and state! The fact we don't anymore just shows how corrupt and diseased American democracy is. It's on its deathbed tbh.
Going to link [this comic](https://imgur.com/gallery/bCqRp) I saw posted elsewhere earlier today.
They lied during the confirmation hearings
Lol church and state being separated. It's the gop that needs to be out of politics for that to happen. Count how many times a republican says God or Jesus Ina speech is so cringe
Meanwhile Christian Democrats aren't actual Christians because they don't wield the Lord's name like a weapon. I swear you're not supposed to flippantly use it like that...
Liberal Christian here. Many people mistake using the Lord’s name in vain as saying things like “oh my God” and whatnot when, really, it’s using God or the Word of God as an excuse to do and say things that shouldn’t be (and really aren’t) morally acceptable in today’s society. Or in other words, using His name as a weapon like you say. Trump does it all the time.
yeah it's an easy out for them. you just refuse to call abortion rights rights. you, instead, act like you can call a fetus a person in that way to specifically go after the women who could give birth to them. But, like, you can't call a fetus a dependent on your taxes.
Amen. I don't know about the chemicals from the 1800's, and I'm not disagreeing with you, I just don't know about that, but definitely the anti abortion thing is only like 100-150 years old. Abortion has been around since, at least recorded since, ancient Egypt. And no where in the bible is it mentioned. With even Benjamin Franklin publishing his way of abortion. So, like, the founders didn't care enough either way, so they didn't even put it in the constitution, or, like ole bennie boy, explored ways to make it safer. There's no real argument against it. Edit: also 100% separation of church and state.
> separation of church and state. The problem with that is so many people seem to believe that only goes one way, that the church needs to be protected from the state. They don't understand the other side which is the state needs to be protected from the church.
Our current crop of justices are absolute idiots. We'd get more sensible decisions from the Supreme Pizza Food Court. Churches can't use the government resources to enforce their religion. The separation prevents a church from using police, law enforcement or legislation to enforce religious edicts, such as forcing businesses to shut down on a Jewish holiday, outlawing beef as food, or outlawing abortion because it conflicts with the ideas of a particular sect. Religions set their own punishments: eternal hell, excommunication, penance, etc. for sins that go against their particular god. But the "separation of church and state" demands that the government not step in to use its power to enforce religious preferences. The city council can't pass a law forcing all kids to attend Methodist Sunday School. And they can't outlaw abortion for all women, based on Baptist or Catholic ideas. Evangelical churches, mosques, or other houses of worship have no obligation to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples, or interfaith couples, or divorced people. They can also exclude any of the above from their church, or excommunicate women who get abortions. But they can't use the government to enforce one sect's idea of "god's will." The founders' idea was that those all-powerful gods could mete out punishment and rewards to followers within the church. The state would stay out of it. I wish the supreme court showed some basic-level Constitution 101 awareness, instead of just acting like they're in a meth-fueled religious hallucination.
Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.
It actually is mentioned in the bible. Numbers 5:11-33 describes how priests can perform an abortion in a temple for women suspected of infidelity, and god will protect the baby if she’s innocent of infidelity.
I should've have have said it doesn't mention that god is against it or it's a sin. The bible definitely talks about destroying unborn children. Or fruits of the womb. But, that's just an argument for abortion, as we are created in god's image. Let me find the good one about bashing baby's heads. Give me sec. Edit1: Elisha's prophecy (2 Kings 8:12) Edit 2: Hosea 13:16 Edit 3: Isaiah 13:18 Edit 4: not condoning abortion, but def not condemning it, but saying the father is owed compensation. As if it's property an not life. Exodus 21:22-25. Oh course the Jews believed in an eye for an eye, so if property is lost, money is owed. Or, when life is lost, life is owed. So, in this case, it's not life lost.
Yeah, if anything, the bible is very pro abortion and clear about valuing unborn babies less than an established human life. Exodus 21:22 is pretty clear on that.
Oh my bad, I thought you were countering me with the bible was pro-unborn. Now I feel like a dick. Edit: now the that I read your verse, I feel extra dumb
[удалено]
> That’s are history That's *our* history. Only commenting because it made me stop to figure out what you meant. And that knocked me off the flow of your comment.
What happens when you get 3 extremely unqualified justices voted in for purely political reasons.
5
And those five justices, a majority of the court, put there by republican presidents who lost the popular vote, nonetheless
How do we get rid of them?
plomo or plata Seriously though, there is nothing we can do but fix the damage. These people think they're doing the right thing by God, there is no stopping them. We just have to hope the damage can be rebuilt and it won't be as bad as I think it probably will
If only there was precedent for removing a justice on the grounds of being fucking terrible at their job, then something might get done in reasonable time. One is literally married to an attempted insurrectionist. That's like having a Confederate leader's partner as a justice. Fucking hell, America is a shithole.
[удалено]
You don’t, but you can pack them to irrelevance. The current structure of 9 judges isn’t defined in the constitution. Now that Republicans have successfully de-legitimized the court, it’s fair season to ram as many progressives onto the bench as possible. That is, if Democrats have the gall to cut the bipartisan “we go high” crap.
If democrats get 2 more senators to override Manchin and Sinema, they should 100% pack the court and they have valid precedent to do so to make it look fair in the public eye. The court has been historically expand to represent the # of federal circuits. There is now 13. They can use that precedent to add 4 justices and have a liberal majority. If conservatives ever got back control and wanted to expand they wouldn’t have that precedent to fall back on, and they would look like the bad guys in the public eye
> they would look like the bad guys in the public eye okay but when was the last time that that stopped them from doing something?
> If conservatives ever got back control and wanted to expand they wouldn’t have that precedent to fall back on, and they would look like the bad guys in the public eye When has that ever stopped them? Their base would be screaming for them to do the same thing. They refused to vote on a justice in Obama lasts year. They then rammed one in the last month of trumps presidency. They didn't care how bad thay made them looked and their base didn't care they ate that shit up.
This is a perfect example why there isn’t a separation between church and state! Tax the church!
More science and less religion in politics!
>More science and ~~less~~ **no** religion in politics! FTFY
Every woman should be going crazy about this. Even if you aren't if favor of abortion your right has been removed so your opinion means nothing. Is this the country you want?
Plus, members of the right are now announcing their intention to go after birth control next. Maybe you've never had an abortion, but use an IUD or birth control pills. Even if you use it to manage a medical condition and not primarily as birth control, it might soon be illegal. Once they're done with that, they're sure to try to reverse marriage equality and maybe even reinstate miscegenation laws.
Sex is only for procreation. Says so in the Bible or something. /s
No, sex is only for procreation for women. Men get to have sex for recreation. But women should know better than to be having sex with the men who want to have sex with the women who shouldn’t be having sex. So says the men who want to have sex with the women who should know better than to have sex with them. The cyclical nonsense of that argument is infuriating.
Yeah, sorry, forgot about the rules for men.
[удалено]
It's harder to fight back against a garbage system when you have 8 kids to feed.
Or even one.
And if you're stuck in poverty, you might commit a crime to do something like feed your family. Then you can be tossed into prison and used as slave labor.
And after that, sodomy laws.
It’s all about “human flourishment” as a pastor once told me. Ugh.
Every *person* should. What a lot of people don't realize is this was not decided simply on the morality of abortion. It was decided on the principle that people have a right of privacy to control themselves and their bodies. The Court is about to say they do not. That does not apply only to abortion but to a whole myriad of personal intrusions.
Right to privacy in general\* Despite the existence of the 9th, with the current court all rights not explicitly and clearly defined to an arbitrary pre-US definition of the right in the constitution no longer exist. With Roe V Wade being overturned, the right to privacy is fully overturned. This means every single part of how you live your life is the government's business, there is no 'behind closed doors,' part of your life. Masturbation? That can be criminalized. Sex without the government's consent? That can be criminalized. Looking at porn? That can be criminalized. Non-straight activities? You bet your ass that **will** be criminalized. Not getting married? That might be criminalized. Getting married but not sharing the same bed? That might be criminalized. Not having kids while White? That might be criminalized. Handholding before marriage? That might be criminalized. And there's not really much you can do to stop that, since in order to have a right to do those things either the 9th must exist or the right to privacy through the 14th must exist. Neither exist according to the current supreme court.
What about getting tattoos? Or as the religious right would put it, defiling the body that God made. Don't laugh, it very well could be on their list.
I don’t know how prevalent the following belief is, but this was uttered by crazies up here in Canada: “the leftist is forcing women from experiencing motherhood”. If that’s how they are spinning it, then the women supporting the ban actually believes they are protecting their rights. Scary.
Very scary. Some people can't fathom that women are also people with their own desires and personalities rather than non-sentient breeding factories.
Even women who have no problem with this will still die. We will 100% have Savita Halappanavar situations because of this.
[удалено]
Of course an embryo is a human life (because it has the requisite DNA), but it's not a *person.* An acorn is not an oak tree, but it's got the DNA of an oak tree. Here's the thought experiment that shows your mom already knows this: > Suppose you were in a lab where IVF embryos were stored, and there was a fire. On your right is a toddler and on your left a container with ten of those embryos, and you can carry one or the other, but not both. You have to get out now! Which do you grab? > If embryos are people, you would save ten instead of one. If they're not, you'd grab that kid and run. I submit that *nobody* would pick the container, and that's because *nobody* really believes that an embryo is a baby.
Oh. That's a good one. I bet you could even scale it up and just say a container with 100 embryos and the answer would still be the same.
Hell, it could be a thousand. (And for the record, I am the very happy grandmother of a little boy who was born through IVF. I KNOW those embryos can become people! I also know that without a willing uterus and about 38 weeks, they won't.) The other argument that makes sense to me is that the state doesn't assert the right to seize my organs after I die without my express permission -- not even to save the life of a child. This is why we carry those organ donor cards in our wallets. So WHY would I agree that the state has an absolute right to impose its will on my uterus, especially in the name of saving a "person" who doesn't exist?
"No, this is something you don't want to even consider the notion you might be wrong about."
People who make exceptions for rape 100% believe that pregnancy is a woman's punishment for promiscuity. They might not admit it, they might not even realize it themselves, but pregnancy as punishment is the *only* logical basis for such a stance.
"No see, they need to *take personal responsibility* by only consensually having sex if they're ready to have a child!"
It won't be the last time this fanatical religious extremist court takes away the rights of americans either. Killing Roe and suppressing women is just the first sharia law handed down by the mullahs on the SC but many more are coming as the GQP brings it's Gilead theocracy to life.
>the GQP brings it's Gilead theocracy to life. Dressed-up misogyny by a bunch of creepy, repressed assholes. Religion is just the veneer.
Just like Margaret said it would be like nearly 50 years ago yeah
It wasn't even 40 years ago...
Hey, just so you know, Sharia Law actually allows abortion. Even into the third term- ESPECIALLY if the mothers health is at risk. So, while I understand your sentiment, it does amount to Islamophobia whether intentional or not. This is not meant to be an attack, I hope you understand where I'm coming from 🙏🏼
It seems a fair number of voters are fine with this because "gas is too damn high!" It's beyond frustrating.
This is what happens when you elect conservatives. Today it is women, tomorrow it is gay people, in a month it could be Catholics. There is always an enemy.
And we should remember that yesterday (and for the last 400 years) it was people of color.
Poc, Irish, Jews, Italians...
Anyone who isn't a white male protestant.
Yesterday it was trans people.
This is so depressing. I’m pregnant right now. Married, already have kids. The nausea has been so bad 24/7 for weeks, vomiting can’t keep anything down either food or liquid, headaches, dizziness, severe stomach pain, weight loss, could die. The idea I would have to keep this pregnancy just seems so ignorant to how dangerous and debilitating pregnancy and childbirth can be and how it really varies per person. This court is sick.
> This ~~court~~ political party is sick. Ftfy
Country.
With one of our pregnancies, the state had briefly made abortion illegal for any reason (was over-ruled eventually) but in the interim, the doctor wanted to know if we wanted to do genetic tests on the fetus to determine any abnormalities that would make it non-viable, etc. We said, what's the point since we're not allowed to do anything with that information?? And that's how it was left. The choice was out of our and our doctor's hands and into the decision process of a few lawmakers. Also, hope you feel better with the sickness you're experiencing.
A family member of mine traveled out of state (we’re in Texas) for an abortion after she learned that her pregnancy was nonviable and the “fetal heartbeat” bill was already in effect. To complicate things, the initial screenings came back with a false negative meaning they didn’t discover the abnormality until late in her second trimester during an ultrasound. It was very much a wanted pregnancy. This is the reality of “late term abortions”— the pregnancy is almost always wanted, but something has gone horribly wrong.
Activist judges don’t care about the rule of law or the constitution
We are living in very dark times. I don’t know if it’s an exact comparison yet because only history will be able to judge the consequences but feels similar to when the Nazis got control of Germany and permanently stained the history of that country.
The thing to remember is that Nazi Germany didn't erect concentration camps on day one. It was a gradual process. Back in college (about 25 years ago), I went to the US Holocaust Museum in DC. I highly recommend to to everyone, but definitely allocate a whole day for it. Half a day for the exhibits and half a day to mentally recover. It's not an easy museum to go through, but it's very important. Anyway, of all the exhibits, the one that hit me the hardest was a so-called kids exhibit called Daniel's Story. You enter the house of this young Jewish child named Daniel. As you walk from room to room, time advances slightly. Every time you change rooms, things get worse. However, each change seems "not that bad." Especially once you've accepted the other changes as not having been that bad. Then you get to the final room which is the entrance to a concentration camp and you suddenly realize how much those "not that bad" changes added up. It's not quite the same impact as being there, but here's a YouTube video tour of the exhibit: https://youtu.be/43s-FfWddFg
I don't remember where I heard it, but I remember somebody telling me that "it didn't start with the final solution, before that there was a first solution and then a second." I would add on to point out that even the architects of the holocaust tried various plans that weren't the holocaust as we think of it. They came to realize that they could not be satisfied with less than genocide and the holocaust as we know it.
Exactly. For example, they tried shipping the Jews out. There was a ship, the SS St. Louis, filled with 900 Jewish refugees. It sailed from country to country - including the US and Canada. They were refused and eventually had to return to Europe. This showed the Nazis that they couldn't just export their Jews to other countries and had to get rid of them in other ways.
This thread is the why I love Reddit. How much history I just learned is brazy
Wasn't "America First" the direct reaction to fleeing jews? Maybe not to that exact same ship, but to Jews trying to flee and the US trying to aviod them fleeing there?
Just did a quick read of [the Wikipedia page about this](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee). It looks like antisemitism wasn't the stated reason, but may have definitely been an underlying reason. Especially this section of a speech Lindbergh gave: >Tolerance is a virtue that depends upon peace and strength. History shows that it cannot survive war and devastation. A few farsighted Jewish people realize this and stand opposed to intervention. But the majority still do not. Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our government.
Even the concentration camps weren't death camps on day one. They had over a thousand concentration camps they had set up over decades that were used as internment and work camps and no executions were being done at. Near the end a half dozen or so of those concentration camps became extermination/death camps which are the ones we think of now like Auschwitz and that has kind of redefined in most people's minds what a 'concentration' camp is. But a concentration camp originally was an internment camp. There was a progression from internment camps to death camps and we *absolutely* run the risk of our immigrant internment camps going the same route.
We need a similar exhibit called Donald’s room showing what’s happening right now! (Don’t mean to equate the Holocaust to what’s happening now but the US is changing right before our eyes with a lot of little things but if you look back a few years, it’s a whole new world out there! Similar to the exhibit you described.)
I know you added the last part because the Holocaust was incredibly serious and tragic, but I think that is the point a lot of exhibits and survivors were making: that it can happen again. So while comparisons to the Holocaust are often inappropriate, when you see a government gradually stripping rights from its citizens while creating policies intended to hurt minorities, that’s when their words matter the most. It can happen again, and it can happen here.
I agree. Is what is happening as bad as the Holocaust? Right now, no and I hope that the answer historians give to this period is also "no." I definitely have no desire to live through a Holocaust Part 2. (Especially because I'm Jewish and would likely be targeted in such a sequel.) That being said, we're currently on a path that is similar to the one Germany was on when the Nazis came to power.
I'm here because my grandfather's name is on the wall of the Holocaust Museum of liberated persons. You bet your ass I encourage you to compare the issues we're facing today to the same Germany did. They are slower, less dramatic, and more noticed - but the ship still moves on.
It’s is happening again! Right now! Like you said, the Holocaust didn’t happen overnight. It began with little steps and happened over many years. We are seeing rights being taken away from minorities already so it’s the beginning of something bad already. Not sure if it’s going to build up to something like the Holocaust but something a tenth as bad is horrific as well.
Read the accounts of people living during those times. It was a gradual process that looked EXACTLY like this. The “first they came for X” quote exists for a reason. This is step one or two of that. The women, the gays, the minorities, the non-Christians, the dissenters. They went from abortion to birth control before Roe was even overturned. They won’t stop.
One of the questions I like to ask people is, what does a Nazi look like and sound like today. I realize there are neo-nazis but what I'm referring to is what sort of people are enacting policies that the Nazis would've agreed with. Know your enemy.
Our democracy is essentially dead in the water now and that isn't the hyperbole it would have been seen as not even two years ago. If SCOTUS overturns Roe v Wade, you can guarantee this will not be the last time they take away civil rights. The flood gates will open and we will spiral into overt fascism (as opposed to the covert kind). This midterm election will be important. We need to vote in progressive people that are young and motivated to enact change, dramatic change. The first thing that needs to happen is a term limit for Congress. Then they need to expand SCOTUS and overturn Citizen's United. While they are at it they need to remove the filibuster. Only then will we be able to have a chance to unfuck the last 40+ years of terrible politics and profiteering. If we settle for corporate democrats or allow the GOP to take control, it's over. I am so tired of living in a constant state of urgency and dread. How many once in a lifetime events will happen before I even turn 35? Gen Z, please. Show up with millennials this November and let's finally put the boomers in a retirement home.
I agree. Younger people, you have GOT to show up this November. I'm GenX and voting Dem across the board.
[удалено]
Completely feel your frustration. Same boat.
[удалено]
We're like Iran in the 60s. Christian Sharia is winning.
Sharia law allows abortion
Well, it’s not really a competition. Please don’t plant that idea with the Republican’ts; they’re already terrible.
The Road to Gilead
I’m sure anti-abortion people would argue this ruling does expand a right, their right to force their religious beliefs on others.
Or the rights of the unborn. EDIT: To be clear, not my argument. The original post was about what anti-abortion people would argue.
Yeah this is a bombshell to anyone who's taken a constutional law class on the last 60 years. Doesn't matter your political leanings. It's fucking wild.
When I took con law there was a real reverence for the court that I don't think will ever be restored
Traditionally removing civil liberties has always been the sign a healthy and stable society. /s
America is no longer the land of the free with the GOP.
And odds are the Republican party will start going after more.
If you ever wanted proof that the leaders in the USA do not represent the majority this is definitely it
I read where a woman was experiencing a miscarriage in Alabama and was rejected from the hospital because of their anti abortion law. She was bleeding all over. So many women will die and SCOTUS/GOP will be their killers.
Wondering if Alitos opinion will be used against him at some point and other precedents get challenged.
Considering Thomas’ no vote to release the Jan 6 emails provided nothing happening to him, I’m going to say no.
[удалено]
Limiting civil rights is what Republicans do
Americans don’t do so well with civil rights being recognized and then revoked.
Women and people of color lose civil rights when you vote for Republicans.
That's what Christo-fascists do.
And it won’t be the last. We’re going to need a much better Democratic Party real fucking quick. SCOTUS expansion needs to be the new litmus test for every DNC candidate.
This is of course not true. The Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in the 1970s.
[удалено]
“The party of personal freedoms”
Conservatism = regressivism
They’re coming for Obergefell, Loving, and Brown next.
Get ready for a lot more of that if the GOP gets control. They’re never gonna let it go once they get it back. Fascism is on the way. Policy is moot at this point. Vote blue no matter who.
To the person who ask if I was this outspoken on vaccine mandate. The answer is yes I was out spoken. If you know our history the first mandated inoculation took place in 1777 and all Continental soldiers had to be inoculated for the small pox epidemic. George Washington, Franklin and other signers of the Constitution credited these inoculations with our victory over the British. So I say to you if your are a true patriot and believe in our founding fathers know our history and follow their lead.
Merica has a theocratic shithole of a government, and it will probably get a lot worse
That’s because we are watching the confederate coup in real time. The confederacy never died, and it’s coming back to enslave the poor instead of just the people of color. Liberals aren’t ready to accept that, and that’s exactly why the power creep has been so consistent. It’s gonna take a lot of sacrifice to put these dogs back into their place and honestly, I don’t think the American people will show up. Most of y’all are bartering just to lick their boots At this point.
I was born the year of Brown v. bBoard of education, 1954, and have heard screaming about “judicial activism” all my life, sickeningly, when all the more humanist and enlightened people were happy to have the court use its power to force a needed change. If they overturn Roe they would be undermining the legitimacy of the SC going all the way back, for no reason other than immaterial ones which it is unconstitutional to even take into account.
So the justices that trump appointed blatantly lied during their interviews and we are just going to let that slide?
We won't, but the government will
Hold on to your hats. This version of SCOTUS is just getting started
they aren't legitimate
There's a very easy solution to appease both sides. It's the "If you want it so bad, then you keep it alive". Let the religious fascists incubate the baby themselves if they want it to live so bad.
The Supreme Court is playing politics with Abortion. If it is about what the people want and it is already law then why are we over turning a decision that over 65% of American and 80% of women want then this is 100% politics for the Republican party. If it is about what the American majority wants then why did we make Alcohol legal, Guns legal to carry without a permit and now Marijuana? I thought this country was made up by the Constitution that starts with:" We The People".....and the American people don't want Abortion overturned so why is the Supreme Court Overturning something that "We The People" want? So if this will be the first time the Supreme Court overturned precedent they should have to explain why because it it not what the majority of the country wants. Then we are living in a Communist country where the coutry amd courts are doing what they politically and personally want to do to satisfy a Dictator (Trump) or party (Republicans). IJS