I'm as surprised as you are on this one. I shouldn't be, considering how bug-fuck crazy Dinner went because of Muslims and Clyde's descent but im disappointed
Cool, so how do you practically support that being in place? The woman has to sign a document saying she was raped? Is required to be pressing charges against someone? Requires someone to have been convicted?
I have taken a quick look at a few news stories and the opinion by the 5th Circuit. As far as I can tell, the MS law does not include an exception for rape or incest after 15 weeks. Just medical necessity or fetal deformity. I would also say that even accepting for argument's sake that this particular law represents a fair place to draw the line (pretty much no abortions after medical viability unless a medical emergency suggests one is justified), there are the following issues; 1. For lawmakers to knowingly pass laws that are unconstitutional under well-established precedent hoping that the SCOTUS has drifted enough philosophically to get their way should be disturbing. I can't think of many other areas where a government has no question that the law they are passing should be considered unconstitutional and yet they pass it anyway. (I suppose some things in the 1st Amendment area have been discussed in such bad faith, but that's about it.) 2. This particular law is no doubt the tip of future legislation that will further restrict abortion. When the majority of justices side with MS, which they almost certainly will, there will be new laws passed to see if the envelope can be pushed even further. MS defines viability at 15 weeks. The next state will do so at 12, or 10, or fewer. There is the danger of Roe dying a death of a thousand cuts, and there is the danger of some state simply passing a law barring all abortions unless deemed medically necessary and that case straight up killing Roe in one stroke. 3. There are probably going to be problems on both sides of fetuses that are less than 15 weeks being deemed as older, and fetuses that are older than 15 weeks being deemed as younger. 4. There is the "chasing a car so long that they don't know what they'd do if they catch it" problem. Once post-viability abortion is banned, dpes MS or any of the states that are considering such a rule have a clue what they are going to do about the various ramifications of that being the case? Taking care of the increase of kids who are born? Criminally or civilly punishing doctors and women who are seeking abortions?
Well that's all well and good until you're a pregnant person in need of an emergency abortion at five months and find yourself dying of sepsis because "tHe FeTaL hEArTbEaT! " means it's got to die "naturally" before they can do a damn thing for you. Or you're a grade school child sentenced to parenthood before you've even learned algebra. But we know certain non-Paladin WFers who were overjoyed when Ohio pulled this.
Women are people, no? And yes, there are far more trans pregnancies than one assumes are out there and you can be sure whatever shit is thrown at cis pregnant women are gonna be half of what trans pregnant men and non-binaries are gonna face with this.
I'm not contesting that it's awful public policy, an abortion ban. But given the intractability of altering the 6-3 supreme court, it's all but inevitable. Plus so many people vote Republican just on this one issue. Political pragmatism demands we take it off the table and move on.
Once SCOTUS overturns a half century of legal precedent, I take comfort in knowing that @NAHTMMM won't ever remotely be in a situation where abortion is even on the table because no one would ever consensually touch @NAHTMMM's genitals.
Good. Congress has had half of a century to do its job and legislate an answer, one way or the other. It's one thing for the courts to function as an arbiter of existing legislation. It's another for the courts to do the lob of the legislature because the legislators are scared of touching a political third rail. Face the tough issues or go home and I'll elect someone that will.
I can’t think of anything more certain to maximize Democratic turnout than overturning Roe in the middle of an election year.
Alas, if only it worked that way. But most of the voters will look at the situation and say "my guy has it right, it's the rest of them that suck. So I'll keep voting for my guy." And nothing changes.
I am reluctant to predict as to how things might turn out with turnout. In the last presdiential election, we had a combination of making it as easy to vote as it likely ever will be because of the pandemic, plus a polarizing candidate in Trump who had failed in his handling of the pandemic and essentially showed himself to be an unforeseen combination of inept, corrupt, and unfit for the highest office in the land. And yet, he could have won, and some 70 percent of Americans still think he DID win. Against that backdrop and against the backdrop of Republican legislators passing laws that will unmistakably lower Democratic voting in the name of preventing non-existent voter fraud, On the flip side, I don't think that when Roe is overturned, Republicans will be like "Mission accomplished" and go home. They will have plenty of issues and non-issues where they want to own the libs, from school prayer to affirmative action to Dr. Seuss being canceled.
I don't know if it is political cowardice or a combination of respect for SCOTUS and/or federalism, as well as pragmatism. Once SCOTUS found that there is a fundamental right for women to have abortions under at least some circumstances, but states can also regulate abortions under some circumstances, it sort of ties Congress's hands. Congress could attempt to do what some states have been doing and pass laws expanding or restricting abortion nationwide. But such laws would likely run afoul of the notion that each individual state has within most spheres the right to decide its own approach to things.
While it is unlikely that THIS particular case will have a ruling that blatantly says "We find Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided," I am doubtful that SCOTUS will say "this law is blatantly unconstitutional according to our well-established case law." I would not be surprised if every one on the conservative wing except for Roberts were willing to straight-up say that Roe was wrongly decided and there is no fundamental right to an abortion. To look a little more closely at the justices: Thomas has said in at least one opinion that Roe was without a shred of constitutional support. Alito and ACB are Catholic and anti-abortion. I assume their record illustrates that they aren't friends of Roe. Kavanaugh, according to this fact check, has been cagey about whether he thinks Roe was correctly decided and seems to have hinted that he agreed with Rehnquist's dissent and also the notion that the Constitution only guarantees enumerated rights (which would doom Roe, as it relies on the "penumbras" or things in the Constitution and not an explicit line that says "there is a right to an abortion") Trump campaigned on appointing justices who would overturn Roe,and it's probably one of the few things that he did where it's hard to dispute that he did about as good as anyone could.
Still the gays and the trans folk to finish rendering less than human yet. Then we're back to video games, then cursing/nudity on TV.
They can double down on trans bashing? The guns right bullshit? Rebrand moral panic over Satanism like they did with Lil Nas X for a few weeks?
At any rate, I feel like at some point in the future (hopefully in my lifetime) we are seriously going to have to visit the idea of codifying abortion rights specifically into the constitution to avoid more bullshit like this. I see no other way of protecting rights otherwise.
But reluctant predictions are the best kind! Probably too far off-topic for this thread, but I can see plenty of reasons for Democrats to be optimistic about 2022.
I feel pretty safe saying it is cowardice. Both parties have had majorities in both Houses and the White House since Roe v. Wade was decided. Both parties could have taken up the issue with legislation, for or against, yet they did not. Republicans know it's a third rail because every Democrat will come to the polls during the next election cycle. Democrats know it's a third rail because every Republican will come to the polls during the next election cycle. It will be one of the top five, all-time ugliest political brawls in US history. It would make Obamacare look like a ladies tea social because nothing energizes the two bases like this one issue. This has been the one, the single most polarizing issue between the two "sides" over the last 50 years in this nation. Not the fight against racism, not class warfare, not the rise of more socalistic policies, and not the moral revolution that is the LGBTQ+ issue. So, despite the posturing, Congress has been content to maintain the status quo. They have been content to sit on their hands on the issue for nearly 50 years.
But how do we do that when the process of amending the constitution gives such disproportionate power to the residents of the smaller, more conservative states? Seems like it would have to be legislative.
Wow, @Lanzman is so consistently and worryingly opposed to any amendments of the Constitution. It leads me to believe he would have been opposed to the 13th-15th Amendments under the guise of "both sides suck, but that doesn't mean we should change the Constitution."
