SCOTUS set to overturn Roe and Casey

[WolfEyes]

I think I know where the Repugs got the idea to try to criminalize women going out of state.

Ruling threatens US power as world's high-seas drug police (msn.com)

A decades-old law that gives the U.S. broad authority to make arrests on the high seas anywhere in the world, even if the drugs aren’t bound for the U.S.

 

[Jopsy Pendragon]

Letting other people die from preventable diseases is 'God's Will!' they were out there honking for God's right to murder whoever he likes.

 

[Beebo Brink]

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

 

[Free]

I think it's because we come to realize that is not a solution.

Unlike the men!

 

[Aribeth Zelin]

I think it's because we come to realize that is not a solution.

Unlike the men!

We're used to biding our time?

I've a lot of rage and a mean streak. But I've enough restraint [and no desire to ever spend another night in jail] to try everything that is legal before going nuclear.

 

[WolfEyes]

I think it's because we come to realize that is not a solution.

Unlike the men!

Dammit!

/me puts out the fires

 

[Isabeau]

While I wouldn't advocate for violence, I certainly hope the push back will be much stronger than its been in the past when states have slowly gnawed at existing laws. These recent happening don't come as a total shock.

 

[WolfEyes]

Portland abortion clinic braces for influx of out-of-state patients (msn.com)

PDX Fried Chicken Hot Spot Jojo Is Raising Thousands of Dollars for Abortion Providers (msn.com)

 

[Ellie]

Are we there yet?

@WernerTwertzog
https://twitter.com/WernerTwertzog

Dear America: You are waking up, as Germany once did, to the awareness that 1/3 of your people would kill another 1/3, while 1/3 watches.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Thread on abortion bans and surveillance technology via data-scraping apps on your phone

Pluralistic: 07 May 2022 – Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow

pluralistic.net

 

[WolfEyes]

Ex-US attorney calls out Clarence Thomas' remark after leaked opinion | Watch (msn.com)

 

[Govi]

I think I know where the Repugs got the idea to try to criminalize women going out of state.

Ruling threatens US power as world's high-seas drug police (msn.com)

I think the Republicans got the idea from the Fugitive Slave Act, having adopted the mantle of Confederate values. It's now part of their political genes.

Slavers have a horrible history of using the federal government to enforce their notions of persons as property. In their Articles of Secession, the slavers frequently cited the failure of Free States to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act: to return their fugitive "property." With any repeal of Roe v. Wade, the GQP is very much re-asserting property rights over women's bodies.

 

[WolfEyes]

I was looking at more recent influences, not "ancient" history because more recent has more impact.

I did grow up among the people (my family!) we are talking about and had to live with them for more than half my life. Four long and torturous decades. I haven't been out of the south for a full 2 decades yet. Only 4 more years to go.

 

[Free]

 

[Chin Rey]

I have to play the Devil's advocate here.

If I understand the infamous leaked draft right, the argument is that the 14th Amendment does not cover the abortion question in any unambigious way. That is a very valid argument and it's the lawmakers' responsibility, not the supreme court's to correct this through "appropriate legislation" as stipulated in the Amendment's fifth section.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I have to play the Devil's advocate here.

If I understand the infamous leaked draft right, the argument is that the 14th Amendment does not cover the abortion question in any unambigious way. That is a very valid argument and it's the lawmakers' responsibility, not the supreme court's to correct this through "appropriate legislation" as stipulated in the Amendment's fifth section.

Obviously I don't understand US law, but it seems to me extraordinary that, once the Supreme Court has reached a decision that a right exists as a matter of law, it's possible for a subsequent court to to overturn it simply on the grounds "our predecessors got it wrong" and would argue that, on the contrary, that once a right has been upheld by the Supreme Court it should be possible to remove it only by a constitutional amendment.

 

[Free]

Obviously I don't understand US law, but it seems to me extraordinary that, once the Supreme Court has reached a decision on a matter of law, it's possible for a subsequent court to to overturn it simply on the grounds "our predecessors got it wrong" and would argue that, on the contrary, that once a right has been upheld by the Supreme Court it should be possible to remove it only by a constitutional amendment.

Yeah, let's just say a lot of Americans are as confused as you over that.

 

[Chin Rey]

Obviously I don't understand US law, but it seems to me extraordinary that, once the Supreme Court has reached a decision that a right exists as a matter of law, it's possible for a subsequent court to to overturn it simply on the grounds "our predecessors got it wrong" and would argue that, on the contrary, that once a right has been upheld by the Supreme Court it should be possible to remove it only by a constitutional amendment.

Yes, I do think it's fair to say the "burden of evidence" goes that way in such a case but it's still the lawmakers' job to clarify the issue.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Yes, I do think it's fair to say the "burden of evidence" goes that way in such a case but it's still the lawmakers' job to clarify the issue.

I would say that it's up to the federal lawmakers to remove the right, through positive legislation, if that's what they want to do. The law is supposed to be known, which means, at least as far as I'm concerned, that once the Supreme Court (in any jurisdiction) has said what the law is, then that's what it is until the legislature (not a subsequent supreme court) changes it.