An excellent thread:
39 Likes
This is a bit of a reversal. I’ve just read a long piece about the history of abortion in the US (Safer than Childbirth) and it was, amongst other things, explicitly racist exhorting good white protestant women to breed so the country wouldn’t be drowned under a tide of immigrant babies.
9 Likes
Theocrats gotta theocrate.
3 Likes
Unacceptable
1 Like
Roe v. Wade was decided when I was 5. By the time I was 20, we were constantly protesting in DC at huge rallies to protect this vital right of healthcare and bodily autonomy. We’ve been fighting for 50 years to hold onto this right. I’m not going back, my wife is not going back, and this is NOT over. Not even fucking close.
33 Likes
Mississippi passed a bill banning it after 15 weeks I believe (the original Roe v. Wade ruling used the term viability which was around 22 weeks). That was the case they heard and are ruling on, but the draft is clear they aren’t just saying Mississippi is fine, they are tossing out Roe v. Wade entirely and letting states decide. Which means more than half of all Americans will no longer have access to safe, legal abortions. Not only that, but many will be in legal jeopardy if they leave the state to get a medical abortion and/or purchasing medication to induce an abortion at home. Which, of course, will mostly affect the poor, not the wealthy who’ll do what they want as they did before Roe v. Wade without worry of repercussion.
29 Likes
THOMAS E. DOBBS, STATE HEALTH OFFICER OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL, PETITIONERS v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION, FT AL.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-1392.html
Who knows? Opinions get drafted and redrafted a lot. And now it’s been leaked the incentive to stick to it is probably fairly high given the rabidness of the “conservative” movement.
10 Likes
I’m sorry, but no. Just no. I’ve seen too much of that bullshit on my Twitter timeline, and I am furious at all those who think it’s the time to point fingers and look back to six years ago when women are losing their fundamental rights as humans right now. It’s a self-report of where their priorities really lie, that they can’t hold back from infighting and scolding and "I told you so"s when we’re all gonna need to work together to stop this.
The right’s been working this strategy for decades now. It started long before 2016, but some people would rather keep looking back instead of moving forward to the fight in front of us. If their grudges are more important than the women who will die because of this ruling, do they really care at all?
33 Likes
31 Likes
Hopefully
10 Likes
You have more faith that these 2 aren’t lying than I do.
33 Likes
It was always a long game.
All those attacks on LGBTQ rights were the wedge.
Now abortion can be outlawed, healthcare provisions rolled back and rights for gay and trans people rolled up into that.
No clinics means no access to knowledge or medical care.
No books in schools makes kids police themselves.
Nazis turning up to Pride rallies.
29 Likes
This may have been the point of leaking it, in which case the leak may have come from someone sympathetic to that opinion, rather than opposed to it. It may even have been leaked with the approval of one of the Justices, to stop any of their fellows from backsliding.
3 Likes
That occurred to me also. I don’t want to speculate about motives but it certainly seems plausible.
3 Likes
It’s that Justices were saying the quiet part out loud, that the Republicans on the court are willing to ignore established precedent and outlaw abortion. Several bills have emerged from states with conservative legislatures that do just that, and if this draft is the court’s response, abortion will be outlawed in many states.
4 Likes
I would settle for the Dems actually putting up a real fight against this slide to fascism. Unfortunately, the party establishment is currently the sort that’s putting a great deal of effort into ignoring that one of its elderly leaders is suffering from early-stage dementia.
There are liberals and progressives in Congress who have their priorities in order when it comes to fighting. We need to support and reward them even if the Dem establishment won’t.
More faith than I have as well. Their priorities as nominal Dems are not defending liberal democracy. Manchin uses his position in the party mainly to preserve the coal industry that benefits his family business. Sinema is an attention-seeker whose posturing would get lost in the GOP. Both will gladly vote against abortion rights if it serves their ends. Unfortunately we’re stuck with both for a while yet.
What I’ll be looking at this November is the electorate, particularly the country’s shameful non-participation rate. If it doesn’t fall substantially (allowing for GOP suppression efforts to keep it high) due to this revelation I won’t see a lot of reason to believe that most Americans understand what’s at stake.
19 Likes
and just like that, the democrats SWEEP the mid-terms!!
1 Like
How about those of us are still mad at “Reagan democrats”, Ralph Nader and everyone else who has been watching the fascists do this creep for decades? “We all hang together or we all hang separately” is not a new sentiment. This pattern keeps repeating of people who should know better allowing racist sexist thugs to become the alleged “leader of the free world”. All because they just couldn’t get excited about Carter, or Gore or Kerry or HRC. If you didnt vote Democrat for the last cycle, or the ten cycles before that, you were on the wrong side of history.
1 Like
The difference in Canada is that the multi-party parliamentary system is largely a bulwark against extreme views.
Although the Canadian supreme court is appointed, it has never been as politicized as it is in the States. That doesn’t mean politicians haven’t tried, but I’d go as far to say as most Canadians would be uncomfortable with justices with a clear political bent.
There’s a whole laundry list of conventions where it comes to appointing justices - gender and geographical balance in particular. On top of this, the structure of the Canadian Constitution makes it far less likely for legislation to end up on the docket - Canadian justices spend far much more time interpreting the law than they do making it. Where a gap or conflict with the constitution is identified, the matter is referred back to legislators to fix.
8 Likes
