Is a reversal of Roe v Wade decision next?

California takes further steps on trying to lure companies away from red states

NotedDC — Biden shifts abortion fight to Senate
President Biden threw his support behind a carveout of the Senate filibuster to codify abortion rights, a moment some Democrats have been waiting for since May.

“And if the filibuster gets in the way — it’s like voting rights — it should be we provide an exception for this, requiring an exception to the filibuster for this action to deal with the Supreme Court decision,” Biden said Thursday at the NATO summit in Spain.

It was a moment “a lot of people have been craving,” Democratic strategist Doug Gordon told NotedDC, describing it as “a sort of bold leadership.”

Senate Democrats attempted to codify federal abortion rights in May following the publication of the court’s leaked draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, but they couldn’t reach the 60 votes needed to pass.

Planned Parenthood Votes rolls out $3 million TV buy hitting Oz on abortion
Planned Parenthood Votes on Thursday rolled out a $3 million television ad buy in Pennsylvania on Thursday hitting Republican Senate nominee Mehmet Oz over his stance on abortion access.

The 30-second ad accuses Oz of wanting to make the procedure “a crime in Pennsylvania” and being “too extreme” for the state on the issue.

Oz said during the state’s Republican Senate primary that he is against abortion except in the cases of rape and incest or when the mother’s life is in jeopardy.

Capitol Police arrest 181 abortion rights protesters outside Senate office building
The U.S. Capitol Police on Thursday arrested 181 abortion rights demonstrators who protested outside of a Senate office building less than a week after the Supreme Court overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade decision.

In a Twitter thread on Thursday, Capitol Police sent out a travel advisory, warning that activists were blocking the intersection of First Street and Constitution Avenue. Authorities said they gave activists a second and third warning before arrests began.

“We arrested 181 people for Crowding, Obstructing or Incommoding (DC Code § 22–1307) for blocking the intersection of Constitution Avenue, NE and First Street, NE,” the department said in a tweet on Thursday. “The intersection reopened at approximately 1:20 p.m.”

Protests have been held around the country since Friday, when the high court struck down the constitutional right to an abortion, which had been established by Roe nearly 50 years ago.

The eventual ruling led multiple states to implement their own abortion bans and restrictions, while some other states already had “trigger laws” that took effect when Roe was overturned.

Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.) was also among the 181 protesters arrested by authorities on Thursday.

“When I first heard Roe was overturned, I immediately thought of who would be most harmed by this decision: a young girl who is a survivor of rape, a woman who cannot afford to travel to another state to access critical care, an expecting mother with an ectopic pregnancy whose life is in danger because she cannot have an abortion,” Chu said in a statement to The Hill.

“So, when I think of all these women — and more — the decision to join in a peaceful demonstration to make clear we will not allow the clock to be rolled back on abortion rights was easy. We are in this together and we will not back down or be silenced. I am ramping up my calls to abolish the Senate filibuster — and actively exploring every option to ensure we pass my bill, the Women’s Health Protection Act, which establishes a federal right to abortion care, and have it signed into law. Lives are at stake and this fight is far from over.”

State abortion bans create new governmental obligations for children
Now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade, “trigger laws” and formerly stale abortion restrictions in numerous states are going into effect. This raises a new question: Do governments take on any legal obligations when, in the words of former Justice Blackmun in the 1992 Casey case, they “conscript[] women’s bodies” to act as surrogates for the state? In limited circumstances, the answer is clearly, yes.

Because Roe v. Wade protected a formal right to an abortion, for decades the issue of society’s affirmative responsibility for families has been overshadowed by the fiction that pregnancy and successful childrearing are exclusively the personal responsibility of individual women. This is despite the fact that socioeconomic conditions are the primary predictor of unwanted pregnancy, the majority of women obtaining abortions used contraception, while neonatal and early childhood conditions play a critical role as a “foundation for future learning, health and life success.”

Unfortunately, the same states that are most aggressively “pro-life” also perversely exacerbate demand for abortions by rejecting federal funding for family planning and forbidding sensible sex education. They then place resulting, unintended children in danger by denying them the resources necessary to thrive. Pointing out this hypocrisy, former longtime lawmaker Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) declared decades ago that for “legislators who oppose abortion but also oppose child nutrition and day care[,] … life begins at conception and ends at birth.”
Given that Texas’ Senate Bill 8 banned most abortions in 2021, the approximately 30,000 of the abortions performed in Texas in 2018 would be illegal today. The number of abortions in recent years has been increasing in every region of the country. Many women who would have lawfully terminated a pregnancy will now give birth. Because of the rampant anti-Black and anti-male bias in adoption matching, and some states, such as Texas, granting the biological father a veto over adoption regardless of marital or cohabitation status, a significant proportion of women who are unable to or decline to raise an unplanned child will not find an appropriate adoptive family.

The article goes on for a while, something to think about.

Alabama Cites Abortion Ruling in Transgender Medication Case
Days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states can prohibit abortion, Alabama has seized on the decision to argue that the state should also be able to ban gender-affirming medical treatments for transgender youths.

The case marks one of the first known instances in which a conservative state has tried to apply the abortion ruling to other realms, just as LGBTQ advocates and others were afraid would happen.

The state is asking a federal appeals court to lift an injunction and let it enforce an Alabama law that would make it a felony to give puberty blockers or hormones to transgender minors to help affirm their gender identity.

doublejj said:

California takes further steps on trying to lure companies away from red states

California takes steps to lure companies away from red states

Gov. Gavin Newsom is expected to sign the proposed budget, which incentivizes companies in Republican-controlled states to relocate jobs to California.

www.sfgate.com

View attachment 5156930

Click to expand...

that is fucking awesome, too bad they already have a Disney park, it would just fucking tickle me if Disney packed up lock, stock, and barrel, and moved out of florida.

Roger A. Shrubber said:

that is fucking awesome, too bad they already have a Disney park, it would just fucking tickle me if Disney packed up lock, stock, and barrel, and moved out of florida.

Click to expand...

Warm weather blue states are few and far between. But I think they would lose as many customers to the heat in the summer as to the cold in winter. I used to go to Busch Gardens in Va and they were alright, climate wise.

Bagginski said:

The Supreme Court’s Faux ‘Originalism’ — POLITICO

The conservative Supreme Court's favorite judicial philosophy requires a very, very firm grasp of history — one that none of the justices seem to possess.

apple.news

Click to expand...

I posted this because I want to rant on it some. I’ve been reading & re-reading the constitution, the founders’ letters and pamphlets, for more than 60 years. I may not have more insight into it than the next person, and I dont have a notebook full of different answers on things, but I did learn stuff. And for as long as I’ve been doing it, there’s been a conversation going around about how to interpret it all - how to parcel out their intentions. One way is what I learned or figured out or something,which I’ve always called “original intent”; another that’s been in the news for 20+ years, pushed hard by the “Federalist” Society, they call “originalism”.

These two sound the same, almost, but they’re very different in the approach they take and the kinds of determinations they end up enabling. At this hour of the morning, though, I’m not going to get much done on it now. But I wanted to bring it forward so I’d stumble over it instead of forgetting.

Before I pass out, tho, I want to say a word about the “Federalists” in the Federalist Society:

Back when the constitution was written, one huge sticking point blocking adoption was the question of rights. Opinions divided sharply between the Federalists (the OG) - who believed that the ordinary freedoms, rights, & liberties were so commonly enjoyed, so alive in the new nation’s communities, so well understood by the people that spelling them all out was seen as laborious, wasteful of time and parchment, and completely unnecessary (some seem to have considered it rude to assume that the people required an itemized list to know their rights); on the Anti-Federalist society, there was concern and distrust of the document, because events with England left many Americans wary of rights being deprived by virtue of being unacknowledged in our founding document. The arguments were pretty fine in their own way, and if someone was interested one could grab a copy of The Anti-Federalist Papers (sometimes held up as an important document in the evolution of libertarianism, but that’s an altogether different thing).

It’s because of this specific round of wrangling that we have the Constitution’s first ten amendments, aka the Bill of Rights…and the arguing hasn’t stopped since,; however, fears were soothed & objections retired, and the Constitution was adopted. For the next 200-210 years, we’ve made do, and kept wrangling about rights.

One of the biggest ‘persuaders’ in the document was amendment #9, which explicitly stated that the rights of citizens could not be denied, even if they weren’t made explicit in the document, and must be honored and protected. This amendment has not been respected by either state or federal government, and I’ve been unable to discover a single case in which an ‘unenumerated‘ right was asserted a US court, where that assertion was accepted & the right recognized. Instead, what has happened is the court has dismis the assertion, on the grounds that the Amendment simply didn’t apply to the right being asserted. I could certainly have missed what I was looking for, but I did look hard - and for a while.

Enter the Federalist Society. The society has been the source of every judge placed on a bench by a Republican since the Bush (Pappy) administration. Not just SCROTUS justices, but judges at every level of the federal judiciary: strictly speaking, between Federalist picks, and procedural interference in the senate to block and eventually hold hostage every judicial appointment made by every democrat president, the Republican Party has packed the judiciary with ”federalist-approved” ideologues at every opportunity for the past thirty years.

This is how we got ourselves saddled with a SCROTUS that is monomaniacally focused on reversing as much of the last 160 years of judicial precedent as they can arrange. They’re doing it now. None of this is theoretical, it’s not speculation, they’ve said out loud that they want to undermine as much “settled law” as they can reach; they’ve said what they intend to do…and they’re doing it.

This, after assuring the senate, during examination of their fitness for the High Bench, that they would NEVER do *exactly* what they are doing right now: overturning keystone precedents, flaunting their lies by turning their back on stare decisis, in effect DARING the USA to find a way to stop them from burning down the legal system - and much of the ways in which US citizens and residents go about their lives.

As mentioned, their main weapon - other than lying under oath to get their jobs under false pretenses - has been “originalism”…and I’ll go into that later.

DIY-HP-LED said:

Covid took many, most of those million people were seniors and most of them republicans. The SCOTUS ruling might get young women off their asses and bitching on social media to taking action with a clipboard instead of a protest sign. Hopefully they will drag their boy fiends with them, the women (and men) of America have over 4 months to get financing, organize a massive volunteer ground game and hit the bricks knocking on doors in all 50. Carrying signs in the streets is for losers, carrying clipboards in the neighborhoods is for winners.

Click to expand...

I think you’re misjudging and mischaracterizing the “young women” you say are on their asses.

I know quite a large number of young/ish women who *are* active on social media, and *are* active in protest actions. Most of them are also politically active in a dozen different ways, including canvassing, staffing GOTV efforts, helping get citizens to the polls, phone-banking, staffing polling places on election day…*AND* they care for sick friends who have no one to help them when they’re sick, they work for women’s shelters, do rescue work, lobby city councils, county commissions, fundraise for candidates, run for office, and a lot more besides.

I think better of you than that. They deserve better.

Marching and burning shit seems to work best.

Bagginski said:

I think you’re misjudging and mischaracterizing the “young women” you say are on their asses.

I know quite a large number of young/ish women who *are* active on social media, and *are* active in protest actions. Most of them are also politically active in a dozen different ways, including canvassing, staffing GOTV efforts, helping get citizens to the polls, phone-banking, staffing polling places on election day…*AND* they care for sick friends who have no one to help them when they’re sick, they work for women’s shelters, do rescue work, lobby city councils, county commissions, fundraise for candidates, run for office, and a lot more besides.

I think better of you than that. They deserve better.

Click to expand...

Social media dissipates the fire for change in everybody by giving them the illusion that they are taking action. Women are generally more social than men and texting while driving and social media are usually more of an issue for women. My point was they need to start canvassing neighborhoods instead of eating their own on social media for perceived violations of evolving social standards. One cannot describe people with sweeping generalizations, male or female, but statistical trends do become apparent. My main point is women should use their social skills and propensities to their greatest effect and advantage by organizing a massive ground game for the election to register and motivate voters. They and men too, can have the greatest impact in the neighborhoods with clipboard and as part of an organization, than bitching online, that goes for anybody BTW, not just women. The reason I said it, was that women are the backbone of most organizations already, but a lot of them and men spin their wheels online, instead of taking concrete action. Carry signs while you are pissed, but pick up a clip board if you want real change and start drumming up democratic votes. People can do far more than vote themselves and women are at the forefront of running, for all those minor offices that count and control the vote.

Singling out young women was deliberate, they will suffer the greatest impact and are the one needing to take the strongest most effective action. Being online is great for organizing action and advertising for cheap like the Lincoln project, but 1/3 of Americans don't vote and many of them are young. Winning in November is the priority and not much else, if they want their basic human rights back.

Even "winning" in November won't give them their rights back.

Speaking of networking and social media. . . . .

Lucky Luke said:

Even "winning" in November won't give them their rights back.

Click to expand...

Sure it will, it will mean codifying abortion rights into law.

It will also mean impeachment inquires for some conservative justices in preparation for packing the court and forcing one of the assholes to retire. It will mean election reform and laws, along with a domestic terrorist watch list and meaningful gun regulation. So the election in November will make a big difference and how many end up in prison is one is one of many issues to be settled.

Will have to read the email again, but we got something from the ceo that seemed to indicate that anyone residing in shitty states that finds themselves in need will be fully covered for time off, travel costs, med costs, etc. to go to a non shitty state to get things taken care of.

Just going to think of many states the same way I think of Kansas....and what I think of them is they can choke to death on a big bag of gay dicks. I do what I can to not use businesses based in those states (there aren't many surprise surprise) and try not to spend any money if I happen to pass through.

They were getting them anyway but Roe made their final decision for them..even young men.

Lucky Luke said:

Even "winning" in November won't give them their rights back.

Click to expand...

The world is not perfect, and the struggle for liberal democracy takes place in the public square as well as the battlefield. Liberal democracy itself is a process that evolves over time, responds to social change and reflects it in politics and governments. However societies can only change and evolve so fast, or reactionary forces will arise and impede change, or even cause a society to regress. So it's a balancing act and the reactionary forces in America have probably overplayed their hand. They are in a minority in America, they know they must cheat to win and go full fascist, they need to tear down the constitution and rule of law, the conservatives on the SCOTUS are part of this plan of ideology before reason, precedent or even common sense.