Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights per draft opinion (Update: Dobbs opinion official) (3 Viewers)

[LovesMusic7360]

Not long ago Kari Lake proclaimed Arizona's abortion law was a great law and wanted it the law of the state.

Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.

As I have been saying since 2022, the overwhelming vast majority of women aren't going to vote for the man who proudly boasts that he got rid of Roe V. Wade. Nor are those women going to vote for a forced birther politician.

Turns out, republican belief in "pro life" was all just lies to get votes. Who is surprised? I sure am not.

How many forced birthers will do the same about face?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/ka ... r-BB1ltx3I.

Arizona Republican Senate candidate Kari Lake is actively lobbying state lawmakers to overturn a 160-year-old law she once supported that bans abortion in almost all cases, a source with knowledge of her efforts told CNN.

 

[Optimus Prime]

There will be (if there hasn't been already) another Texan woman in Kate Cox's situation

But this time the woman will be the wife, daughter, granddaughter, niece or mistress of a hardline, far right judge or politician or millionaire CEO

and when that happens (if it hasn't already) the woman in question will get her abortion just fine (just quietly)

And if it is discovered and outed......so what?

"Rules for thee, not for me" or "this situation is different" (The quiet part: "the difference being this time it's happening to someone I care about"

 

[MT15]

There will be (if there hasn't been already) another Texan woman in Kate Cox's situation

But this time the woman will be the wife, daughter, granddaughter, niece or mistress of a hardline, far right judge or politician or millionaire CEO

and when that happens (if it hasn't already) the woman in question will get her abortion just fine (just quietly)

And if it is discovered and outed......so what?

"Rules for thee, not for me" or "this situation is different" (The quiet part: "the difference being this time it's happening to someone I care about"

Yes this is exactly right. My husband said that they will change their tune if it happens to someone they love. And my reply was this - nope, the woman they love will quietly get their abortion out of state or out of country if they succeed in imposing a national ban. They won’t have to play by the rules they want to impose on everyone else. Their loved one won’t have to see their health debated by strangers on courts and declared that the risk isn’t that great, against their own doctor’s judgement.

This is as sure as the sun rising in the east.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

So much for states' rights, right...

Supreme Court to decide whether to restrict abortion drug nationwide | CNN Politics

The Supreme Court said Wednesday it will consider whether to restrict access to a widely used abortion drug — even in states where the procedure is still allowed.

www.cnn.com

 

[MT15]

So much for states' rights, right...

Supreme Court to decide whether to restrict abortion drug nationwide | CNN Politics

The Supreme Court said Wednesday it will consider whether to restrict access to a widely used abortion drug — even in states where the procedure is still allowed.

www.cnn.com

That was such a transparent lie. They think we are all fools.

 

[Taurus]

Yes this is exactly right. My husband said that they will change their tune if it happens to someone they love. And my reply was this - nope, the woman they love will quietly get their abortion out of state or out of country if they succeed in imposing a national ban. They won’t have to play by the rules they want to impose on everyone else. Their loved one won’t have to see their health debated by strangers on courts and declared that the risk isn’t that great, against their own doctor’s judgement.

This is as sure as the sun rising in the east.

Eventually though, it'll happen to someone who doesn't have any pull. Or a political rival of someone who does.
The feces will hit the fan when that happens.

 

[Incumbent]

*some, too many, yes, but still some

I'd argue it's 100% of Christofascists, as Chip stated.

Room for disagreement about how many other identifying Christians don't share those views. Anecdotally, for me, it looks like a minority percentage. I think there are a lot of "good" christians who would go along with the idea of overtly modeling our laws after the Bible and criminalizing abortion, homosexuality, censoring content, regulating and punishing other behaviors, and persecuting groups of people. It's happened and we're watching it happen again in real time. The perception is that love is the most powerful trait of the Christian faith but I don't think that comes through in practice - at least not in an unconditional form. I think persuasion and obedience are much more powerful forces, and why it hasn't been difficult to get Christians (and religious people) to go along with some abhorrent beliefs historically. Or why it wasn't difficult to get so many Christians to support somebody like Trump. Plenty of people will believe and do awful things, with a smile on their face and what they think is love in their heart, because of devotion to the archaic writings of men who who were severely limited in knowledge and understanding.

 

[MT15]

Eventually though, it'll happen to someone who doesn't have any pull. Or a political rival of someone who does.
The feces will hit the fan when that happens.

I am hopeful that enough people see what is happening to turn the tide. That we won’t have to have a huge public death, like they had in Ireland (IIRC). I’m sure there are women who have died already from sepsis or other complications due to these laws, they just haven’t been public.

Yes, it was Ireland I was thinking of:

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2022-06-27/the-story-behind-irelands-abortion-ban-and-its-reversal

 

[MT15]

as I am reading about Ireland it’s worth revisiting what happened there. It will happen here if we don’t change our laws to allow doctors to use abortion when needed. From the above article:

In 2012, Savita Halappanavar, age 31 and 17 weeks pregnant, went to a hospital in Galway, Ireland. Doctors there determined that she was having a miscarriage. However, because the fetus still had a detectable heartbeat, it was protected by the Eighth Amendment. Doctors could not intervene – in legal terms, ending its life – even to save the mother. So she was admitted to the hospital for pain management while awaiting the miscarriage to progress naturally.

Over the course of three days, as her pain increased and signs of infection grew, she and her husband pleaded with hospital officials to terminate the pregnancy because of the health risk. The request was denied because the fetus still had a heartbeat.

By the time the fetal heartbeat could no longer be detected, Halappanavar had developed a massive infection in her uterus, which spread to her blood. After suffering organ failure and four days in intensive care, she died.

 

[Taurus]

I am hopeful that enough people see what is happening to turn the tide. That we won’t have to have a huge public death, like they had in Ireland (IIRC). I’m sure there are women who have died already from sepsis or other complications due to these laws, they just haven’t been public.

I foresee lurid barely-censored images of blood spattered motel rooms and suspiciously lumpy body bags, just like the 50's and 60's.
This isn't a new road. We've been here before and the horror was enough to force Roe.
This time, however, SCOTUS won't save the day.
American women will have to be brought to understand that only federal legislation will help...and that can only happen with both Houses and the Presidency firmly in Democratic control.

My fear is that somehow the Democrats will screw the pooch.

If Dem candidates could pull the same numbers as Dem policies (abortion chief among them) we'd have filibuster proof majorities locked in.

 

[DaveXA]

I'd argue it's 100% of Christofascists, as Chip stated.

Room for disagreement about how many other identifying Christians don't share those views. Anecdotally, for me, it looks like a minority percentage. I think there are a lot of "good" christians who would go along with the idea of overtly modeling our laws after the Bible and criminalizing abortion, homosexuality, censoring content, regulating and punishing other behaviors, and persecuting groups of people.

Most of the Christians i personally know wouldn't go along with any of that. They believe separation of church and state is how it should be and live and let live. Maybe its because of where i live, idk.

It's happened and we're watching it happen again in real time. The perception is that love is the most powerful trait of the Christian faith but I don't think that comes through in practice - at least not in an unconditional form.

Depends on who you talk to.

I think persuasion and obedience are much more powerful forces, and why it hasn't been difficult to get Christians (and religious people) to go along with some abhorrent beliefs historically. .

Depends on who you talk to.

Or why it wasn't difficult to get so many Christians to support somebody like Trump.

Because, for many years the Republican party held itself out to be the "right" party and the narrative that they were the party of law and order appealed to a lot of Christians. Many don't like what the party has turned into, and like Trump even less.

Plenty of people will believe and do awful things, with a smile on their face and what they think is love in their heart, because of devotion to the archaic writings of men who who were severely limited in knowledge and understanding.

Plenty, sure. But I personally aren't friends with many like that. If anything, I intentionally avoid people in the MAGA and Trumper cult. Trump is their "god" anyway.

 

[coldseat]

Do you mean they aren't talking about it in your social circles or they aren't talking about it on the various media outlets?

How do you know what people are talking about in their social circles that are outside of your social circles? I have a friend in Houston/Spring and I know her and her friends are definitely talking about it and they are in full support of Kate. I also know some of her friends support no abortions except for in cases like Kate's.

I've heard talk of it on NPR and it's been reported on in local media, though not as much as it has in national media. I haven't heard and discussions or seen anything online from people in my social group (other than me). I have seen no widespread protest or calls for action or even anger at Ken Paxton and the Texas SC. Like I said, it's been a collective myopic response.

A lot of things seem to go that way here in Texas, unless you're talking about guns or the border. It's as if people have been conditioned to react a certain way. Even when you do see anger and an outcry over something, like the Uvalde mass murder, you don't see any change that accompanies it. There has been nothing meaningful done or any consequential reaction at the state level as a result of the Uvalde shooting. It's all just very disheartening and disappointing.

 

[MT15]

Most of the Christians i personally know wouldn't go along with any of that. They believe separation of church and state is how it should be and live and let live. Maybe its because of where i live, idk.

Depends on who you talk to.

Depends on who you talk to.

Because, for many years the Republican party held itself out to be the "right" party and the narrative that they were the party of law and order appealed to a lot of Christians. Many don't like what the party has turned into, and like Trump even less.

Plenty, sure. But I personally aren't friends with many like that. If anything, I intentionally avoid people in the MAGA and Trumper cult. Trump is their "god" anyway.

I very much appreciate your stances, Dave, even when we disagree. It’s just so disheartening to see so many people who are so upfront about being Christian take the stances they take to support Trump. He has a ton of support from Evangelical churches and people. I saw a serious discussion today on Twitter between a pastor and some people who identified as Evangelicals about the Christian Nationalist movie that Rob Reiner is promoting. They were upset that it might give Christian Nationalism a bad name. My jaw dropped. They no longer recognize the separation of church and state as necessary or even desirable. Our new Speaker of the House feels this way as well. This is a significant radicalization that seems to be happening. I’m not sure how to put this genie back in the bottle.

 

[DaveXA]

I very much appreciate your stances, Dave, even when we disagree. It’s just so disheartening to see so many people who are so upfront about being Christian take the stances they take to support Trump. He has a ton of support from Evangelical churches and people. I saw a serious discussion today on Twitter between a pastor and some people who identified as Evangelicals about the Christian Nationalist movie that Rob Reiner is promoting. They were upset that it might give Christian Nationalism a bad name. My jaw dropped. They no longer recognize the separation of church and state as necessary or even desirable. Our new Speaker of the House feels this way as well. This is a significant radicalization that seems to be happening. I’m not sure how to put this genie back in the bottle.

Oh, I definitely hear what you're saying, and I'm sure it's getting worse in some areas. But while it is indeed frustrating, I think there is room to be hopeful that some will come to their senses. I mean, the Republicans against Trump social media gets plenty of traffic. I haven't actually tried to find a Christians against MAGA/Trumpism, but I'm sure something like that would get a lot of visits.

I just hope more Christians will recognize the cultish behavior of Trump and his followers and call it out for what it actually is.

 

[LA - L.A.]

This seems to be a “both-sides” post that minimizes the actual harm that one side is doing.

What I said is not even close to a both sides post, but I believe that's how you sincerely see it.

The proper response to these monstrous actions is anger.

I never said otherwise. In fact, I'm angry about it too. I had to calm myself down when talking to a friend about it, because I was getting spitting mad about it and practically yelling in her ear over the phone.

And now you want to regulate how women should feel in response?

No, I don't want to regulate how anyone feels. People need to feel what they feel and we have very little control over what we feel. Everything I have said is specifically about not letting our feelings drive us to stereotype, prejudge or demonize (saying they are all evil) an entire group of people.

You posted in another thread that foreign actors are intentionally trying to turn us against each other and fight each other. Getting us to stereotype, prejudge and demonize entire groups of people is how they get us to turn against each other and fight each other. They prey on our tendency to be tribal. Tribalism is tribalism no matter what tribe one chooses to fight for.

 

[MT15]

You posted in another thread that foreign actors are intentionally trying to turn us against each other and fight each other. Getting us to stereotype, prejudge and demonize entire groups of people is how they get us to turn against each other and fight each other. They prey on our tendency to be tribal. Tribalism is tribalism no matter what tribe one chooses to fight for.

This is why I am pushing back on your narrative. This is certainly misplaced here. My response is anger over documented actions that mysogonistic people are taking. It has nothing to do with any disinformation campaigns whatsoever. Apples and oranges.

And you keep calling my anger at people who are callously disregarding womens’ health and lives stereotyping. Once again, I am not talking about everyone who believes sincerely the propaganda that this mysogonistic movement has produced. I am talking about the men (nearly 100%) who have concocted the idea that women don’t deserve to have reproductive healthcare, and have carried out their evil intentions. They will be responsible for totally preventable deaths. They know this. They don’t care. To me, evil isn’t a stretch here. They probably see the inevitable deaths as collateral in their drive to put women back to a lesser station in life with fewer rights and fewer opportunities than men across the board.

So, even though you may not believe you are trying to regulate how women respond to a denial of their basic rights, that is definitely how it is being perceived, at least by me. We need to be able to identify evil intent when we see it. Call it what it is.

 

[Incumbent]

Pastor at Trump rally tonight: “This election is part of a spiritual battle. There are demonic forces at play. But judgement is coming. When Trump becomes the 47th president, there will retribution against all those who have promoted evil in this country.”

 

[LA - L.A.]

This is why I am pushing back on your narrative.

I'm not telling a narrative. I'm telling you my perspective of what I see as a growing problem in our society

 

[LA - L.A.]

I've heard talk of it on NPR and it's been reported on in local media, though not as much as it has in national media. I haven't heard and discussions or seen anything online from people in my social group (other than me). I have seen no widespread protest or calls for action or even anger at Ken Paxton and the Texas SC. Like I said, it's been a collective myopic response.

A lot of things seem to go that way here in Texas, unless you're talking about guns or the border. It's as if people have been conditioned to react a certain way. Even when you do see anger and an outcry over something, like the Uvalde mass murder, you don't see any change that accompanies it. There has been nothing meaningful done or any consequential reaction at the state level as a result of the Uvalde shooting. It's all just very disheartening and disappointing.

Unfortunately, I don't think that's unique to Texas. People all over the world are overwhelmed and stressed. When we are in that condition our ability to see all of our options shrinks, we are easily distracted and have a more difficult time having empathy for others.

Right now I'm seeing the lowest level of empathy, than I've ever seen before. Not coincidentally, I'm also seeing the highest level of tribalism and antagonism than I've ever seen before. Most people seem to be looking for verbal and physical fights and it's not just on the internet that I'm seeing it. I see verbal and physical confrontations almost every time I'm out in public.

I have a friend who was driving for Uber Eats. She recently quit, because it was rare that she didn't witness people getting into fights when she was picking up orders at restaurants. Fortunately, she didn't see anyone get shot or stabbed, but every day she saw people of all ages and genders yelling and/or taking swings at each other.