Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights per draft opinion (Update: Dobbs opinion official) (2 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Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.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.

 

[Crzycjunx76]

Just got an email from my director. I work for a very large company, and my org is nation wide. It appears to only be office employees in my org that are included from what I can tell.

The message from the director was very thinly veiled. It was announcing they were providing "training" for women "in need" at certain locations (in very blue states). Trainings would be every 3rd monday and only be two days of in office time, but the company would cover the weeks travel expenses... to avoid "unnecessarialy stressful turnaround times" and weekend airline ticket costs.

The rest of the org was asked to curtail unnecessary business travel to allow for this increased travel expense, and a informal volunteer "hospatility" group is being formed to help traveling "trainees" feel "comfortable and supported" staying a week in another state.

The directors email closed by stating that given the importance of this "training" she was confident the policy would not be abused.

 

[Farb]

Maybe the reason the poster is asking you is because you have demontrated on multiple occasions that you have youre own set of definitions for alot of things.

You mean like 'woman'? Any other examples?
Come on, in todays world, do you need a definition to know what a drag queen is? Look at any child show on Disney+ or child related cable channels. If you want to really get a good look, go down the library or to your local school board meetings and you can see one dancing in person. Brave. You can usually find them where children are present as well lately.

 

[J-DONK]

Just got an email from my director. I work for a very large company, and my org is nation wide. It appears to only be office employees in my org that are included from what I can tell.

The message from the director was very thinly veiled. It was announcing they were providing "training" for women "in need" at certain locations (in very blue states). Trainings would be every 3rd monday and only be two days of in office time, but the company would cover the weeks travel expenses... to avoid "unnecessarialy stressful turnaround times" and weekend airline ticket costs.

The rest of the org was asked to curtail unnecessary business travel to allow for this increased travel expense, and a informal volunteer "hospatility" group is being formed to help traveling "trainees" feel "comfortable and supported" staying a week in another state.

The directors email closed by stating that given the importance of this "training" she was confident the policy would not be abused.

There is probably going to be a lot of this. From a pure productivity standpoint, they have far more incentive to keep the women in their work force child free.

 

[Optimus Prime]

There is probably going to be a lot of this. From a pure productivity standpoint, they have far more incentive to keep the women in their work force child free.

That’s kind of a cynical take

 

[Taurus]

Why do I feel like you are perfectly capable of understanding these terms or at the least looking them up? If I need to define drag queen to you then why bother with this discussion, do a little education and come back to me on this.

Because in order to discuss it, I have to know what "Drag queen" means TO YOU. Especially in the context of a minor.

 

[superchuck500]

That’s kind of a cynical take

He's not wrong though - but of course there are other reasons why a company would have that kind of policy.

It's interesting to me that a very large company would issue that right away - did company counsel review it?

But definitely that's going to be where the rubber meets the road here. It will remain fairly easy for a woman to go to another state to get an abortion, especially when that abortion is done by pill and doesn't even require a medical procedure. Anti-abortion states will try to limit this in different ways but I don't see how they can.

Of course, the people who can't afford to travel will end up being the most impacted . . . like they always are. And those people are the ones most reliant on state programs to help with pregnancy and neo-natal care and I guarantee you that if you line up the states that will enact strong abortion prohibitions, they are invariably the worst states for women's and infant healthcare.

 

[Taurus]

Well, it's interesting that several companies have already stated today that they will pay for transportation costs to go get an abortion in a neighboring state. So, who you work for will matter if this is important to you.

Also, I don't know how many people will do this, but I suspect we'll see people moving from one state to another over this also.

That's the plan.

With the census completed, it'll be ten years before Congressional or Electoral allocation can change. Meaning the R states are free to force out every moderate/progressive/Democrat they can and reap the benefits of increased representation.
Given 8 years of unfettered gerrymandering/vote suppression/state-level voting apparatus control, the Republican party can guarantee itself control of America for the foreseeable future despite an ever-dwindling percentage of support from the general population.
It's brilliant. Evil and un-American, but brilliant.

 

[superchuck500]

That's the plan.

With the census completed, it'll be ten years before Congressional or Electoral allocation can change. Meaning the R states are free to force out every moderate/progressive/Democrat they can and reap the benefits of increased representation.
Given 8 years of unfettered gerrymandering/vote suppression/state-level voting apparatus control, the Republican party can guarantee itself control of America for the foreseeable future despite an ever-dwindling percentage of support from the general population.
It's brilliant. Evil and un-American, but brilliant.

I really don't think people are going to move to another state based on abortion laws - at least not enough to have a demographic impact. It's much cheaper and easier to just travel to the other state if you need an abortion.

 

[Taurus]

I really don't think people are going to move to another state based on abortion laws - at least not enough to have a demographic impact. It's much cheaper and easier to just travel to the other state if you need an abortion.

Some will move out. Some will decide not to move in. As we saw in 2000 and 2016, it only takes a few thousand voters in the right place to determine who's President.

Also, it's not just abortion. It's also legal protections for LGBTQ and other minorities, gun control, etc. If this open hostility toward anyone not in step with the SWC agenda nudges the voter rolls by just a few thousand, a purple state turns red. Once red, a whole slew of options become available to ensure it stays red.

 

[superchuck500]

They're already making June 24 a holiday in Texas.

 

[J-DONK]

That’s kind of a cynical take

Not really, you can google the motherhood penalty.

 

[DaveXA]

I really don't think people are going to move to another state based on abortion laws - at least not enough to have a demographic impact. It's much cheaper and easier to just travel to the other state if you need an abortion.

I agree, but I do think some will move more out of principle than anything else. But I also think other considerations might ultimately keep them from moving, i.e. job, family etc. I do think some might move if they know a potential employer in another state aligns with their values.

 

[Crzycjunx76]

Apparently it is not just our department and it is a temporary thing pending a broader official iniative. The company is drafting a comprehensive abortion medical and travel coverage benefit. Just saw it on the company wide employee portal.

 

[DaveXA]

They're already making June 24 a holiday in Texas.

I'm looking for my not shocked face.

 

[J-DONK]

I agree, but I do think some will move more out of principle than anything else. But I also think other considerations might ultimately keep them from moving, i.e. job, family etc. I do think some might move if they know a potential employer in another state aligns with their values.

My question is what happens when companies advertise "interstate contraception".

 

[DaveXA]

He's not wrong though - but of course there are other reasons why a company would have that kind of policy.

It's interesting to me that a very large company would issue that right away - did company counsel review it?

But definitely that's going to be where the rubber meets the road here. It will remain fairly easy for a woman to go to another state to get an abortion, especially when that abortion is done by pill and doesn't even require a medical procedure. Anti-abortion states will try to limit this in different ways but I don't see how they can.

Of course, the people who can't afford to travel will end up being the most impacted . . . like they always are. And those people are the ones most reliant on state programs to help with pregnancy and neo-natal care and I guarantee you that if you line up the states that will enact strong abortion prohibitions, they are invariably the worst states for women's and infant healthcare.

I think they likely had this in place because the draft of the decision was released early. My guess is they used that draft to develop a policy based on the court actually going with the drafted opinion. Just a thought.

 

[DaveXA]

My question is what happens when companies advertise "interstate contraception".

I don't think they're going to advertise it with wording that would give it away like that. As pointed out by another poster, they'll dress it up as something else. Understandable.

 

[superchuck500]

My question is what happens when companies advertise "interstate contraception".

That's certainly where it gets tricky and why I was wondering about whether counsel had reviewed that announcement.

If the company has a presence in a state that criminalizes abortion and, critically, criminalizes aiding in a person getting an abortion, there's some real jeopardy there that the company or the in-state personnel that assist in arranging the woman's travel could face charges. And I don't think that's easily avoided by calling it "training."

It still raises the same free movement and privileges/immunities questions that I think are really interesting. Namely, how can it be illegal to help someone exercise their right to travel and to engage in legal conduct in another state? But at the same time, if the person (or the company - as companies can face criminal charges) knows the purpose of the travel is to get an abortion and the assisting in obtaining the travel occurs in the state where aiding an abortion is a crime, that might still be problematic.