Do Republicans appreciate what losing Roe V Wade will do to them?

[pecksniff]

I am convinced that practically nobody in America is sincerely "pro-life." Nobody who contests the abortion issue really gives a rat's ass for the life of any fetus. It only remains alive as a culture-war issue to fight -- a position to hold as long as possible before falling back.

 

[Tigersman]

States will decide

As they should

No man should ever be allowed to vote or pass any law governing a woman's reproductive system unless he is willing to be snipped.

 

[Escierto]

Republicans appreciate it as the chance to have the white Christian republic they have always dreamed of. It’s way past time for secession! An independent Pacific nation and an independent Atlantic nation and let all the white trash in the middle go to hell.

 

[Tigersman]

The vast majority of Americans have never seen a DIY abortion or a back alley abortion. All they have ever seen is pictures of ultrasound fetuses. I've seen a young woman sitting on the edge of a bed with her dress pulled up to her waist, her legs spread wide while using a knitting needle to give herself an abortion. Another tidbit to think about is the age of puberty. According to what Pediatricians have been seeing with our children for over the last two decades or longer, the children are experiencing puberty as early as eight years old. This means a girl could get pregnant at age eight. The problem with that is her uterus would not be mature enough to carry a baby to full term or safely. There would be high odds the pregnancy would destroy the uterus, rendering her sterile. Our stupid lawmakers never think about this or that the pregnancy could kill the girl.

 

[Chernosoth]

There are many aspects of this clusterfuck that will build for at least years, maybe decades. The covid shots can damage ovaries and cause birth defects, miscarriages, intertility, and many more hazards in pregnancy. Many women with defective fetuses may want abortions, or need them to survive vaxed conditions. Infertile women may want all abortions banned. And then there's our foster care system, which may be more death sentence than child care. Meanwhile, the rising cost of energy hits everything: imported food, fertilizer, homegrown food, etc. The nation is struggling to feed itself now.

 

[pecksniff]

The vast majority of Americans have never seen a DIY abortion or a back alley abortion.

If not, they will eventually. Rule 34.

 

[icanhelp1]

The vast majority of Americans have never seen a DIY abortion or a back alley abortion. All they have ever seen is pictures of ultrasound fetuses. I've seen a young woman sitting on the edge of a bed with her dress pulled up to her waist, her legs spread wide while using a knitting needle to give herself an abortion. Another tidbit to think about is the age of puberty. According to what Pediatricians have been seeing with our children for over the last two decades or longer, the children are experiencing puberty as early as eight years old. This means a girl could get pregnant at age eight. The problem with that is her uterus would not be mature enough to carry a baby to full term or safely. There would be high odds the pregnancy would destroy the uterus, rendering her sterile. Our stupid lawmakers never think about this or that the pregnancy could kill the girl.

I'd be more concerned with a criminal prosecution. I'm sure that child would get all the medical attention that she needed and required. What a drama queen!

 

[anarchoMando]

States will decide

As they should

No, the people should decide not the state, fuck the state and it's Monopoly on violence


As far as I'm concerned it should be a general vote. The infrastructure should be placed in such a way so that everybody has a say This concerns everybody.

Not a tiny dick minority that wants to keep women's rights at Bay like you

 

[pecksniff]

No, the people should decide not the state, fuck the state and it's Monopoly on violence


As far as I'm concerned it should be a general vote.

That's as much as to say the state should decide the matter -- whichever way the people vote for. That's democracy, as opposed to anarchy.

 

[anarchoMando]

That's as much as to say the state should decide the matter -- whichever way the people vote for. That's democracy, as opposed to anarchy.

No I mean everybody, fuck it as the majority populations California should have the right to use its big dick population to crush tiny dick populations like Wisconsin


Fuck this federalization crap

I mean everybody in the US should have a equal vote in this matter one person each should get one vote, even the minorities all of them all the refugees all of the"illegal immigrants"(undocumented human beings.)


California , who's population holds more than Canada and then some. Should have more of a say as its population is far bigger than tiny old Montana.
New York should have a bigger say in the matter than little old Ohio.

I want those dense Urban cities to truly swing the vote because that's how it should be.


Democracy is one person one vote

Anarchy is no ruler, it is not chaotic
it is no hierarchy
If everybody equally is voting, then there is no ruler and thus Anarchy and democracy are the same at its core.
Oligarchy is multiple rulers
Monarchy is singular ruler
Anarchy is no ruler,
Liberal Republican democracy is not a full-fledged democracy. Not true freedom



View attachment 2147027


View attachment 2147028

 

[pecksniff]

No I mean everybody, fuck it as the majority populations California should have the right to use its big dick population to crush tiny dick populations like Wisconsin

Well, that's a completely different usage of the word "state."

 

[anarchoMando]

Well, that's a completely different usage of the word "state."

Yes I used stayed as a statecraft


But the population of California is the size of Canada it's people should not be worth less than those of Wisconsin in terms of population

 

[Chobham]

Some thoughts before this thread goes entirely off the rails Ogg.

Perhaps it's a good thing that this provisional decision was leaked now. Most of the sound and fury will have dissipated in a month or two. Of course the 'bitter ender's' will still be up in arms but the reality that the court returned the choice to the voter will sink in.

Peckersniff, and others, have posted polls showing that ~80% of the voters support abortion. This is true............to a point. When broken down the polls show that support for abortion in the first trimester is 70-80%. In the second trimester that support falls to the 50% +/- level and support for abortion in the third trimester is in the 20-30% level. These poll results have been fairly consistent since the 1990's.

Every year reputable pollsters interrogate the public about their biggest concerns. Abortion has never made it to the top ten (neither has climate change). There is no doubt that the democrats are going to try to make as much political hay out of this as possible, the fact remains that they are, for the most part, preaching to the choir.

Under 'conspiracy theories' a friend posited the notion that these 'protests' may backfire on the inflamed. The theory goes that one, or more, of the 'progressive' justices may join with the majority (provisional) in order to signal that the court can't be coerced. Do I believe that? No. But it is an interesting thought.

 

[pecksniff]

Some thoughts before this thread goes entirely off the rails Ogg.

Perhaps it's a good thing that this provisional decision was leaked now. Most of the sound and fury will have dissipated in a month or two. Of course the 'bitter ender's' will still be up in arms but the reality that the court returned the choice to the voter will sink in.

Peckersniff, and others, have posted polls showing that ~80% of the voters support abortion. This is true............to a point. When broken down the polls show that support for abortion in the first trimester is 70-80%. In the second trimester that support falls to the 50% +/- level and support for abortion in the third trimester is in the 20-30% level. These poll results have been fairly consistent since the 1990's.

Those polls, then, are consistent with Roe.

The Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the three trimesters of pregnancy: during the first trimester, governments could not prohibit abortions at all; during the second trimester, governments could require reasonable health regulations; during the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when they were necessary to save the life or health of the mother.[5]

So why mess with Roe? It propounds a rule in accordance with what the people want.

 

[JohnEngelman]

The Roe vs Wade decision of 1973 was good for the Republicans. Its reversal will be good for the Democrats. For most Americans abortion is not the most important issue. For a minority large enough to determine many electoral areas, it is the most important issue. As long as abortion was off the table of electoral politics pro abortion people who agreed with the GOP on economic issues could vote Republican safe with the knowledge that abortion would be legal if they wanted one. These people are likely to shift to the Democrats.

Many anti abortion activists seem ready to over play their hand. There is talk of making abortion illegal, even in the case of rape or incest, at the national level. Recently I read about one Republican politician who wanted to make having an abortion become homicide.

Nevertheless, pro abortion activists may over play their hand too with disruptive and destructive demonstrations. Most Americans react against those who engage in political violence.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Those polls, then, are consistent with Roe.

So why mess with Roe? It propounds a rule in accordance with what the people want.

The religious right has been a constituency that has been important to Republican electoral victories. For religious right people ending abortion has been the most important issue.

 

[pecksniff]

Nevertheless, pro abortion activists may over play their hand too with disruptive and destructive demonstrations.

They are certainly more sinned against than sinning in that regard.

 

[neuroparenthetical]

No sensible women would marry a man from that state.

Most people aren't sensible. It requires a massive, coordinated, conscientious, and continuous investment of resources to create and maintain a mostly-sensible populace. The U.S. has 1.5 out of 2 relevant political parties that aren't willing to do what it takes. One of them is all-in on doing literally exactly the opposite, and they've been succeeding beyond their wildest dreams for decades - centuries, really.

The Trump wing's spiritual and actual ancestors presided over a coordinated effort to make and keep an entire segment of the population stupid, ignorant, passive, and infected by Stockholm Syndrome while successfully having them labeled as property, rather than people. They never really gave up on doing it, even after it became technically illegal. They're big fans of doing something similar to women, to whatever extent they can get away with it.

The Bush wing, meanwhile, has nothing but contempt for the majority of the populace. They hate the Trump wing, probably more than they hate most Democratic voters. They absolutely wish that the Trump wing wasn't even allowed to vote. They just put up with them because they can vote - for now - and are willing to cast those votes in favor of greedy oligarchic bullshit. They're much more "enlightened" about the value of importing low-cost labor from other countries, but they have no interest in truly elevating the 99% (or 99.9%, or wherever you'd like to draw the line.)

Margaret Atwood had the right of it, I'm afraid. A huge chunk of women will simply fall in line. I don't think Roe being overturned is going to tip the scales away from the GOP - at least not to any meaningful extent.

 

[YDB95]

Row v Wade was fine for many years but some states took it too far and allowed the murdering of babies ready to be born

Show us where that has ever happened.

One FM legislation would allow a baby to be aborted when the mother is pushing and changed her mind and doesn’t want it and yes she is a Democrat

Nope.

 

[Veroe]

I was watching a podcast clip where they were saying that getting SCOTUS to overturn Roe had the potential of splitting the conservative coalition between the religious right which will pressure GOP politicians to ban abortion both federally and in the states and the larger group more animated by open borders or being anti-PC but doesn't really care about banning abortion the same way. They used alot of different polling data to support all that btw.

Now I don't know about any of that. To me sitting on the left side of the aisle the right seems pretty much galvanized in solidarity by whatever culture war boogeyman gets them obsessed with from week to week.

 

[Chernosoth]

Now in some states they want to ban contraceptives. Red state moves may cost them seats in purple states.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Now in some states they want to ban contraceptives. Red state moves may cost them seats in purple states.

FACT CHECK: 4 Pinocchios

No state is considering a ban on contraceptives. There are many forms of contraception, including condoms, vasectomies, spermicides, birth control pills, patches, diaphragm, rings, Morning After pills, and IUDs. One state (Louisiana) has a bill in the legislature that if passed, would ban IUDs and Morning After pills. The bill has not made it out of the state House of Representatives and probably never will. It is opposed not only by pro-choice groups - it is also by the leading anti-abortion group in the state.

 

[ll74]

FACT CHECK: 4 Pinocchios

No state is considering a ban on contraceptives. There are many forms of contraception, including condoms, vasectomies, spermicides, birth control pills, patches, diaphragm, rings, Morning After pills, and IUDs. One state (Louisiana) has a bill in the legislature that if passed, would ban IUDs and Morning After pills. The bill has not made it out of the state House of Representatives and probably never will. It is opposed not only by pro-choice groups - it is also by the leading anti-abortion group in the state.

The bill passed the Louisiana house committee 7-2 and therefore is being considered.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

The bill passed the Louisiana house committee 7-2 and therefore is being considered.

I referenced the Louisiana bill. It has not passed the House and probably won’t since even the state’s largest anti-abortion group opposes it. And it does not “ban contraceptives.” Birth control pills, condoms, spermicides, patches, diaphragms, vasectomies and most other forms of contraceptives would not be banned. Just IUDs and morning after pills. No state in the country is even remotely close to banning contraceptives.

 

[HisArpy]

The bill passed the Louisiana house committee 7-2 and therefore is being considered.

It passed out of a La House Committee, not the La House itself. It will be debated and likely not passed. IF passed, it will go to the La Senate where it will be debated and not won't be passed. If for some reason it manages that, and manages to be signed into law, it runs squarely into more SCOTUS precedent which is strongly grounded in the 4th Amendment. A grounding which Roe didn't have (but should have) and a reversal of which eviscerates the 4th Amendment in its entirety.

So...

Any narrative about conservatives banning contraceptives is just scaremongering as a technique to try and move the goalposts about Roe.