Roe vs Wade overturned

[Kaitzilla]

In the past, many pro choice voters may have not bothered too much what
happened at the state level because they understood Roe v Wade prevailed.

Now the Supreme Court has decided that it is for the legislatures, abortion
will suddenly becomes the key deciding issue in many/most state elections.

But I do not know how this may impact the mid-term US federal elections.

I would think the very first effect will be how many prosecuting attorneys at the city level vow not to enforce their states abortion ban.

They are elected officials and I imagine many will value upholding the public trust over obeying the law, especially if their city will reward them at the ballot box.


Then it will be a test if the state attorney general has enough resources to go after all the women across their state.

After that is jury nullification, so getting a trial in the city will be key.

That's my keyboard warrior take.

*Edit*
They will go after providers first, I forgot.
Hmm

I do think it will affect elections.
Even Trump knows it.

It never mattered until yesterday, and now it very much does.
I agree with you there.

 

[JollyRoger]

Given that many state now will have the same stance on abortion as the Palestinians and Israel still allows it for the mental or physical health of the woman, I am assuming the Handmaid states will switch sides in that conflict.

 

[Birdjaguar]

If they don't bother to track down drug buyers so tightly, I see no reason to fear of such persecutions over illegal abortions.

Zealots would much rather go after errant women than spend the efforts to curb drug dealers. Poor women are easier targets and less likely to use guns

 

[Hygro]

When we compared Trump to a Latin American dictator, I didn’t think it included criminalizing abortion.

 

[João III]

Politically, the Dems gain motivated single-issue voters, and the Republicans lose motivated single issue voters. Energy level is gonna shift now. Might matter, margin of victory in competitive states is frequently less than 2%.

Conversely, perhaps the Republicans will feel emboldened and the Democrats defeated? Probably just have to wait & see how midterms turn out, which are both soon and far off

babies aren't in the Constitution either, can the govt make women have abortions?

I believe Buck v. Bell is still the law of the land so why not?

 

[Samson]

I believe Buck v. Bell is still the law of the land so why not?

That is so messed up. It almost seems surprising which side they were on in the next war.

We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.​

 

[EnglishEdward]

I would think the very first effect will be how many prosecuting attorneys at the city level vow not to enforce their states abortion ban.

In my opinion they might dissent from prosecuting individual women undergoing abortions,
but I doubt that many would dissent from prosecuting abortion clinics in their cities.

 

[innonimatu]

Yeah it's not like we have a Constitution that gives absurd levels of veto power over any national legislative act to a small minority of the population or anything

That's a shoddy excuse for not facing reality. The problem is not the political system itself, it's the politics. What you suffer from is massive political corruption, being led by the nose by two parties of oligarchs.
If a small minority of the population could block political changes, how did Carter and Reagan unmade the New Deal arrangements? Why didn't a small minority succeed in blocking those changes?
Because even back in the late 70s you had already had oligarchs capturing both parties. That's a failure of politics, and it happened before outright political corruption was "legalized". After 50 years of "good cop bad cop" acts, you are still falling for it - you probably still wish to believe that somehow Biden is better that Trump!

 

[Samson]

That's a shoddy excuse for not facing reality. The problem is not the political system itself, it's the politics. What you suffer from is massive political corruption, being led by the nose by two parties of oligarchs.
If a small minority of the population could block political changes, how did Carter and Reagan unmade the New Deal arrangements? Why didn't a small minority succeed in blocking those changes?
Because even back in the late 70s you had already had oligarchs capturing both parties. That's a failure of politics, and it happened before outright political corruption was "legalized". After 50 years of "good cop bad cop" acts, you are still falling for it - you probably still wish to believe that somehow Biden is better that Trump!

Because the small minority that live in empty states wanted that stuff. There clearly is a rich mine of political corruption being exploited by both parties, but the votes given to arbitrary divisions of land helps the right get their corrupt politicians to do what they want more than the left can get from their corrupt politicians.

 

[Birdjaguar]

That's a shoddy excuse for not facing reality. The problem is not the political system itself, it's the politics. What you suffer from is massive political corruption, being led by the nose by two parties of oligarchs.
If a small minority of the population could block political changes, how did Carter and Reagan unmade the New Deal arrangements? Why didn't a small minority succeed in blocking those changes?
Because even back in the late 70s you had already had oligarchs capturing both parties. That's a failure of politics, and it happened before outright political corruption was "legalized". After 50 years of

Politics of all kinds everywhere has always been corrupted, messy, deadly, influenced by the powerful, biased against the poor and weak. It has never mattered which "system" is in place. Bad people do bad things; better people do less harm and more good.

 

[innonimatu]

Because the small minority that live in empty states wanted that stuff. There clearly is a rich mine of political corruption being exploited by both parties, but the votes given to arbitrary divisions of land helps the right get their corrupt politicians to do what they want more than the left can get from their corrupt politicians.

The small minority that live in empty states are mostly relatively poor, are they not? Even mocked for being "backwards". I have been taking it that we're talking about the senate feature of the US system. The senate has been elected for a long time. Why don't trust-busters get elected now? They were in the past. People who opposed the growth of power of big corporations, who correctly pointed of an oligarchy developing, of power being bought, have held seats on the senate. I'm not even american but I've read about those fights. They went on through most of the 20th century. There was a gilded ate at the end of the 19th was there not? When most senators were appointed even, and still the influence of the oligarchs could be somewhat rolled back through political action.

Ask why is that political action failing now. and then take corrective action. It's not due to the system. It's due to people being in denial of what is not working - the supposedly left-wing party is now more right-wing now than the right-wing party, it became the party of the oligarchs allied with the security state. Either do a third party or take over the republicans and then set to shut the democrats out of any power until they're unmade and the do a new party. Like Labour in the UK, they're irredeemable. Can only be shut down and replaced with something new and clean (er).

 

[Samson]

Pickup truck drives into protestors

If it was a Muslim, it would be called terrorism by everyone. I cannot find one article that describes it as such.

A truck drove into a group of pro-choice protesters in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, on Friday, leading to at least one woman being hospitalized.
The group of mostly women protesters was demonstrating against the landmark Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade when an unidentified man driving a black Ford truck drove into them.
The truck rolled over one woman's ankle and led to her going to the hospital, witnesses told The Huffington Post.
In videos of the incident, protesters can be seen trying to stand in the car's way and shouting at the driver to stop. He accelerates and a protester is knocked to the ground.
​

 

[EnglishEdward]

I looked at the link.

Russell said she tried to stop the truck by grabbing the steering wheel, fell over, and was injured when the driver sped off.

Not a good idea.

Woman grabbed my arm once while I was reversing out of my drive onto the road.
(She had moved in, and wanted to talk about the arrangements for black refuse bins.)

So it is an instant unconscious decision for me.

As it was, I braked; but others fearing a heist may not.

 

[El_Machinae]

Not a good idea.

Bravery usually isn't

 

[Zardnaar]

That's a shoddy excuse for not facing reality. The problem is not the political system itself, it's the politics. What you suffer from is massive political corruption, being led by the nose by two parties of oligarchs.
If a small minority of the population could block political changes, how did Carter and Reagan unmade the New Deal arrangements? Why didn't a small minority succeed in blocking those changes?
Because even back in the late 70s you had already had oligarchs capturing both parties. That's a failure of politics, and it happened before outright political corruption was "legalized". After 50 years of "good cop bad cop" acts, you are still falling for it - you probably still wish to believe that somehow Biden is better that Trump!

The people who would stop it got annihilated at the elections in the 70's.

Blowback over the Vietnam war. Then US got Reagan.

12 years of liberal presidents from 68-2008 iirc. 8 of them were Clinton.

Hence the Dems more or less had to swing to the center enabling the oligarchs.

It's a big problem in US elections. Not enough social democrats types let alone in the right places.

 

[Gorbles]

the supposedly left-wing party is now more right-wing now than the right-wing party

Yeah, nah.

I mean, you're right insofar as "supposedly left-wing" is correct (given the Overton window in the US and how people perceive the political spectrum there), but using that to then go "the Democrats are more right-wing than the Republicans" is just . . . lol. Feel free to criticise the Democrats, but to go "shut them down and replace them with something else to beat the Republicans" leaves the Republicans themselves sitting pretty for that time.

 

[João III]

That is so messed up. It almost seems surprising which side they were on in the next war.

Even with the war before I sometimes wonder how things might've been different had the Kaiser not antagonised the US

 

[Samson]

Yeah, nah.

I mean, you're right insofar as "supposedly left-wing" is correct (given the Overton window in the US and how people perceive the political spectrum there), but using that to then go "the Democrats are more right-wing than the Republicans" is just . . . lol. Feel free to criticise the Democrats, but to go "shut them down and replace them with something else to beat the Republicans" leaves the Republicans themselves sitting pretty for that time.

It depends what you mean. It used to mean the right wing was free marketeer, and Trump (and BoJo) was (is) much more merchantist than Biden (Starmer).

 

[Gorbles]

It depends what you mean. It used to mean the right wing was free marketeer, and Trump (and BoJo) was (is) much more merchantist than Biden (Starmer).

I was talking about the parties more than their specific leaders at any given time (though it bears noting that people like McConnell have been around decades).

Certainly, I don't think inno meant anything more than "Democrats bad", because something something "oligarchy" (like that isn't a bipartisan thing anyway).

 

[Kyriakos]

With Biden's underwhelming stance on the issue, is it likely that there will be riots (also) against him?
It doesn't make much sense to riot against the supreme court, since they are installed and there for life (?), but an administration has to at least cater to its voters (not just pay lip service).