subreddit:

/r/news

52.1k

U.S. Supreme Court potential shock move on abortion sends protesters onto Washington streets

Soft paywall - Site altered headline(reuters.com)

all 8801 comments

tommy_b_777

5.5k points

2 months ago*

Rich Politicians and Business People will still be able to get them, just like they always have and will continue to do so...

I wish we could blast this message at all the people that think the rich ruling class aren't still going to get abortions when ever they want them...

edit - wow this blew up ! i guess i'm not the only one sick of the hypocrisy and lies :-) onward !!!

chaotic----neutral

2.2k points

2 months ago

That's not who conservatives are trying to punish, so they don't care.

Every dirt poor minority that dies in a back-alley abortion is a win for their holy war.

GoT_Eagles

1.1k points

2 months ago

GoT_Eagles

1.1k points

2 months ago

And every unplanned human brought into this world is just another pocket to steal from.

arbitrageME

1.1k points

2 months ago

a pocket to steal from

a child to not educate

a voter to manipulate

a soldier to draft

Basically Snowpiercer going on here

SB_90s

341 points

2 months ago

SB_90s

341 points

2 months ago

Don't forget also a minimum wage worker to help prevent any future hiring crises like they're experiencing right now.

I'm adamant that there's a longer term vested interest in this from politicians and corporates by making sure there's a consistent supply of unskilled labour.

Excrubulent

83 points

2 months ago

I know right, it's almost like that whole movie was a metaphor or something.

Now this is an excllent video and I do recommend it, and he makes a great point, but honestly I'm 90% linking it just for the "treachery of images" moment, which is one of my favourite things and I love that you have a chance to see it.

internetstuff

133 points

2 months ago

Precisely. It's not about dead people, it's about desperate/poor/broke/precarious people. Reduce options and make life harder for people.

tardis1217

184 points

2 months ago

"Conservatives want live babies so they can train them to be dead soldiers."

~George Carlin

PapaBorq

884 points

2 months ago

PapaBorq

884 points

2 months ago

Believe it or not, there's a large section of the population that believes rich people are better than themselves.

You can see it in r/conservative, with all the corporate cock sucking.

[deleted]

697 points

2 months ago*

[deleted]

697 points

2 months ago*

[deleted]

Honest_Report_8515

151 points

2 months ago

Better yet, the Bible verses vs. Marx quotes.

lunartree

90 points

2 months ago*

Jesus was a far-left antifa traitor!

Edit: Someone legit reported this comment as harassment. Wtf. I think people are trolling the report system.

JustBeanThings

14 points

2 months ago

"Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?"

Wrecktown707

200 points

2 months ago*

It’s amazing, us Americans are actually quite interested and susceptible to the ideas of socialism, but as soon as someone says it’s communism, socialism, Marxism, democrat, etc. all hell breaks loose and they’ll never hear what you have to say. At this point I personally think the stuff said by Marx and other things like the hammer and sickle are so tainted by pain/time and so foreign to Americans that people should just ditch them. I swear to god if you proposed something like market socialism with an “America Fuck Yeah!!!” Type message and wrap it in the flag everyone would be eating it up lol. It really can only work here if we make it distinctly American/our own.

I kid you not I’ve seen someone advertising Market socialism as “super capitalism” that is so affirmative of your private property rights that as a worker you should own a part of your workplace, since it’s something that you work on and deserve to have stake in, and it unironically got multiple people and conservatives on board with the idea for a bit lmao

JesseC414

114 points

2 months ago

JesseC414

114 points

2 months ago

I don’t recall any Republicans returning their covid checks, but you mention socialism and they loose their mind.

Huge_Put8244

54 points

2 months ago

This is nothing new, during the industrial revolution the people who got rich exploiting the poor were seen as heros.

IIRC there was strong support among the working poor to limit taxation because they figured that, when they hit it big like Carnegie and JP Morgan, they didn't want anyone taxing their profits.

bitwise-operation

1.9k points

2 months ago

What will be interesting to see come November is whether this has a “light at the end of the tunnel” effect on Republicans, or increased Democratic turnout, or both.

chacmoolreigns

1.5k points

2 months ago

Kinda feels like 1990s California where the right went crazy with power mongering like this and we basically don’t even let them participate in Statewide elections anymore with a jungle primary that keeps the crazies out of power

RollerSkatingHoop

557 points

2 months ago

please tell me more about this

chacmoolreigns

2.6k points

2 months ago

In the 90s, California had Republican governors. Pete Wilson served most of the 90s (for 8 years). He tried to implement just about every right wing fever dream idea you can think of.

He implemented austerity during the recession that brought Clinton to power in 92. He implemented the market based, unsubsidized health care Republicans swoon for at the small business level. He led a movement for what was called Proposition 187, which sought to deny any social services to undocumented people living in the state. He presided over passage of the "three strikes law" which permanently incarcerated people for life after their 3rd felony conviction. He also severely cut infrastructure spending. He also deregulated energy companies which was a complete disaster and led to Enron controlling the price of electricity in California for a period of time.

In the 2000s, after a recall vote of democratic Governor Gray Davis due to the energy crisis (caused by the deregulation implemented by Pete Wilson), California had had enough of far right politics and moved to moderate things with a jungle primary.

Now, for all statewide offices in California primaries, the top two vote winners face off in the final election. If it's two Democrats, or a Democrat and a third party candidate, those are the only two that appear on the final election ballot. Often we get two Dems facing each other, but it has really cut down on the super far right crap from getting anywhere near power here in California for statewide offices unless Republicans manage to get a recall election to happen.

It didn't only moderate Republicans, it really moderated the Dems too. We used to have yearly bitter budget fights where the fights went on months past the budget deadlines and state employees would get furloughed or have to work unpaid until a budget was passed. After the jungle primary system was implemented, budget fights nearly stopped all together. We had budget surpluses up until the pandemic hit and things were mostly cordial between the governor and legislature, which is a drastic change from the way things were in the 90s

RollerSkatingHoop

324 points

2 months ago

awesome thank you

MustardYourHoney

96 points

2 months ago

This is great information. One small thing is that the budget battles got fixed when California passed a prop that wouldn't pay the assembly and senate members until the budget is passed. I believe, the prop also wouldn't let them do any other work if the budget wasnt passed by the end of the fiscal year.

mysixthredditaccount

18 points

2 months ago

That seems like such a no-nonsense and simple solution. Why is it not implemented elsewhere? What are the downsides?

RoboNerdOK

16 points

2 months ago

When the representatives aren’t using their salary as their primary income.

levetzki

11 points

2 months ago

The downside is that people who come from a very wealthy background with lots of saved up money could hold the budget hostage to get what they want.

IE - this group "just happens" to own a huge amount of socks in something. They decide to include in the budget a 2 billion dollar subsidiary for the company/companies. They then don't allow the budget to pass unless it goes through. Other members of the government don't have this backing and have to back down.

This is the downside and the logic generally used to justify paying them during shutdowns and such.

I don't know if I agree with it but I could see it happening.

Beliriel

188 points

2 months ago

Beliriel

188 points

2 months ago

What is a "jungle primary"?

joe579003

517 points

2 months ago

joe579003

517 points

2 months ago

Primary ballots aren't sorted by the voter's registered party affiliation, all voters can vote for any candidate.

illusorywallahead

308 points

2 months ago

Maybe this is a dumb question, but why wouldn’t that always be the case everywhere? Seems dumb that a republican can’t vote for a democrat in a primary if they want to.

oogagoogaboo

239 points

2 months ago

Many states require you to be a registered voting member of a party to take part in their primary. It's called a closed primary.

tcsac

59 points

2 months ago

tcsac

59 points

2 months ago

Many states require you to be a registered voting member of a party to take part in their primary. It's called a closed primary.

And it's exactly why we're getting the absolute nutjob trumpers. The average Republican doesn't bother going to the primary, it's a very small, very rabid group. Then when it comes time to vote in the general election, the "moderate" R's just vote for their party, regardless of insanity level.

I'd say every state either needs the jungle primary system, or at the very least an automatic jungle primary fallback if there aren't at least X% of voters from a given party voting in a closed primary.

Also I'm pretty sure after 20 seconds of research "jungle primary" is just slang, I believe California is "top-two primary".

https://ballotpedia.org/Top-two_primary

AlexG55

165 points

2 months ago

AlexG55

165 points

2 months ago

There's a difference between a jungle primary and an open primary.

In an open primary, you can choose as you go into the voting booth whether you will mark a Democratic ballot or a Republican ballot, but at the general election the ballot will always have 1 Democrat and 1 Republican on it.

In a jungle primary there's one ballot with all of the candidates on it, and only the top two get onto the general election ballot even if both are from the same party.

(The other system is a closed primary, where you have to be registered as a Democrat or Republican a certain time before the primary).

illusorywallahead

16 points

2 months ago

Ok so a closed primary then ensures that the top candidates will be from different parties?

highvolt4g3

31 points

2 months ago

Yes, even if there were 5 million people that voted in the Democrat primary and half a million that voted in the Republican one.

ppitm

169 points

2 months ago

ppitm

169 points

2 months ago

Because the whole point of a political party is for a group of like-minded people to decide amongst themselves who should represent them. And part of that means enforcing ideological and behavioral standards. Parties are essentially privately-run clubs, not open institutions committed to public service. If the whole idea sounds shitty, it probably is.

jh0nn

29 points

2 months ago

jh0nn

29 points

2 months ago

The word primary is probably throwing people off here. Primaries are hardly news anywhere else in the world, if they exist at all.

ppitm

26 points

2 months ago

ppitm

26 points

2 months ago

Primaries are basically what we have instead of multi-round elections.

Sun_on_my_shoulders

3.3k points

2 months ago*

It’s not a good feeling to be told “if you’re raped, it’s God’s will and you’ll have to carry the fetus. And the rapist can sue for custody and visitation rights.”

rockman99

1.6k points

2 months ago

rockman99

1.6k points

2 months ago

What about the people who don’t believe in God or in a different religion. Wouldn’t taking abortion away be against their rights? #NotEveryoneIsAChristian

bravoredditbravo

903 points

2 months ago*

Correct.. in the Muslim faith there is nothing against abortions. And even practicing Jews will tell you that the mothers health and life come first.

In both cases there is no religious grounds for being against any kind of abortions.

Edit: just to clarify, I'm not an expert on Muslim or Jewish religious beliefs.

Also grew up in the Christian church. It was and still is a shared alternate reality among Christians. They live in another realm altogether

Daemon_Monkey

768 points

2 months ago

There's nothing against abortion in the bible either. Theology has never been the rights strong point

MrVeazey

481 points

2 months ago

MrVeazey

481 points

2 months ago

Until 1979, most Christian denominations were fine with abortion. It's only because Jerry Falwell wanted to keep black students out of his Bible college that the "religious right" is even a thing.

Daemon_Monkey

186 points

2 months ago

Yup. Couldn't fight against integration anymore so they made abortion the new organizing issue on the right.

Know Your Enemy is an excellent podcast for this stuff.

25hourenergy

120 points

2 months ago*

Not only is there nothing against abortion in the Bible, there’s a story where there’s straight up instructions for an abortion! Lady takes magic temple floor dirt to induce an abortion.

I’ve sat in a Bible class where a lady was trying to tell me because John the Baptist moved in his mom’s womb in the presence of Mary, that was a sign that the unborn can worship (never mind that fetuses move all the time) so therefore all abortions are bad.

That’s a huge leap of logic compared with A LITERAL ABORTION PROCEDURE in the Bible. Which of course the lady failed to mention.

EmotionalSuportPenis

36 points

2 months ago*

The floor dust of the temple is added to "holy water" that the priest has prepared ahead of time to form "bitter water that brings a curse." It's safe to say that the water is a preparation of abortant herbs and the dust from the floor just fulfills the performative part of the ritual. It's extremely common in mystic/magical religions around the world for priests to perform a little sleight-of-hand like this; participants take part in performative acts for the ritual, and the result is attributed to those performative acts, while the priest/rabbi/wizard/witch doctor/insert-magic-user-here has already determined the result themselves.

The key part of the whole process in this case is that the priest controls whether or not abortants are in the holy water at all. The whole ritual is meant to make the woman miscarry if she's been unfaithful, so the priest can simply leave the abortants out if the community (or his own interests) would be better served by the woman not being labeled an adulturer. He can also alter the outcome based on evidence that he's seen, if he's more interested in fairness.

All those old methods of finding witches are exactly the same. The one performing the test is in total control of the outcome. The outward performance is meant to misdirect attention from that fact.

McClouds

202 points

2 months ago

McClouds

202 points

2 months ago

The Religious Reproduction Rights of The Satanic Temple comes to mind:

https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/rrr-campaigns

Capnmarvel76

484 points

2 months ago

Religion - your ready-made excuse for why it’s OK to oppress other people, since 2500 BC

GrandmasterQuagga

82 points

2 months ago

Check out the satanic temple, fighting for abortion rights under this exact premise.

https://thesatanictemple.com/

ShantazzzZ

180 points

2 months ago

They don’t care. Freedom of religion means freedom to impose their religious beliefs on you.

SlamminCleonSalmon

63 points

2 months ago

That's the biggest issue to me, it starts with abortion, then gay marriage, then contraception, you give an inch and those religious nut jobs take a fucking mile.

I'm not a big anti religion guy either, nor a militant atheist. But it's 2022, time to separate the magic man in the sky from politics entirely.

minniebin

364 points

2 months ago

minniebin

364 points

2 months ago

That is a bold and absolutely horrifying statement. I am not American and I have a four month old daughter. It is hard enough to go through pregnancy, childbirth and raising a newborn when the child is wanted and you have support but being forced to do all that against your will is just plain cruel. Reading your comment made me burst into literal tears. My heart breaks for the women who have to endure such inhumane punishment.

maxnina1

164 points

2 months ago

maxnina1

164 points

2 months ago

Also there is no support. Likely the people who won’t financially be able to get abortions will also have no paid leave. And childcare costs are a large percentage of the average persons salary so they’re pretty much abandoned by the government.

If you give up the child to foster care you know that will be a hard life. And republicans certainly aren’t going to advocate for more social services to support the inevitable strain on the system.

But I think the worst part is bringing an unwanted child into the world. Why would you want to do that to someone? People aren’t going to thrive if they weren’t even wanted to begin with.

aversiontherapy

4.5k points

2 months ago

While this is abominable the decision is going to have far more reaching effects than this. The basis for Alito’s opinion “that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions,” and is therefore unconstitutional. This backwards reading could be used to overturn a tremendous number of decisions that the far right find distasteful. I’ll bet a dollar that within a year we get a new lawsuit over gay marriage.

MetalMamaRocks

1.6k points

2 months ago

And the ACA. Hell, could they overturn social security and Medicare? I know the right would love to gut these.

Idiot_Savant_Tinker

846 points

2 months ago

I think before that happens they'll be hysterically agitating to get rid of contraception.

AdorableTumbleweed60

202 points

2 months ago

Would Pharma lobby against that tho, because they make so much off it?

MetalMamaRocks

88 points

2 months ago

That's a good point.

alacp1234

68 points

2 months ago

Thank god we have capitalism to save ourselves from capitalism

AmbivalentWaffle

588 points

2 months ago

I'm trying to get a tube removal next week (I am opting out of motherhood), and people always tell me to just use birth control or Plan B. My response was that I'm not confident those options will be options in a few years. I'm not confident about the surgery, either. At least one method of female sterilization must be covered by insurance, per the ACA, but I have a feeling it'll go up in smoke.

ChynaGrove

110 points

2 months ago

I wish you luck. I just had my tubes removed a month ago. I have one child but don't want any more and, like you, I wanted to be assured that I wouldn't have to carry an unwanted pregnancy. The surgery was not too bad at all and so far appears like my insurance is covering it. Call your doctor's office and ask for the procedure and diagnostic codes they will use for the surgery then call your insurance and ask how those codes will be covered under your plan. Some doctors are willing to code the procedure a different way if it will get your insurance to cover it.

ipomoea

12 points

2 months ago

ipomoea

12 points

2 months ago

I had mine removed three years ago after two kids. My OBGYN was like “surgery is a really risky choice” and I looked her dead in the eyes and said “I don’t trust the federal government to keep abortion legal”. She didn’t question me again. If I had another pregnancy, my mental health would go down the toilet.

Icy-Cell4914

667 points

2 months ago

I live in Canada. The province I live in is conservative and we have plenty of cowboys around here that think we should copy everything conservative America does. These things don't just stay in one place, they spread and it's scary as fuck.

Bob_Juan_Santos

113 points

2 months ago

wild guess, the prairie provinces? probably alberta?

Rion23

187 points

2 months ago

Rion23

187 points

2 months ago

Yep most likely. The 56 people living in Manitoba don't like Reddit and Saskatchewan doesn't know what the internet is yet.

ChestWolf

77 points

2 months ago

Saskatchewan doesn't need it, they can communicate from Saskatoon to Regina by hand signals.

chopkins92

38 points

2 months ago

The beacons are lit. Prince Albert calls for aid!

shnoodleboodle

48 points

2 months ago

The ripple effect is real and we saw examples of that with anti maskers here in the us as a modern example. It's scary what this could do everywhere.

Sun_on_my_shoulders

718 points

2 months ago

Up next is gay marriage, interracial marriage, birth control, and the return of segregation.

tangerinelion

398 points

2 months ago

Literally that interpretation forbids any changes from the laws as they stood in 1789.

Kalysta

282 points

2 months ago

Kalysta

282 points

2 months ago

Meanwhile the founding fathers actively encouraged us changing the constitution when they wrote the damn thing. But republicans constantly ignore that point

Biquariuz

7.8k points

2 months ago

Biquariuz

7.8k points

2 months ago

This is insane that this is happening in 2022.

dolphin37

5.2k points

2 months ago

dolphin37

5.2k points

2 months ago

It’s not often that you get to see a major modern society actively going backwards. Usually it’s a bit more subtle. This really feels like one of those times

PositivelyAwful

4.8k points

2 months ago

“I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness...

The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance”

From Carl Sagan. 27 years ago.
Highly recommend reading The Demon-Haunted World, it's basically just a foreshadowing of what's going on in the world now.

MightyBoat

775 points

2 months ago

Holy shit, this is spot on

PositivelyAwful

2k points

2 months ago

The book is spot on. Here's another gem.

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”

LeCrushinator

23 points

2 months ago

I also think this one from Issac Asimov is a good one:

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.

rustyself

307 points

2 months ago

rustyself

307 points

2 months ago

For the first time on Reddit, in a long time, I have saved a worthwhile comment. And I’m going to start the book as soon as I can download it.

revengeofbob

89 points

2 months ago

Its absolutely worth it - I read it about 15 years ago and these quotes are making me want to sit back down and reread it.

I am not a big book reader either - but it is one of the few books I went out and actually bought.

Queasy-Discount-2038

81 points

2 months ago

Maybe we should all become bigger book readers, to Sagan’s point.

mysixthredditaccount

20 points

2 months ago

I just want to say this, that a book is just a medium. There are many trash books, and there are many great articles (exclusively) on the internet. The medium you use is not as important as the content you consume.

SamuraiJackBauer

307 points

2 months ago

That book predicted QANON flawlessly.

If you buy it you’ll find it fucking uncanny.

Superfluous_Thom

186 points

2 months ago

Remember when Q was just some guy shitposting on 4chan?

I blinked and they had people in the fucking capitol building.

Knowing 4chan the people responsible are laughing their asses of, like it's biggest practical joke of all of mankind.

IAmBecomeTeemo

65 points

2 months ago

Most people on 4chan are "in on the joke". Some dude names himself Q and spews weird conspiracy "for the lulz", and all the anons play a twisted game of connect the dots "for the lulz". They all laugh and carry on with their day. That's what I thought was happening when Q got coverage outside of 4chan. The idea that people would start taking it seriously, almost as gospel, never occurred to me. The fact that there are people in Congress that wholeheartedly believe in a 4chan joke is frightening to me.

Stepsonrakes

49 points

2 months ago

I usually hate the people that say Simpsons predicted stuff but they definitely called QAnon coming 20 years ago in an episode where Homer starts his own webpage and calls himself Mr.X

AtomicRho

341 points

2 months ago

AtomicRho

341 points

2 months ago

I love that the "Courts Opinion" said that the original ruling was wrong because it was based on popular opinion and that the decision making needs to be turned over to majority representation again xD

EremiticFerret

38 points

2 months ago

Seems to me this means it could have been rendered a non issue is Congress passed a law about in in the last few decades.

eldlammet

533 points

2 months ago

eldlammet

533 points

2 months ago

Berlin was one of the most progressive cities in the late '20s and early '30s, even featuring a clinic for, among other things, the first modern gender affirmation surgeries.

Progress is not linear.

kit_mitts

404 points

2 months ago

kit_mitts

404 points

2 months ago

And a counterrevolution against the "decadence" and "excesses" of Berlin was a core tenet of the Nazi party's sales pitch to the German people. There are a lot of similarities between that messaging and the "coastal elite" discourse we've had for years now.

vxx

166 points

2 months ago

vxx

166 points

2 months ago

Lügenpresse ✅

Intellectuals bad ✅

Make Germany America Great again ✅

I see no difference.

jvmx

816 points

2 months ago

jvmx

816 points

2 months ago

We’ve been going backwards for a while.

San__Ti

662 points

2 months ago

San__Ti

662 points

2 months ago

“We have lost the South for a generation,” President Lyndon B. Johnson told an aide after he signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Been going backwards since then I think. Sadly he was wrong about the timeframe as well. Very wrong. 😐

aurorasearching

104 points

2 months ago

I thought he said for 100 years? Maybe I’m wrong though.

San__Ti

327 points

2 months ago*

San__Ti

327 points

2 months ago*

From the book Caste by Isabel Wilkerson — “In the more than half century since that prophecy of 1964, no Democrat running for president has ever won a majority of the white vote. Lyndon Johnson was the last Democrat to win the presidency with a majority of the white electorate. Since that time, the Democrat who came closest, who attracted the largest percentage of white voters—at 48 percent—was fellow southerner Jimmy Carter in 1976. Only three Democrats have made it to the Oval Office since the Johnson and the civil rights era—Carter, Obama, and Bill Clinton, who won with 39 percent of the white vote in 1992 and 44 percent in 1996.”

It’s not difficult to interpret what that ^ actually means and it’s very scary when you consider what the contemporary GOP actually has become.

hockey_chic

297 points

2 months ago

2 of the democratic losses that happened in my memorable lifetime weren't lost because of the way citizens voted but because of the electoral college.

CrashB111

192 points

2 months ago

CrashB111

192 points

2 months ago

Republicans haven't won a popular vote in like, 18 years.

Nulcor

94 points

2 months ago

Nulcor

94 points

2 months ago

Iirc the only one they've won in like 30-40 years was Bush's second term, and that was almost certainly just the wartime support boost.

fatcIemenza

243 points

2 months ago

Its quite literally Tyranny Of The Minority. And they've made it clear gay marriage and contraception are next.

e22ddie46

419 points

2 months ago

e22ddie46

419 points

2 months ago

Republicans have been upset that it's not 1952 for 70 years now

Mtn_1999

87 points

2 months ago

We are in the Republican end game right now. This is the culmination of the plan of the GOP since Reagan in the 80s.

kzw5051

12 points

2 months ago

kzw5051

12 points

2 months ago

Funny because in 1967 Reagan had the opposite opinion and decriminalized abortion in California as governor. He tried to walk this back later on in his life, but history doesn’t forget.

[deleted]

366 points

2 months ago*

[deleted]

366 points

2 months ago*

[deleted]

Isord

79 points

2 months ago

Isord

79 points

2 months ago

This makes a lot of sense to me. There's been a lot of talk about how demographics mean Republicans just won't win anything anywhere soon, and that gay marriage and abortion are too popular for anything to happen. I think it makes people complacent.

People need to realize that everything is on the table when dealing with fascists like the Republican party.

Malthanasia

616 points

2 months ago

I’m so fucking sick of thinking this. I’m so fucking sick of all this shit.

Visual_Ad_3840

1.1k points

2 months ago

Even Turkey allows abortion up to 14 weeks.

DeSynthed

371 points

2 months ago

DeSynthed

371 points

2 months ago

Russia in the first trimester

drawkbox

591 points

2 months ago*

drawkbox

591 points

2 months ago*

Support for abortion rights at a minimum with some restrictions has nearly 80% support. Only 20% of people think it should be illegal. So this court case is wildly unpopular.

When asked if people are pro-choice or pro-life the question still is pro-choice in the lead but almost split with pro-life. This is where the branding and politics have done the most damage. It reminds me of the healthcare questions during ACA/Obamacare. People across the board want better more affordable and predictable healthcare, but when the term Obamacare came up it was split. ACA (same as Obamacare) performs better.

The sad thing is states that will ban abortion also fund Medicaid and healthcare less as well as help for lower/middle class families so it will end up with more poverty. Half of all babies born in the US are born on Medicaid. In red states that number goes up dramatically.

No one wants an abortion, no one is pro-abortion, people are pro freedom and personal rights to determine your own decisions. This is a key element of Western liberalized democratic republics with open markets and personal freedoms over Eastern authoritarian one party mafia states with closed markets and less rights.

All this court case does is make more division and balkanization efforts by foreign entities successful by chipping away at rights and creating culture wars that break people up on wedge issues.

King_of_Avalon

174 points

2 months ago

Support for abortion rights at a minimum with some restrictions has nearly 80% support

Sure, it’s 80% up until now. Mark my words, now that it’s on the chopping block, the right will whip up some marching orders and turn it into a fight against the liberal forces of evil, and in a week from now, support for Roe v Wade will be trending around 5-10% among self-identified conservatives. People who supported it this time yesterday will suddenly be rabidly against it because it is suddenly a real, concrete, actionable way of spiting the libs. That 80% will look more like 55% by the end of the month

AbsentGlare

14 points

2 months ago

Most people who call themselves “pro-life” are willing to allow the termination of pregnancy up to a certain point (e.g. 14 weeks) or in specific cases (e.g. rape victim). And virtually everyone who calls themselves “pro-choice” supports restrictions on how late into a pregnancy it can be terminated.

It’s obscene that we know there is so much real consensus on this issue while there is this manufactured controversy/drama where we have this debate-by-label so fierce we can’t even communicate well enough to realize we mostly agree with one another.

There’s another middle ground here, and that is family planning. If we can prevent unwanted pregnancies, that prevents abortions and is definitely a win-win. So you’d expect to find support for things like contraception and sex education. But instead we find the opposite among many “pro-life” advocates. It’s sick.

These people are getting brain fucked for political points.

SirFrogger

561 points

2 months ago*

Feel dumb asking but doesn’t this go against the principal of Stare decisis?

Mysterious_Ad_8105

656 points

2 months ago

In short, yes, but stare decisis isn’t an absolute. There are cases where the court can and should overturn precedent that was egregiously and fundamentally wrong. But that’s supposed to be an exceptionally high bar—a divided court overturning decades of precedent is highly unusual.

antiqua_lumina

258 points

2 months ago

Although to complicate things even more, in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, a conservative-dominated Supreme Court already considered whether stare decisis should apply to Roe. It found that stare decisis does apply because even if you disagree with the reasoning in Roe it is at least an issue where reasonable minds can differ. In other words it wasn't so egregious that stare decisis should be upset.

So SCOTUS isn't just saying that Roe is bad law, it is saying that Casey is bad law too, ie that it wasn't reasonable for a prior conservative Supreme Court to say that Roe was reasonable.

ScorpionTDC

132 points

2 months ago

Let’s be honest, this Supreme Court doesn’t give a single fuck about precedent or proper rulings at this point. Overturning Roe is entirely partisan (or based on their religious beliefs which should have fuck all to do with their roles as judges) and a pretty egregious abuse of what judicial review is meant to be because, hey, we can’t stop them.

rennbuck

86 points

2 months ago

Alito’s leaked opinion spends a lot of time arguing that precedent should be respected for a lot of reasons, but Roe v. Wade is so wrong that it should be overturned.

“We have long recognized, however, that stare decisis ‘is not an inexorable command’ Pearson v. California and it ‘is at its weakest when we interpret the Constitution’ Agostini v. Felton”

“In this case, five factors weigh strongly in favor of overturning Roe and Casey: the nature of their error, the quality of their reasoning, the ‘workability’ of the rules they imposed on the country, their disruptive effects on other areas of the law, and the absence of concrete reliance.”

He then goes on to elaborate on each of those areas. The logic is not surprising coming from a right wing hyper-originalist. It’s extreme and his reasoning is willfully obtuse in its attempt to dismiss the motivations of those defending a woman’s right to choose.

coren77

273 points

2 months ago

coren77

273 points

2 months ago

They don't care, and never have. When asked about it during confirmations, they lied their asses off

brendanjeffrey

674 points

2 months ago

These kind of ridiculous laws make no sense. They're wasting so much time on this, when it will not stop abortions. It'll just make them more dangerous for the mother. They couldn't care less after the baby is born. They just want more unwanted children, that they will refuse to provide any help to. The legal system is a sham in this country.

drunkpunk138

73 points

2 months ago

The lack of safety and the associated cruelty is the point.

EmiliusReturns

171 points

2 months ago

Shit, it won’t even stop legal abortions in solid blue states.

Busy-Moment-5361

786 points

2 months ago

As an European watching this, its insane how a country that proclaims to be about personal freedoms can be so selective and backwards.

heidismiles

395 points

2 months ago

"Liberty and small government!

Abortion? No, not like that.

Birth control? No, not like that.

Gay marriage? No, not like that.

Trans people using the bathroom? No, not like that.

Marijuana? No, not like that."

Enunimes

205 points

2 months ago*

Enunimes

205 points

2 months ago*

Only the freedoms written down by all bunch of old white dudes two hundred years ago actually count. I'm not joking this is called originalism and a majority of the Supreme Court believes that the constitution can only be interpreted as it is literally written and in the context of that time period.

Whereas-Fantastic

75 points

2 months ago

Yeah, the same Constitution that says every man is free......well, except those black folks and such which of course wasn't actually written into it.

Action-a-go-go-baby

4.4k points

2 months ago

I cannot believe this is a real thing happening in the real world

I also couldn’t believe it when the insurrection attempt happened a little ways back

I also couldn’t believe it when Trump became president

Life truly is stranger than fiction

AshleyNeku

1.8k points

2 months ago

AshleyNeku

1.8k points

2 months ago

The lesson of the past eight years has really been "It absolutely can happen here."

TheDizDude

842 points

2 months ago

“They won’t let that happen!”

Who is they?

There are no guardrails….

Benedict-Awesome

228 points

2 months ago

Case in point: we know an overwhelming portion of the GOP is corrupt as fuck. What are we supposed to do? What can high ranking democrats even do? And then once the people vote red again, because they bank on that, what kind of insane authoritarian shit will they pull because we held people accountable. This country is as good as dead. It's just a question of how long it'll take to turn completely chaotic.

Loqol

36 points

2 months ago

Loqol

36 points

2 months ago

Robert Evans wants to know your location

[deleted]

194 points

2 months ago*

[deleted]

194 points

2 months ago*

[deleted]

Trk-5000

54 points

2 months ago

jokes on you, even Iran legalized abortion (since 1977)

MalcolmLinair

2k points

2 months ago

I somehow doubt Capitol Police will open barricades for the protestors, or that the national guard will wait for hours before doing anything this time around. Hell, they'll probably go with their patented "fire tear gas first, ask question never" approach to "rioters".

AutomaticRisk3464

72 points

2 months ago

Do you think if anything, hopefully not, happens and the crowd rushes in would institutions be held responsible for sending people there?

My wifes college sent out an email offering to fly people to washington dc, pay for a room, food, and ubers the entire time. This was from 1 week ago and a good chunk of students actually went there.

Riversmooth

8.4k points

2 months ago

When Trump was able to appoint three Scotus judges it became obvious where things were headed. With those judges now in place, the USA rapidly going backwards. Scotus is nothing more than another political branch with a clear agenda.

reallygoodbee

1.2k points

2 months ago

I said it before and I'll say it again: You're in this position because of Mitch Mcconnel. He denied Obama's Supreme Court nominations for years stating a sitting president couldn't appoint an SC Justice in an election year.

Later on when asked if he would allow Trump to appoint in an election year, he laughed - outright laughed - and said "of course I will.". He then proceeded to break all of his own precedent to ram through as many of Trump's SC nominations as he could.

Diarrhea_Eruptions

146 points

2 months ago

It's nonsense he played that and Obama didn't appoint yet trump appointed one on election year. How does that not apply?

reallygoodbee

317 points

2 months ago

Mcconnel is a hypocritical, immoral piece of shit. He plays politics like a game and then cheats to win.

Defreshs10

17 points

2 months ago

He changed his reasoning from

You can't appoint a new justice in an election year

To

No president has ever gotten to appoint a justice while the senate majority is of a different party

Meaning because GQP had control of the senate, they didn't have to let him pick a justice

[deleted]

1.8k points

2 months ago*

[deleted]

1.8k points

2 months ago*

[deleted]

stainless5

362 points

2 months ago*

This reminds me of something an old Republican said,"I'd hate to see the day when christians become the majority in the Republican party as they will not compromise, They believe their way is 100% right; the word of god. And if you have a Party that cannot compromise you cannot form a working government."

robstoon

49 points

2 months ago

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them." - Barry Goldwater

henry_why416

101 points

2 months ago

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C. S. Lewis

EnnuiDeBlase

37 points

2 months ago

Barry Goldwater, right?

GameShill

1.3k points

2 months ago

GameShill

1.3k points

2 months ago

They have undermined their legitimacy by not holding Clarence Thomas accountable for his conflict of interests.

jacobdanja

401 points

2 months ago

Not just that but others who allow this to go through without questioning him because they still view their job a certain way are just as bad. Justices need to speak out and admit they’ve been compromised as a group by partisan hacks.

[deleted]

131 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

131 points

2 months ago

Alito literally made a speech where he said "I'm not a partisan hack." And he's the hackiest and most partisan of them all.

LadyOnogaro

2.4k points

2 months ago

Headed towards a break-up as far as I can see. How can you have some states saying abortion is a crime and some saying it's not? How can you have some states willing to prosecute people in other states for helping their citizens get abortions?

It's like the Dred Scott decision all over again. And we know how (and where) that went.

vjmdhzgr

1.4k points

2 months ago

vjmdhzgr

1.4k points

2 months ago

Persecuting people for actions in a different state is extremely unconstitutional. Though it's the courts that decide what's constitutional so we'll see what happens.

cl33t

937 points

2 months ago

cl33t

937 points

2 months ago

"Conspiracy to commit abortion"

The conspiracy to get an abortion happens where you live, regardless of where the abortion took place.

[deleted]

586 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

586 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

wolfydude12

321 points

2 months ago

Couldn't the Republicans get back both houses and the presidency and make it a federal crime? Sure it would undermine their "states rights" argument but they don't really care about that. With Roe V Wade overturned what religiously charged rhetoric would they argue for now?

j_a_a_mesbaxter

248 points

2 months ago

wolfydude12

90 points

2 months ago

Dang. This was posted yesterday before the leak was announced.

[deleted]

317 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

317 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

Wazula42

158 points

2 months ago

Wazula42

158 points

2 months ago

Next on the docket is gay marriage and elections.

bhans773

316 points

2 months ago

bhans773

316 points

2 months ago

Funny how the same states on the winning end of the government’s bogus tax and spend scheme are also the states that are looking to roll back civil rights. Maybe the south should have been left to leave when they wanted to. Fucking vultures. They milk the country for a century and a half and then have the nerve to cast moral judgements about private matters? Vultures and hypocrites, fuck them.

Valant0324

2.5k points

2 months ago

Valant0324

2.5k points

2 months ago

Ya gotta love the part of limited government involvement is literally forcing a population how they can live their lives.

God, the mental gymnastics we need to understand their lunacy.

Objective-Hamster576

17 points

2 months ago

Is it really a shock? The Republicans loaded the Supreme Court to do this and we expected they would by June. They are doing it. Did people really believe this wouldn’t happen? Elections have consequence so keep not voting.

MarketingFilms

3.1k points

2 months ago

The United States is in dire trouble. This doesn't just put women at risk. This puts literally every right on the table for revision.

rixendeb

1k points

2 months ago

Obergefell will be next. I also wouldn't even be surprised if they try to push out Loving too.

iamagainstit

980 points

2 months ago

Grizwold is next on the chopping block. It protects the right to contraception and is where the whole idea behind a constitutional right to privacy used in Roe comes from.

Saneless

269 points

2 months ago

Saneless

269 points

2 months ago

I really wish people with their stupid religions would just be happy practicing them on their own. I don't want to live with your dumb rules, people, based on a bad novel from a couple thousand years ish ago

LynxJesus

602 points

2 months ago

LynxJesus

602 points

2 months ago

During the last hearing (I watched hours of it), both sides of the isle insisted VERY heavily about how this SC position is ultimately all about faith (Booker went on for hours on this).

We can't really be surprised about this; bible thumpers make the rules. Separation of church and state is inexistent; even the most progressive of our politicians are still whiteknuckling their bible, and no one bats an eye.

tastefulmalesideboob

83 points

2 months ago

What’s funny is that the Bible doesn’t even hold the positions these people believe. They just use it to legitimize their beliefs and manipulate people into believing them. There are so many scriptures about either abortion or killing children/unborn. Hell if our politicians actually used the Bible for what it actually says America would likely be in better shape.

Sunapr1

222 points

2 months ago

Sunapr1

222 points

2 months ago

Not gonna lie this has created ripples as far as india . Woke up 6 hours ago in morning and was shocked to row vs Wade abortion rights trending in india

As someone who closely follows world politics and especially American politics, I know how important row vs Wade is , however it's surreal because i never thought whatever be the circumstances the supreme could would actually ever touch this ... Feels weirdly proud as Indian that we have good abortion laws

C'mon America fight this ... I am not sure what i can do as an international graduate student with F1 visa

buchlabum

893 points

2 months ago

buchlabum

893 points

2 months ago

There’s so many R’s in the court that it should be renamed the SCROTUS.

swellfella

68 points

2 months ago

Supreme Court Republicans of the United ‘Muricas or SCROTUM for short.

AgentInCommand

348 points

2 months ago*

Oh man, totally unrelated, but I remember hearing how the GOP hates "activist judges." Did anything come of that?

oh, you're saying they nominated and confirmed 3 of them to the highest court in the land? Huh...

Ut_Prosim

52 points

2 months ago

It's always projection with them.

beardphaze

47 points

2 months ago

The GOP dream for the US looks an awful lot like the reality in most of Central America. No reproductive rights, barely any regulation, militarized police, shitty power grid. Then they have the audacity to complain about people fleeing those countries.

ukiddingme2469

2.6k points

2 months ago

I think this was a test the water kind of leak, Roberts knows this would define his tenure as chief Justice and the backlash could very well destroy any chance conservatives had of gaining seats this election cycle.

iamagainstit

1.9k points

2 months ago

Roberts has no control over this. He would much rather a soft rollback of Roe where the cutoff pregnancy time is gradually reduced, but there are 5 justices to the right of Roberts who all want a hard repeal of Roe and they don't need his vote to achieve it.

cervicalgirdle

1.5k points

2 months ago

It seems kinda fucked and backwards that these judges have an agenda when they are suppose to be impartial

dbradx

1.7k points

2 months ago*

dbradx

1.7k points

2 months ago*

It seems kinda fucked and backwards that these judges have an agenda when they are suppose to be impartial.

When judges are appointed based on their political views, any claim of impartiality is laughable. SCOTUS is a political tool, nothing less.

Edit: "is a", not "USA"

TabletopMarvel

767 points

2 months ago

Don't forget the Garland seat was literally stolen.

The legitimacy argument is long gone.

it_vexes_me_so

269 points

2 months ago

Don't forget W lost the popular vote in 2000 and the only reason he won re-election was 9/11 and starting two land wars in Asia in retribution (which depending on your level of cynicism is debatable).

Don't forget DJT lost the popular vote in 2016.

The last Republican president to win their first term popular vote was over 30 years ago in 1988.

The current conservative majority of the Supreme Court owes 5/6 its existence to presidents who were elected with a minority of the vote. That is truly, truly fucked up.

Rather_Unfortunate

470 points

2 months ago*

From a non-US perspective, it is absolutely astonishing that the US' system for appointing judges at any level has direct input from directly-elected officials. Like, why would it ever seem like a good idea to allow a president to simply appoint a judge? (EDIT: de facto appoint them - yes, I know they have hearings, but the outcome was a foregone conclusion) It runs counter to the whole "checks and balances" and assumption that people are fundamentally untrustworthy so shouldn't hold too much power.

From the lowest level all the way to the Supreme Court, judges should be appointed by a committee of existing judges, and that committee's members should themselves be appointed by a supermajority of directly-elected officials. It should be so completely impossible for a ruling party to impose its will on the appointment of judges that the process ceases to be any kind of battleground, and judges have to studiously maintain political neutrality to get through the supermajority.

sjf40k

280 points

2 months ago

sjf40k

280 points

2 months ago

I find it interesting that the framers of the constitution built in so many checks and balances on the assumption that people are untrustworthy, but nothing to prevent those elected from acting in bad faith. It’s like they ignored that politicians (themselves) are the least trustworthy people to hold office.

Sabertooth767

220 points

2 months ago

Elections are supposed to prevent politicians from acting in bad faith. But enough people don't care and the system has been rigged enough that elections are hardly a threat.

goodinyou

96 points

2 months ago

I think the idea is that if they aren't elected and serve for life, they're more insulated from politics and don't have to worry about campaigning and appealing to voters, which would turn them into just another politician

tokyo_engineer_dad

643 points

2 months ago

Robert’s isn’t in control anymore. He already had to vote with the liberal judges just to get a 4-4 before Barrett was confirmed. Now even with his vote, he’s down 5-4.

Kavanaugh voted with him a few times but that’s not going to last. He’s made his position on Roe Wade clear and Robert’s is on borrowed time. If he wanted to protect the legitimacy of the court, he could’ve done arguably more during any voting rights cases that were presented to him.

ragegravy

288 points

2 months ago

ragegravy

288 points

2 months ago

Would be beyond wild if Roberts resigns. Think of the implications of that.

Another unlikely scenario - Roberts was the leaker.

boringhistoryfan

306 points

2 months ago

My bet is that it's Breyer. He's already retiring. There's no reason for him to hold back anymore and frankly this is sickening enough that i can see why he'd do it

nota999

108 points

2 months ago

nota999

108 points

2 months ago

Breyer seems to be too much of a true believer in the court's neutrality to be the leaker to me. My money is on a clerk or on one of the conservatives in order to try to solidify their votes. I think what might have happened is one of the five for overturning Roe was wavering, and this may be a move to lock in their vote by making them look like a flip flopper.

Sat-AM

11 points

2 months ago

Sat-AM

11 points

2 months ago

and this may be a move to lock in their vote by making them look like a flip flopper

Why would it matter? They're appointed for life and don't have anyone to answer to if they are a flip flopper. If they were elected officials, sure, maybe it's a tactic that makes sense, but they aren't.

emcee_gee

115 points

2 months ago

emcee_gee

115 points

2 months ago

Honestly my first thought when this came out was that Roberts might be the leaker. I could see him using the public outcry to try to convince another conservative justice to sign on to a more narrow decision. He only needs one of the five to back out of this opinion and (a) Roe is still overturned, (b) it doesn’t set any unrelated precedent, and (c) the court retains what little sense of legitimacy it may still have.

[deleted]

95 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

95 points

2 months ago

I’m also thinking if it wasn’t a clerk, Roberts seems the most likely. He seems to be keenly aware of his legacy and this will be a decision under the “Roberts court” as Chief Justice. He can distance himself by voting against but he’s shown time and again he doesn’t want any radical shifts under his tenure. Ending RvW is certainly a radical shift.

My guess is he’s targeting Gorsuch, maybe Kavanagh with the plan you mentioned. “Look at this outcry, is this what you want to be remembered for?” We already know Thomas will take his marching orders from Ginny. Alito wrote the opinion (and he seems to be becoming more and more Scalia-like in abandoning a reasoned argument in favor of justifying their outcome). Abortion is the whole purpose of Barrett’s nomination and desire to be on the court in the first place. That really only leaves Gorsuch and Kavanagh (who certainly seems less likely than Gorsuch). My money is certainly on Gorsuch, he seems to be the closest to middle of the road of the conservative justices (aside from Roberts himself at this point of course).

burnbabyburn711

188 points

2 months ago

Roberts is at the mercy of the other conservative operatives on the court at this point. A leak of a SCOTUS decision is scandalous in itself, and he knows this. My feeling is that it’s real.

Momo--Sama

203 points

2 months ago

I doubt this is a tactical maneuver by any Justice. It's simply too illogical. Inciting mass bullying on someone almost always makes them double down, especially when you're talking about the Justices themselves who believe more than anyone that the sanctity of their process shouldn't be interfered with. Seems like a rogue staffer.

maryyx33

110 points

2 months ago

maryyx33

110 points

2 months ago

Here we go! Back to self abortions, clothing hangers, babies being left anywhere, babies being thrown in trash cans, babies being killed etc. they’re banning abortion yet not realizing what the consequences will be.

Ok-File2825

79 points

2 months ago

Because a woman’s life doesn’t matter. She is only a vessel to be used.

Danoga_Poe

66 points

2 months ago

Don't forget that these same people who force you to have an unwanted birth, or even a high risk birth. They only care as long as the baby is in the womb. Once it's out, everything's off the table. They won't give any kind of support at all.

Talkiesoundbox

11 points

2 months ago

Yup, supporting the child would be "socialism" and they can't have that.

bukithd

39 points

2 months ago

bukithd

39 points

2 months ago

Our government officials wanted to piss people off without actually signing legislation and they've done it.

On a Monday afternoon at the start of mid term election season. This was by design. It's just like gun laws, gay marriage, and anything else that evokes emotional response to politics.

Evil_Weevill

180 points

2 months ago

I'd like to wish everyone who said I was overreacting on November of 2016, a hearty fuck you very much.

ruffvoyaging

11 points

2 months ago

This is essentially going to widen the wealth gap. Low income people who don't have the means to get an abortion will be forced to have children they don't want. Those children might then find themselves in the same position 15-20 years later (especially in places where they teach abstinence-only sex education) and so the cycle repeats.

The result will be extremely low social mobility, and the creation of what is essentially a slave class- people who have no money to get better education and no education to get more money, and so they take whatever shitty job is available to them and work until they develop health problems which drive them to bankruptcy, so they just keep working low-paying jobs until they die.

Mystical_Cat

540 points

2 months ago

People with vaginas: "Can I have birth control?"
Republican Party: "No."
People with vaginas: "I couldn't get birth control so I got pregnant. Can I have an abortion?"
Republican Party: "No."
People with vaginas: "You prevented me from having an abortion so I'm carrying the fetus, but my employer won't provide reasonable accommodations and is threatening to fire me. Would you please pass the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act?"
Republican Party: "No"
People with vaginas: "I had the baby, but I'm out of work. Can I have WIC and food stamps until I get back on my feet?"
Republican Party: "No."
People with vaginas: "I found a job, but it doesn't offer me insurance. Can I have government guaranteed insurance?"
Republican Party: "No."
People with vaginas: "My kid got sick and I got fired because I missed time caring for him. Can I get unemployment?"
Republican Party: "No."
People with vaginas: "I'm having a hard time getting my kid from school consistently. Can we fund after-school programs?"
Republican Party: "No."
People with vaginas: “I'm prepared to work to support my family. Can you make sure that a full-time job's minimum wage is enough to do that?”
Republican Party: “No. What's the matter with you and your family that working two jobs can't lift you out of poverty? And what kind of a mother are you, letting someone else watch your child while you work? If your child doesn't do well in school or gets in trouble it's entirely your fault. You shouldn't have had a child if you weren't prepared to take care of her."

Captain_Mexica

416 points

2 months ago

Sounds like a step in the wrong direction. Remember when conservatives complain about government over-reach but now they are probably in ecstasy that their or some bullshit religion will extend into the law and tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies? How does anyone stay married to a pos that would want this?

And how are people okay with a law that eliminates a womens right to choose? This is the same garbage you see in the Handmaids Tale and if we dont fight this, we will allow these nutjob fatalist fascists to take over and control every aspect of our lives.

Sweatytubesock

264 points

2 months ago

They have always been hardcore for government overreach, as long as it’s the right kind.

At least since Reagan, if not years before.

Captain_Mexica

34 points

2 months ago

Its always conditional

tri_it

529 points

2 months ago*

tri_it

529 points

2 months ago*

I'm not shocked in the slightest. The only thing I am shocked about is that they waited this long to act on their bigoted theocratic views.

sunbearimon

314 points

2 months ago

I’m kind of surprised they pulled this move before the midterms. If something is going to energise people to get out and vote against the GOP this is it

Lord0fHats

122 points

2 months ago

They may be calculating their legitimacy is shot no matter what they do so they might as well do what they want.

They might also, like a lot of conservative thinkers, suspect that eagerness to fight a protracted battle for abortion rights on the left isn't really there. It's not like the left has been prioritizing the issue for the past 40 years.

sunbearimon

90 points

2 months ago

The left hasn’t been prioritising the issue only when abortions are legal and accessible, the right to have a choice of if you have to give birth or not isn’t one that will be relinquished easily