Uncharted Territory
Rarely do I sit down and write a column just to proclaim my abject ignorance about a political subject, but today seems an appropriate day to do so -- to make a larger point about pundits everywhere: nobody knows this right now. Nobody. Don't believe them if they tell you they do, because we are truly in uncharted territory.
The Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade was always going to have an impact on the upcoming election. I've been saying that pretty much ever since they heard the case, months ago. It became patently obvious when the draft decision was leaked. But still it seemed to catch some by surprise. The real unanswerable questions here are: How much impact will it have on the election? And which party will benefit?
Nobody knows the answers to those questions right now. There simply is no precedent to examine, to try to predict how voters will react to the Supreme Court taking away a basic national constitutional right. It's never happened before, or at least not in the lifetimes of most people alive today. Korematsu v. United States is about the only one I can think of -- the case that upheld the exclusion and internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. It was decided 78 years ago, in 1944. And that case involved only a small minority of Americans, not over half the population.
From the way politicians are reacting, Democrats think this is a winning issue for them while Republicans are mostly playing defense (by changing the subject, most often -- or just literally running away from the question). Few Republicans think this is going to be a big winner for them at the ballot box, and it's pretty easy to see why. The public disapproves of the Supreme Court decision by a wide margin, and the snap polling that has been done over the weekend seems to indicate that a whole lot more Democrats are saying this will motivate them to vote than Republican voters who say the same thing -- and by a very wide margin (50 percent to 20 percent).
Up until this point in time, everything had been theoretical, on both sides of the divide. Republicans would promise to do their best to see Roe overturned, but their voters who cared deeply about the issue never really got disillusioned when it didn't happen, decade after decade. It was an aspirational goal that few of them thought would ever actually happen.
Democrats, meanwhile, were not all that whipped up about the issue, no matter how much the pro-choice contingent of the party tried. They also considered Roe a settled matter, and few actually thought it would ever be overturned. So all the loud warnings that Roe was in danger mostly were treated as "The sky is falling!" hyperbolical exuberance from activists.
All of that has now changed. It is no longer hypothetical or theoretical, it is real. It has happened. So now the Republican side is likely going to fracture a bit, since not everyone in the party is all that thrilled with the idea of passing a nationwide abortion ban. Some are now saying: "Let's leave it to the states, as the court has done," but that just punts the problem to Republicans running at the state level. Few Republicans are going to stand up and say: "Whoa, let's not get carried away here," instead any of them who think a more moderate course is prudent are going to mostly keep their heads down and be quiet about things, in the hopes that the political backlash against the decision won't get any worse.
Democrats, on the other hand, are the ones now uniting behind the idea of one course of action: a national abortion rights law must be passed through Congress and signed by a Democratic president. This is the only practical way to fix the problem the Supreme Court created, at least at this point. And Democratic voters -- women and men -- are absolutely enraged at what has happened. This could turn out to be a very potent force in November -- but again, nobody's really sure if it will be or not, at this point.
Here are what a few behind-the-scenes Republicans are saying about the fallout from the Supreme Court decision:
"This is not a conversation we want to have," said John Thomas, a Republican strategist who works on House campaigns across the country. "We want to have a conversation about the economy. We want to have a conversation about Joe Biden, about pretty much anything else besides Roe.... This is a losing issue for Republicans."
and:
Before Roe came down, said a former Republican congressman familiar with the party's campaign operation, "Everything was going our way. Gas is above $5. Inflation is a giant problem."
"The only thing [Democrats] have got going for them is the Roe thing, which is what, 40 years of settled law that will be changed that will cause some societal consternation," said the former congressman, granted anonymity to speak candidly. "And can they turn that into some turnout? I think the answer is probably 'Yes.'"
Even Donald Trump was reportedly not thrilled about the decision's impact on the race, saying it would be "bad for Republicans." He reportedly had to be reluctantly convinced to stand up and take credit for it at a rally. That has to be a first -- something Donald Trump was reluctant to publicly brag about.
But at this point, no one is willing to bet that the issue of abortion is going to give Democrats enough of an enthusiasm boost at the polls to counteract what could be a red wave in November. Midterm elections usually favor the "out" party, and this time was shaping up to be no different. Those underlying dynamics haven't changed -- at least, not yet.
Democrats are now the ones selling an aspirational goal. What they'd have to do to achieve that goal is a pretty high bar: hold every Senate seat and pick up at least two more (so Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema can be ignored and the filibuster rule changed), as well as hold onto control in the House with at least enough of a margin to overcome the one remaining anti-choice House Democrat (who just won his primary runoff against a progressive challenger). In any midterm election that'd be a big goal to shoot for. In this climate, it is going to be extremely hard to pull off.
I would make an educated guess (nothing more than a stab in the dark, truth be told) that the relative impact of the Supreme Court overturning Roe is going to depend largely on how fierce the anger against the issue becomes, over the summer. Will there be large organized marches across the country? Will women and men who support their rights pour into the streets in huge numbers? Will it start to become a defining issue in the general election races in close contests? Will this drive young voters to the polls -- even in a midterm -- in such stunning numbers that it becomes decisive in race after race across the country? Will it hurt Republicans among suburban women so much that they turn out in droves to vote blue in November? Will it hand battleground House districts to Democrats that Republicans really should have won?
Like everyone else at this point, I have no idea if any of those will happen. We'll see, in the coming weeks and months. The issue -- like many political firestorms -- may kind of fade away over the summer. Other issues or crises may pop up which begin to dominate politics. The election is still over four months away, and that is a long time in politics.
So I end where I began: I just don't know. I know what I would like to see happen, but because this is so unprecedented -- because we have truly entered uncharted political territory -- I have no idea what the chances of it happening are, at this point. Even polling on the issue may not capture what is truly going on out there. So don't believe anyone who tells you they are absolutely sure, no matter what they say they are sure of. Because at this point nobody knows -- the situation is so unique and so far-reaching that it has the potential to have a big impact, but that is in no way guaranteed.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Chris,
Would Dems be wise to draft a national abortion rights bill along the lines that specifically legalizes abortion with restrictions - before viability or when the life of the mother is threatened etc., etc. - and hold the vote some short time after Labour Day ... get everyone in the House and Senate on record before the midterms?
What about doing the same in Dem-controlled State Houses across the country?
What this will do to politics in the midterms is undetermined, but we can probably be sure that over time this will be terrible for the South. Corporations like to locate where the weather is warm and the unions are few, but they don't necessarily want to locate in a place where their employees just don't want to be. States with abortion laws with no exception for rape or incest, besides impoverishing and criminalizing their population, will be turning themselves into a giant no-investment zone.
This probably won't light a fire under voters all by itself. Dems will have to put some serious effort into it. Oh, wait ... :(
Damn. I just can't quit this place. And, the cheque is in the mail. Seriously! :)
TCM is running '9-5' tonight. I think that's what one might call PERFECT TIMING! Hehehehehehehehehe.
It could be that it's just in TCM Canada ... which would be a shame. :)
I love that movie.
ag
I want to agree with you b/c I want you to be right. I'm skeptical.
The big one is voter suppression. Any policy can change if voters can vote (Texas is NOT a red state; Texas is a non-voting state (lowest in the nation)).
FWIW, I think a better approach is to create a national movement. If out-of-state (oos) African-American students refused to attend a Mississippi college as long as the Confederate Flag was still a part of the state flag, it might have gone away much sooner.
Similarly, if such students refused to attend schools in states where suppression or abortion laws were awful, that could move the needle some. College sports is the only thing that rivals religion and race in importance, in other words.
Imagine if Alabama couldn't recruit oos young men or TN couldn't recruit oos young women or no such school could entice these oos students...
Truth is, any HS student offered a football scholarship from Alabama could get one just as easily from USC or The Ohio State (boo, says the Wolverine). Those schools are just as successful at sending their kids to the pros (and USC has nice weather, as well).
If anything would cause hesitancy or reticence, that would be it.
ohowihate Ohio State
Buck the F***Eyes
Just saying.
[9]
A fellow Michigan Man?
Right on!
But at this point, no one is willing to bet that the issue of abortion is going to give Democrats enough of an enthusiasm boost at the polls to counteract what could be a red wave in November.
"Off year" CW, er, Conventional Wisdom says the Repugs will win. Low Biden ratings and inflation suggest likewise.
But, I doubt the 81 million voters who showed up to make sure Trump got fired have disappeared into thin air.
And I doubt all those with more than two brain cells together are going to simply think, "Inflation? In voting Republican!" Especially when you consider what the Repugs offer--
FEAR
Pedos and Commies and Groomers -- oh my!
FIREARMS
They'd rather fight teachers than fight the NRA
FUNDAMENTALISM
Which is fine for the Christofacists but for the rest of us, not so much
FAILED FISCAL POLICIES
No Millionaire Left Behind is the Repug's answer to everything
And when these ideas prove oddly unpopular...
FACISM
"Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and my Republican allies in Congress."
Furthermore, the Dems have some solid Legislation (including some bi-partisan stuff) and holding a bunch of stand alone votes on other popular proposals under BBB will further highlight the differences between the two competing visions for America. And don't forget J6C... and DoJ ...
So there's no reason to panic!
There'll be plenty of time to do that later.
;)
[10]
Still...I gotta respect Muckfichigan.com
There's a reason they call us fans, short for fanatics.
Oh yeah, MC, Class of '88.
As we used to shout (from a porch, with beer) at prospectives as they toured on campus,
"Blow Goo!!!"
There were probably Apogees on the porch, as well. It was a few years before glass became a real thing.
There simply is no precedent to examine, to try to predict how voters will react to the Supreme Court taking away a basic national constitutional right.
There is still no precedent as there never was a constitutional right to baby killing AKA abortion..
The right to keep and bear arms is a "basic national constitutional right" as it is spelled out completely and plainly in the US Constitution with it's own Amendment designating it as such.
To claim that baby killing AKA abortion is on par with the 2nd Amendment is ludicrous to the point of ignorance..
Irregardless of that fact, the precedent that you are ACTUALLY talking about HAS happened before...
In Plessy v Ferguson, the SCOTUS ruled that Democrats had the Constitutional right to the "Separate But Equal" doctrine.. That was in 1896 and was a "Constitutional Right" for 58 years.. Longer than Roe V Wade...
According to Democrats love of Stare Decisis Democrats obviously believe that PvF should still be the law of the land to this day.. :eyeroll:
But we know that in 1954 Brown v Board Of Education overturned Plessy v Ferguson..
So, the "precedent" you claim HAS occurred before..
Separate But Equal was NEVER a basic national constitutional right. But for 58 years it was a "constitutional right". At least as Democrats define "constitutional right" when it suits their political agenda..
Just was baby killing AKA abortion was never really a constitutional right...
Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg acknowledged this...
(so Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema can be ignored and the filibuster rule changed)
Tell ya what..
Let's revisit the filibuster AFTER the GOP takes the House and the Senate..
THEN we can discuss Democrats' enthusiasm for getting rid of the filibuster altogether..
Mmm 'kay?? :D
I just somehow get the feeling that Democrats will NOT be all that enthused to throw out the filibuster when it's the GOP who is in charge...
Think I am right?? :D
The extreme short-sightedness of Democrats never ceases to amaze me..
Even when the result is throwing Roe v Wade and Democrat Eugenics v Casey being thrown on the trash heap of history where it belongs.....????
Democrats are STILL hellbent on their destructive limited short-sighted thinking.. :D
Ya just GOTTA love it, eh!!!
"Never interrupt an enemy when they are destroying themselves.."
LOL
I would make an educated guess (nothing more than a stab in the dark, truth be told) that the relative impact of the Supreme Court overturning Roe is going to depend largely on how fierce the anger against the issue becomes, over the summer.
Now, on this I completely agree..
The anger is going to be very fierce.. We have already seen examples of this with the fire bombing of parenting clinics and churches and attempted assassinations of SCOTUS Justices and police officers...
So yea... The anger will be fierce.. And so will the violence and death and destruction..
And that's going to make things a thousand times WORSE for Democrats in November...
Liz,
Would Dems be wise to draft a national abortion rights bill along the lines that specifically legalizes abortion with restrictions -
Democrats already tried that.. It was a bill that allowed elective baby killing right up to the point of birth..
It was shot down by a Democrat...
before viability or when the life of the mother is threatened etc., etc. - and hold the vote some short time after Labour Day ... get everyone in the House and Senate on record before the midterms?
It's already been tried.. It failed.. Just like everything else that was Anti-American has failed..
The American people simply don't want to see a Casey Anthony Law that allows baby killing right up to the point of birth..
It will not happen..
But I am very heartened to see you finally concede that you support unequivocally restrictions on baby killing AKA abortion...
I always knew you were on my side in this issue.. :D
This probably won't light a fire under voters all by itself. Dems will have to put some serious effort into it. Oh, wait ... :(
Ding Ding Ding!! We have a winner!!! :D
Democrats are always about the short term fix.. The easy way...
Democrats simply are not interested in doing any actual work or heavy lifting..
They are more about cheating and fraud to achieve their goals..
Speak2
Texas is NOT a red state
BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Now THAT was funny.. :D
MC,
But, I doubt the 81 million voters who showed up to make sure Trump got fired have disappeared into thin air.
Yer right.. They haven't disappeared..
Millions of them have changed their Party to GOP... :D
This is well documented as I pointed out yesterday.. :D
So there's no reason to panic!
Keep thinking that, MC.. :D
The 6JC?? No one is even talking about the 6JC anymore.. :D It's history...
There's a reason they call us fans, short for fanatics.
Now on THIS we agree..
Democrats = Fanatics
Totally agree...
Texas Gov. Abbott lashes out after 46 migrants found dead in tractor-trailer: 'These deaths are on Biden'
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott blamed Joe Biden's border security and immigration policies
More death... More blood on the hands of Biden's Handlers and Democrats...
:eyeroll:
It shouldn't be harder to obtain an abortion than an AR-15.
-Hillary Clinton
This has just been declared the "dumbest tweet" of all time.. :D
Rather apropos...
TEX HORROR: 46 MIGRANTS FOUND DEAD
SAN ANTONIO SHOCK
DEADLIEST BORDER CROSSING
LOTS of blood on the hands of Biden's Handlers and Democrats...
Killing babies and killing illegal immigrants..
What is the Democrat Party, Alex"
:eyeroll:
Civil War 2.0 is coming...
It will be a group that is afraid of guns and will ban their group members from having them..
Versus a group that is well trained and well armed...
Gee.... I wonder who is going to win.. :D
Alito helped illustrate the enduring futility of gun control
All Democrats have are WOULDN'T IT BE NICE laws..
Not a single law that Democrats want will address the gun violence issue...
Protesters Dwindle at Supreme Court as Abortion Ruling Sinks In
Once again, Democrats prove they don't have what it takes to play the long game..
They don't have the strength of their convictions to do the hard work, go the distance...
Democrats are always looking for the quick and easy way..
:eyeroll:
"Banning abortion doesn't prevent abortions, it prevents safe abortions."
-Some Ignorant Democrat
Not factually accurate.. Not at all..
First off, the SCOTUS did not ban abortions period.. Safe or otherwise..
The ruling just turned the matter over to states..
So the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED governments of those states can make their own determinations..
AGAIN.. It's called DEMOCRACY people.. Why are ya'all against DEMOCRACY??
No one has been able to answer that simple question..
Doctors who perform abortions will be targeted for prosecution, South Dakota governor says
Good.. That's how it SHOULD be...
The Constitution Was Literally Written By Slaveowners. Why Is America Obsessed With Upholding It?
Democrats want to abolish the US Constitution...
Insurrection?? You betcha...
Democrats LOVE insurrection.. When it suits their agenda...
:eyeroll:
The author of the above article conveniently forgets that it was DEMOCRATS who were slave owners that went to war with their countrymen to preserve the right to keep slaves...
Hypocrisy.. It's not a bug in Democrat programming.. It's a feature.
Ah, Michale, you're contradicting yourself again and confusing everyone. Ahem.
You say Dems have already tried what I am suggesting but that they have never actually tried what I am suggesting.
Do you see what I mean?
You say Dems have already tried what I am suggesting but that they have never actually tried what I am suggesting.
They tried what you are suggesting.. Codifying Roe V Wade into law..
But as usual, Democrats overreached so far and so bad that they couldn't even convince one of their own to support it.. Democrats couldn't even convince their own GOP baby killing allies to support it..
So, yes.. They tried what you suggested..
They just, as usual did it very VERY badly...
Democrats tried for the quick and easy fix..
"{They} chose.... poorly.."
Knight, INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE
Do you know what I am suggesting?
And, are you the kind of man who would support what I am suggesting?
And, are you the kind of man who would support what I am suggesting?
Of course.. As I said, we are on the same side.
We BOTH support restrictions on baby killing AKA abortion..
I am at the heartbeat line and you are at the viability line...
We BOTH support the restrictions.. We only differ on WHEN those restrictions kick in..
But, consider this.. 'Viability' is a nebulous and fluid line..
Put it another way..
Suppose technology is invented that can support a support and preserve a baby at 6 weeks gestation, when a heartbeat is detected for transfer to a surrogate mother.. In other words, the baby is "viable" at 6 weeks gestation...
Would you support moving the 'restrictions' line to 6 weeks??
As I said.. We are on the same page.. We BOTH agree that there should be restrictions on abortion..
We only differ on when those restrictions should kick in..
That's a compromise we can work with, no??
And if Democrats were willing to accept a restriction on abortion, then Roe v Wade would still be the law of the land..
But Democrats wanted to CELEBRATE their baby killing.. SHOUT OUT there abortions..
And here we are...
EVERY Weigantian (with the possible exception of MC.. His position is contradictory) who has gone on record, has stated that they support restrictions on baby killing, AKA abortion..
EVERY ONE...
So, again the question is begged..
Where's the beef???
Would you support moving the 'restrictions' line to 6 weeks??
No.
Are you the kind of man who would?
Are you the kind of man who would?
I am already that man, as I believe that the life begins when a heartbeat is detected...
So, if we postulate the scenario where technology makes a baby "viable" at 6 weeks....
Are you the kind of woman who would be OK with killing that 'viable' baby???
Asked and answered!!!
Black bear dies in Tennessee after breaking into hot car
The bear used its teeth or paws to open the unlocked car, but was trapped when the door closed behind it
I hope the owner of the car isn't white..
They will be charged with a heat crime...
Ba da dum....
Michale, you are the kind of man who would and does support a full ban on abortions, from the point of conception. You probably would ban all manner of contraception, too.
That's the kind of man who is afraid of losing his power and control over women and will do and say anything to prevent that from happening, no matter his asinine substitue for reasoning.
Michale, you are the kind of man who would and does support a full ban on abortions, from the point of conception. You probably would ban all manner of contraception, too.
Not factually accurate.. Weren't you the one who was so upset with me allegedly putting words in your mouth??
That's the kind of man who is afraid of losing his power and control over women and will do and say anything to prevent that from happening, no matter his asinine substitue for reasoning.
Then I guess it's a good thing I am not that kind of man, eh?? :D
You're making my eyes roll ...
Liz,
As has been stated and has been agreed upon..
We are both on the same page as far as restrictions on baby killing, AKA abortion...
We BOTH agree that there SHOULD be restrictions in place..
Why are you trying to create conflict where none exists???
The *ONLY* difference in our positions is that we disagree on WHEN those restrictions should kick in..
That's it.. And that difference can easily be achieved thru compromise..
For example.. I may be able to agree to your viability line as long as you concede that, with the advent of technology, that line will get shorter and shorter as viability is likely to be earlier and earlier in a baby's gestational period..
The art of compromise...
Try it.. You'll like it. :D
You're making my eyes roll ...
Careful there..
According to Democrats that's a sign of white supremacy... :D
I know... Crazy, right??? :eyeroll:
The *ONLY* difference in our positions is that we disagree on WHEN those restrictions should kick in..
Yeah, you believe they should kick in at conception and that nothing should prevent conception.
That ain't on the same page, any which way you slice it. It's not even the same chapter let alone the same book.
Yeah, you believe they should kick in at conception and that nothing should prevent conception.
Please point to the time I *EVER* said that..
You can't because it just ain't true..
Matter of fact I specifically stated I DON'T believe that..
Okay, so how do you describe the difference between detecting a fetal heartbeat at six weeks, the moment of conception and viability, insofar as legal abortions would be concerned, for a guy who likes to have it all ways, all the time.
*
File this one under several headings:
(1) Idiot Republicans
(2) Another Idiot Republican Who Doubts Rape Can Cause Pregnancy
(3) Todd Akin 2.0: "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."
(4) Idiot Republican Who Doubts That Incest Can Cause Pregnancy
(5) Another Moron LEO Assclown Who Believes Their Limited Personal Anecdotal Evidence Equals Facts
It's 2022 and there is seriously still no limit to the depths of the GOP uneducated ignorance regarding the scientific facts of reproduction. #Pathetic
At conception the soon to be baby has it's own DNA.. That's documented fact..
But it's not really a person yet, just a clump of cells..
For me, personally, I believe that person-hood is established once a heartbeat can be detected..
While I understand your position of viability, you must concede that it's a nebulous and changing line..
In the here and now, viability is approx 22 weeks.. A hundred years ago, viability was considerably longer..
It's illogical NOT to assume that, in a hundred years from now, viability could be at 6 weeks..
So, since we agree that baby killing AKA abortion SHOULD have restrictions, and if you insist on the viability line, the onus is on you to compromise that viability in the future could be sooner than 22 weeks..
If you refuse that compromise, then I would hold firm at the 6 week line...
But irregardless of any (or no) compromise, the simple fact is... You and I (and JL) agree that unrestricted baby killing AKA abortion up to the moment of birth is no bueno and should NOT be allowed..
Agreed???
Looks like someone has come around to my way of posting...
I love it!!! :D
Finally!!!!
"They've finally selected the guy we want!!"
-CHOAS Agent, GET SMART
:D
For me, personally, I believe that person-hood is established once a heartbeat can be detected..
After 6 weeks, abortion stops a beating heart..
This is documented fact...
So, since we agree that baby killing AKA abortion SHOULD have restrictions, and if you insist on the viability line, the onus is on you to compromise that viability in the future could be sooner than 22 weeks..
We don't even agree on what you call abortion.
As for the number of weeks linked to viability, I am not insistent on any number. And, I don't really wish to get into a debate about when an abortion should be legal and when it crosses the line into illegality.
I don't think abortion should be a legal issue at all. I see this choice as being essentially between a woman and her doctor with all of the pertinent and inherent 'restrictions' based solely on medical advice.
So, you see now how very little we actaully agree upon.
We don't even agree on what you call abortion.
Factual but not relevant...
As for the number of weeks linked to viability, I am not insistent on any number. And, I don't really wish to get into a debate about when an abortion should be legal and when it crosses the line into illegality.
That's what the whole discussion is about..
I don't think abortion should be a legal issue at all.
That's like saying you don't think murder should be a legal issue at all..
They both are legal issues because of the rights of the person being killed..
So, you see now how very little we actaully agree upon.
Yea, well I am a cup is half full kinda guy..
So I like to concentrate on the parts we DO agree on..
Like the FACT we BOTH agree that there should be restrictions on baby killing, AKA abortion.. :D
Elizabeth Miller
1
Would Dems be wise to draft a national abortion rights bill along the lines that specifically legalizes abortion with restrictions - before viability or when the life of the mother is threatened etc., etc. - and hold the vote some short time after Labour Day ... get everyone in the House and Senate on record before the midterms?
Already passed the House 218-211 on September 24, 2021, in response to the Supreme Court allowing the Texas law to remain in effect without full briefing and holding any oral arguments... the "shadow docket."
Like Roe, the bill set limitations to abortion prior to fetal viability but had exceptions if in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient's life or health.
Maybe they'll do a repeat in 2022 and the Republicans can again lie to their gullible regurgitating rubes claiming that the bill allows abortion on demand until the day of birth, which is a lie.
Lying repeatedly is the only policy the Trump cult seems to have these days, which has unfortunately caused problems for their MAGAt followers.
So, to recap: Ignorance is bliss... until it causes your arrest/indictment and lands your gullible ass in Court and/or prison. :)
andygaus
3
Very good point.
This is already happening in Texas due the SCOTUS stripping the constitutional rights of Texans via the shadow docket in 2021. In response, the District Attorneys in multiple cities have stated they will not criminally prosecute under the statute, including the DA who now holds the job that Wade held... as in Roe v. Wade.
Liz,
Already passed the House 218-211 on September 24, 2021, in response to the Supreme Court allowing the Texas law to remain in effect without full briefing and holding any oral arguments... the "shadow docket."
As I said, Dems have already tried that..
They couldn't convince one of their own to vote for it..
I don't think there's anything at all that's particularly unclear about the issue.
Murder is a crime of intent. If you kill someone while believing that you're just target shooting, because you have no idea that anyone is standing behind the target, that's not murder.
No one actually believes that a zygote is a person.
Everyone knows on some level, however much they try to obfuscate the issue and convince themselves otherwise, that women are people. Everyone also knows that there are complications to pregnancy that sometimes lead to the death of the woman, where it's possible to save the woman without saving the fetus. And they know that and that denying access to such medical procedures will kill a bunch of women. That's part of the outcome that they intend, and it's absolutely going to happen.
Abortion is never murder. Anti-abortion activism is always murder.
Pluralities of Americans in enough states and districts explicitly vote, in every election, that they're just fine with murdering a bunch of women by interfering with medical care. That hasn't changed, and it's not going to. Substantial majorities always vote, in every election, that whatever the rest of us pick is ok with them. (I.e. they don't vote, even though they could: voter suppression happens too, but there are enough voluntary non-voters to get to a majority.) That hasn't changed either, and it's not going to.
It doesn't matter what people will tell a pollster when asked. It matters how they actually vote.
A few Democrats will make a half-hearted attempt to rebuild party infrastructure in slightly-reddish purple states where the state-level politics is deep blood red because Democrats only do presidential and blue-state elections. But it won't go anywhere, because Democrats are still Democrats.
It was decided on November 8, 2016 that no state can have a homicide statute unless it includes zygoticide as first-degree "murder". This is only the first step toward implementing that decision. Nothing except the untimely deaths of at least two of the judges of the Supreme Court (as the Constitution calls them) could possibly stop it. They're relatively young by Supreme Court standards. But that still has them in an age range where the probability of cancer or heart attack is merely low, not unimaginably remote. Two would be an extraordinary coincidence, but still, it's far more likely than Democrats getting our act together.
andygaus
3
Responding again to add: Henry Wade was a Democrat, which I would wager was not lost on the five Republican SCOTUS justices out of 7 that found in favor of Norma McCorvey a.k.a. Roe, a poor white prostitute from the South. McCorvey made a living selling herself, first by selling her body to men (although she unequivocally loved women and had a female partner for near three decades) and later prostituting herself to the anti-abortion activists who paid her and gave her scripts telling her what to say (although she was most assuredly a proponent of choice).
And by the way,
Russia delenda est
Speak2
9
The big one is voter suppression. Any policy can change if voters can vote (Texas is NOT a red state; Texas is a non-voting state (lowest in the nation)).
^^^ This ^^^
Dan,
Murder is a crime of intent. If you kill someone while believing that you're just target shooting, because you have no idea that anyone is standing behind the target, that's not murder.
And if you kill a sentient being with a heartbeat and your INTENT is to kill a sentient being with a heartbeat, then it is murder..
but still, it's far more likely than Democrats getting our act together.
THAT's for damn sure... :D
After 6 weeks, abortion stops a beating heart..
After six minutes taking a pie crust out of the oven may reveal all the ingredients of a pie, but it's still not a pie. People might call it a pie, but it doesn't taste like one.
After six minutes taking a pie crust out of the oven may reveal all the ingredients of a pie, but it's still not a pie. People might call it a pie, but it doesn't taste like one.
And, if we were talking about 6 minutes and an awful dessert, you would have a point..
But we're talking about 6 weeks and a sentient life form with a heartbeat, so you don't..
WWJTKD???
@m,
Your and Dan's argument on the supposed personhood of a fetus is an either-or fallacy. There is a lot of grey area between the two competing concepts of abortion as either murdering a person or disposing of a parasite.
Your and Dan's argument on the supposed personhood of a fetus is an either-or fallacy. There is a lot of grey area between the two competing concepts of abortion as either murdering a person or disposing of a parasite.
Agreed..
The problem is pro-baby killing Democrats are not willing to acknowledge the gray areas as I am..
They go on an on about WOMEN'S rights..
What about the rights of the baby??
Once the GOP has control of Congress, we'll see legislation that acknowledges the rights of the baby...
And once President Trump is back in the Oval Office, he will sign that legislation...
And THEN we will finally have settlement on the issue..
So.. Didja watch Ep 8???
What ya think???
@m,
you can't possibly be that obtuse.
see what i did there?
The whispers of Hillary Clinton 2024 have started
Oh please... please... PLEASE Democrats..
Run Hillary again.. I double dog dare you!!!
yes i watched episode 8. since the outset i thought the doctor's daughter storyline was one of the show's weakest, so i'm hoping it stays resolved.
you can't possibly be that obtuse.
see what i did there?
"Did you hear what you just said!!??"
"I wasn't listening!!"
-THREES COMPANY
:D
Why are we still even arguing the point??
It's a done deal.. Democrats pushed and pushed and pushed and then they got smacked down..
"Game over man!!"
-Private Hudson, ALIENS
yes i watched episode 8. since the outset i thought the doctor's daughter storyline was one of the show's weakest, so i'm hoping it stays resolved.
Damn!!!
I feel EXACTLY the same way!!
While I wouldn't mind revisiting the daughter later and see what she's been up to, I agree..
That story line was very weak.....
But it was a helluva way to resolve it, eh?? I thought that was soo awesome!!! :D
Kinda contrived, but hell.. I am a sucker for a happy ending.. :D
https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2020/04/720/405/Rachel-Levine-REUTERS.jpg?ve=1&tl=1
Dood looks like a lady...
Michale
16
There is still no precedent as there never was a constitutional right to baby killing AKA abortion..
You should actually crack a book and read the decision in Roe which established a woman's constitutional right to an abortion; that way, you'd stop posting this type ridiculous bullshit that is "ludicrous to the point of ignorance."
To claim that baby killing AKA abortion is on par with the 2nd Amendment is ludicrous to the point of ignorance..
You're putting words in Chris's mouth that constitute a straw man argument of your own making, which is even more "ludicrous to the point of ignorance."
Irregardless of that fact, the precedent that you are ACTUALLY talking about HAS happened before...
Irregardless isn't a word. Oh, where is your false equivalency?
In Plessy v Ferguson, the SCOTUS ruled that Democrats had the Constitutional right to the "Separate But Equal" doctrine.. That was in 1896 and was a "Constitutional Right" for 58 years.. Longer than Roe V Wade...
There's your false equivalency.
According to Democrats love of Stare Decisis Democrats obviously believe that PvF should still be the law of the land to this day.. :eyeroll:
Straw man fallacy. You should definitely keep rolling your eyes looking for a brain back there if these repetitive straw man fallacies and false equivalencies that are "ludicrous to the point of ignorance" are all you have to offer to Chris's valid points.
You should probably read the text of the cases you're spewing repetitively in order to avoid your perpetual state of appearing "ludicrous to the point of ignorance."
Just was baby killing AKA abortion was never really a constitutional right...
Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg acknowledged this...
So much love and caring for RBG, but (of course) you keep putting your own bullshit words in her mouth that she never said, i.e., like Russ explained so well yesterday: "A good way to know if you are defending the wrong side is if doing so requires you to rely on lies to make your point!" Love you, Russ.
*
Ruth Bader Ginsburg repeatedly sided with the idea that abortion was a constitutional right, but she had preferred that right to be phased in more gradually and that it rely more on a different part of the Constitution — the right to equal protection under the constitution (14th Amendment) rather than the right to privacy, which was the basis of Roe.
Your right-wing handlers are feeding you lies which you regurgitate here on a repetitive basis. It's comical to watch you fall for it and spew the lying bullshit over and over... stuck on stupid.
Reading is fundamental in order to avoid the repetitive appearance of being "ludicrous to the point of ignorance." Thanks for the projection in your descriptive assist; it definitely suits you. :)
Michale
19
Democrats already tried that.. It was a bill that allowed elective baby killing right up to the point of birth..
That is (of course) a lie... and you believed it and regurgitated it here.
You should stop believing your right-wing handlers unless you enjoy the appearance of being "ludicrous to the point of ignorance." :)
It was shot down by a Democrat...
It passed in the House and was shot down by a shit ton of Republicans in the Senate too.
It's already been tried.. It failed.. Just like everything else that was Anti-American has failed..
I agree you are "Anti-American." :)
Michale
27
Please stop promoting violence on this archived forum.
As always, I appreciate the name-checks..
But I am not going to respond to all your personal attacks and such...
But I appreciate the fact that you are still thinking of me... :D
Keep up the name-checks.. Let's everyone know yer thinking of me.. :D
Who knew the number 27 is a promote violence number..
:D
Democrats’ Abortion Views Are Far Too Radical To Benefit From The Post-Roe Political Reality
At a time Democrats desperately need to seem normal, they are saddled with one of the least defensible policy positions in American life.
And therein lies the problem for Democrats..
Their ENTIRE agenda is Build Back Broke/Green New Deal/Unlimited Baby Killing Right Up To Birth...
And normal sane everyday Americans simply are NOT interested in the bullshit that Democrats are trying to sell...
Which is exactly why there is a Nuclear Uber Biblical Shellacking coming for Democrats in November... :D
I mean, imagine the comments come 9 Nov 2022!!! :D
It's gonna be a hoedown!!! :D
I mean, com'on...
Does ANYONE here (besides MC of course) believe that Democrats are going to do OK in November???
Anyone???
{{ccchhhiiiirrrrpppp}}{{cccchhhiiirrrrppppp}}
Yea... That's what I figgered...
:D
The American people are so far away from the Democrat agenda as is possible to be and be in the same galaxy...
American people = Milky Way galaxy
Democrat Party = Pegasus galaxy....
That's about how that plays out....
Let's take a state like Nevada.
Democrat Senator Masto, the incumbent Democrat running for re-election, voted in May for a bill that would legalize abortion to the moment of birth, forbid states from enacting protections for unborn life, and expand taxpayer funding.
That's the kind of radical Democrat baby killing agenda that every day Americans are against..
The majority of Americans support restricting abortions to before 15 weeks...
Democrats are simply going to lose and lose big in November...
No doubt about it..
Let's look at Pennsylvania..
The Democrat nominee John Fetterman already publicly announced his support for the barbaric and abhorrent baby-killing-until-birth legislation that Senator Masto of Nevada voted for.
The legislation — which had bipartisan opposition but still had 48 senators and 218 congressmen voting for it — explicitly states the right to abortion on demand shall not be limited or otherwise infringed.
Democrats are ALL IN FAVOR of unlimited abortion until the moment of birth..
Something even EVERY WEIGANTIAN (except for possible MC) has stated they are against..
How do ya'all expect Democrats to do OK in November with this kind of abhorrent and heinous baby killing agenda that the vast majority of Americans oppose???
Hmmmmmmm????
OK, Over to North Carolina
Dem nominee Cheri Beasley has made abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy the central argument of her campaign.
Beasley wants federal legislation to codify abortion on demand up until the moment of birth...
These are ALL Democrat candidates who want to codify into federal the right for a woman to kill her baby right up to the second before birth...
Again, I have to ask..
Which this kind of viewpoint... Do ya'all HONESTLY believe these Dem candidates can prevail????
Got quiet all of the sudden..
{{tap, tap}} Is this thing on???
:D
The FACTS and the American people are against Democrats when it comes to baby killing AKA abortion..
This is simply the reality of the here and now...
Ya'all would do well to just learn to accept it and move on...
I'm just sayin'....
Another problem for the Democrats is the Cardassian Show Trial that is the 6JC....
It's going to be increasingly and exceedingly difficult for the 6JC to maintain ANY kind of semblance of moral high ground when Democrats are burning historical catholic churches to the ground and trying to assassinate SCOTUS Justices and police officers...
Once again... Democrats are their own worst enemies...
We're having fun now aren't we?? :D
What RGB said about Roe v. Wade:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/27/what-ruth-bader-ginsburg-really-said-about-roe-v-wade/
Democrats are burning historical catholic churches to the ground and trying to assassinate SCOTUS Justices and police officers...
You really mean democrats problem is going to be republican exaggeration? Abandoned church and not only did your would be assassin turn himself in according to Alito he was just exercising his 2nd amendment rights. But you forgot about all the broken windows on the Arizona state house that weren't actually broken or old Rudy who's slap on the back sent him back two steps (how is that even possible) when the video clear shows otherwise...
Of course the real violence is from the right and their various colors of jack booted thugs.
nypoet22
67
After six minutes taking a pie crust out of the oven may reveal all the ingredients of a pie, but it's still not a pie. People might call it a pie, but it doesn't taste like one.
If the pie crust and/or filling contains eggs (used as a leavening agent), you're a sentient chicken killer.
But seriously, all this talk about "fetal heartbeat," which scientifically does not exist at 6 weeks. At 6 weeks of development, there is an embryo (not a fetus) with no "heart" that beats. Using ultrasound, there is sometimes (not always) detectable activity within a 4 mm thickening located next to a yolk sac of the embryo. This 4 mm thickening can be heard on ultrasound of the embryo (not fetus) as early as (not always) 6 weeks. The flutter can be detected with fetal Doppler (now actually in the fetal stage) as early as (not always) 12 weeks. When can you hear the fetal heartbeat via stethoscope? Usually between the 18th and 20th week.
People actually believe there is a "fetal heartbeat" at 6 weeks when scientifically there is definitely not and the "clump of cells" (not my crude term) is still an embryo (not a fetus). The use of the term "fetal heartbeat" is used by anti-abortionist activists and right-wing politicians (by design) in order to fool the gullible masses into believing that an embryo is a person when it still isn't even a fetus at 6 weeks and won't be until multiple weeks thereafter.
I can't stop laughing at the commenter on the board who actually suggested that a "baby" at 6 weeks might become viable with future technology. Crack a book! It's an embryo that takes many multiple months before it becomes viable and could never be viable at 6 weeks at the embryonic stage. Only in science fiction... certainly never in scientific fact.
But you can definitely see how easily the disingenuous use of the term "fetal heartbeat" can fool people who have a political agenda not based on science... and definitely words designed to fool them.
So, to recap: The "fetal heartbeat" is neither "fetal" nor a "heartbeat." It's an embryonic flutter detectable via ultrasound which is a 4 mm thickening located next to a yolk sac of the embryo (not fetus).
Those are the facts. :)
Abandoned church
It was a historical church..
and not only did your would be assassin turn himself in according to Alito he was just exercising his 2nd amendment rights.
So, you think the 2nd Amendment allows people to assassinate government officials.. You're stupider than I thought....
And THAT says something.. :D
The simple FACT is, the scumbag has been charged with attempted murder..
YOU think he should get off scot free because he turned himself in..
"Whatta marrooon.."
-Bugs Bunny
:D
You have no moral, legal or ethical leg to stand on, Bashi..
You know it.. I know it..
Everyone else here knows it..
What RGB said about Roe v. Wade:
Washington Post....
'nuff said...
RBG was against Roe v Wade.. This is documented FACT..
You lost.. Get over it..
Only in science fiction... certainly never in scientific fact.
Yesterday's science fiction is TODAY's scientific FACT..
"Doi..."
-Vanillope Von Schweetz, WRECK IT RALPH
Ergo, it's imminently rational and logical to postulate that TODAY's science fiction is tomorrow's scientific fact..
At least for those who have more than 2 brain cells to rub together, eh?? :D
But thanx for playing... :D Always nice ta have ya.. :D
Once again, I must point out the obvious FACT...
Democrats lost... The pushed and they pushed and they got pushed BACK...
And here we are... :D
Isn't it time to lick the wounds and move on???
I'm just sayin'... :D
Woot!!! #100!!!!!! :D
Conservatives roast AOC demanding abortion clinics on federal lands in red states: ‘Sounds like a toddler’
New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made the comments after the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade on Friday
"Sounds Like A Toddler"...
That could describe the entire Democrat Party, eh?? :D
"Yes, Democrats, please run on turning national parks into abortion factories."
Yea, do it, Democrats.. I double dog DARE ya!!! :D
Let's face reality here, people..
Occasional Cortex is the face of the Democrat Party...
That's why there is going to be an Uber Nuclear Biblical Shellacking of the Democrat Party in November...
Real Patriotic Americans are not buying what Occasional Cortex/Democrats are selling...
It's really THAT simple... :D
[62]
dsws wrote:
I don't think there's anything at all that's particularly unclear about the issue.
Sir or Madam, this is an excellent post. I take exception to very little in what you've written and I really appreciate you boiling down things to the bottom ?ine. It's hard to say a lot with only a few words. Takes me forever. Jolly good show!
[67]
(busting a gut laughing)
:D
It was a historical church..
That had been abandoned an no longer had services.
So, you think the 2nd Amendment allows people to assassinate government officials.. You're stupider than I thought....
And I thought you could read. He never made an attempt but called himself in, but according to Alito just carrying a gun on a public street is perfectly legal. Until he turned himself in what crime did he commit?
You have no moral, legal or ethical leg to stand on, Bashi..
That's because I was born with two. I have moral, legal and ethical legs to stand on. Still, big talk from Don 2.0 who can't back up their smack talk...
Washington Post....
'nuff said...
Jealous that someone backed up their post?
Michale
82
As always, I appreciate the name-checks..
Responding to repetitive bullshit is called "fact check"... not "name-checks."
But I am not going to respond to all your personal attacks and such...
Lucky for everyone; I speak troll and will now translate your bullshit:
But I appreciate the fact that you are still thinking of me... :D
Keep up the name-checks.. Let's everyone know yer thinking of me.. :D
:D
"Sounds Like A Toddler"...
That could describe the entire Democrat Party, eh?? :D
Sounds like Rudy and Arizona republicans actually...
Occasional Cortex is the face of the Democrat Party...
Could be worse, at least it's not Marjorie three names, Boebert and Gaetz...
That had been abandoned an no longer had services.
Which is not relevant to the FACT that it was a Catholic Church that was a Historical Site..
And it was burned down by America hating Democrats..
I get it.. You don't have ANY facts to support your claims..
Thanx again for the name-checks... :D
Always glad ta know I still have that space in your head..
:D
Could be worse, at least it's not Marjorie three names, Boebert and Gaetz...
Who??
Never heard of 'em...
Nice try though.. :D
Nice try though.. :D
Actually, no it wasn't..
But I figured I would be nice to ya.. :D
Michale
83
Who knew the number 27 is a promote violence number..
Anybody who read your comment at [27] that promotes violence. #SSDD
Please stop posting repetitive comments on this forum that continue to promote violence.
"Clarence Thomas Has Always Been A Person Of Resentment, Anger, Grievance"
-Hillary Clinton
BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Something about the pot calling the kettle black comes to mind.. :D
Oh please please PLEASE Democrats.. Run Hillary again in 2024....
Please stop posting repetitive comments on this forum that continue to promote violence.
Awww Kick.. Yer so cute when you beg... :D
I have never posted comments promoting violence..
But, by all means.. Continue to beg.. I enjoy seeing it.. :D
Welp, it's that time again...
We finished JOE PICKETT last night.. A pretty decent series... I highly recommend it.. Looking forward to SEASON 2...
We're starting BOSCH LEGACY tonight.. A continuation of the BOSCH series...
VERY good show... Again.. Highly recommend..
See ya'all bright and early in the AM where ya'all can whine and cry and stamp your feet some more that Democrats lost the right to kill babies..
I am sure it will be a hoot.. :D
And it was burned down by America hating Democrats..
Please post a link that proves it was a "America hating Democrats".
I get it.. You don't have ANY facts to support your claims..
Michale
90
I would wager most of us were watching Cassidy Hutchinson testify.
I gave a preview of some of her testimony 18 days ago:
*
Poor Donald is now making excuses that sound like a 4-year-old child. It's comical to watch. :)
Actually, no it wasn't..
But I figured I would be nice to ya.. :D
No, please keep going. Showing your ignorance, real or feigned, is quite funny...
Michale
118
Awww Kick.. Yer so cute when you beg... :D
I'm always cute when I do anything; obviously, I already know this.
I have never posted comments promoting violence..
Yes, you definitely have; the forum is archived. You can lie about it all you want; it won't change the facts.
But, by all means.. Continue to beg.. I enjoy seeing it.. :D
If somebody asking you nicely to stop your repetitive promoting of violence on another man's website is "begging," then Bashi has pegged you perfectly: Don Harris 2.0.
So I'll stop asking nicely and reiterate: Stop the promoting of violence on this website.
"ludicrous to the point of ignorance."
Kick, I see what you're doing here. Since Rubes...I mean Repugs respond to LIES told over and over, maybe some of them will respond to TRUTH likewise told over and over. Clever:)
BTW Kick, are you a DI by any chance?
***J6C Hearings***
Season 1 Episode 6
Today's one and only witness was a Special Assistant to Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, a certain Cassidy Hutchinson.
She gave compelling testimony about events in the WH right before and on January 6th.
Mixing her testimony in with video testimony both collected from her and from other Republican officials, today we found out that
Trump wanted to either walk or ride to the capital to personally lead the insurrection and he got violently angry when denied this by his own security staff, at one point grabbing for the steering wheel of his Presidential Vehicle.
On other occasions when Trump got very angry he threw dishes and pool tablecloths out from tables to express his displeasure. Bill Barr giving Trump the DoJ finding of "no fraud" over dinner Dec. 1st was an example.
Trump, arriving at the White House after he sent the Nov, wanted to be alone with his cell phone for the entire first hour after getting back to the White House. Various communications from Hannity and others begging Trump to call off the mob were in vain, Meadows reported "he doesn't want to do anything" and think the mob isn't doing anything wrong. Oh, and Trump said
"Mike deserves it" when told about certain, er, chanting.
On Jan. 7th a group including Javanka, Meadows, Cippaloni, Hershman and Kelly Mac tried to convince Trump to condemn the violence. But Trump wanted to Pardon the whole crew! At length Trump issued a watered down statement in part to give Trump cover from the 25th Amendment. Which was definitely being discussed in the Cabinet.
No J6C hearing would be complete without a preview of coming attraction(s) and Liz said that there was Witness Tampering along the way!
I sure hope I don't have to wait until July for the next hearing.
Okay.
CW I showed you mine lemme see you show yours. Hope I didn't just step on you as we say in the Trash Rock 'n Roll Devil worship music business.
[126]
**Correction**
Trump, arriving at the White House after he sent the MOB, wanted to be alone with his cell phone for the entire first hour after..
MtnCaddy
125
BTW Kick, are you a DI by
any chance?
Rephrase the question, please. :)