Topic: The state Of The States. How Has America Got To Now?

[Port_vale_lad]

hows it right that 9 people can overturn something that that vast majority believe in?

What's happened to democracy?

Also anyone who has belief in an invisible man in the sky should not be able to make decisions for others, Its fecking ludicrous.

[Nobby Reserve]

hows it right that 9 people can overturn something that that vast majority believe in?

What's happened to democracy?

6 people

(well, 5, as Roberts supported the Mississippi attempt to limit abortion to the first 15 weeks, but didn't want restrictions to go further than that... but, on the other hand, knew what his verdict would do generally for RvW)

Also anyone who has belief in an invisible man in the sky should not be able to make decisions for others, Its fecking ludicrous.

Amen to that.

[rafathegaffa83]

I'd be curious to see 5-10 years from now if there is statistical evidence of a brain drain from these states. I'd imagine it will be harder for academic, medical and scientific institutions to recruit/entice candidates. I'd imagine some will look for opportunities to leave. It would also seem likely that companies will put into consideration as to whether build facilities in certain states.

[BarryCrocker]

I'd be curious to see 5-10 years from now if there is statistical evidence of a brain drain from these states. I'd imagine it will be harder for academic, medical and scientific institutions to recruit/entice candidates. I'd imagine some will look for opportunities to leave. It would also seem likely that companies will put into consideration as to whether build facilities in certain states.

Probably not in states like Texas that have zero state income tax.

[Jiminy Cricket]

“President Trump, on behalf of all the Maga patriots in America, I want to thank you for the historic victory for white life in the supreme court yesterday,” she said, drawing cheers from the crowd in Illinois.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/26/illinois-mary-miller-roe-wade-abortion-verdict-victory-for-white-life-trump

Obviously the terrible part about that statement is the ‘victory for white lives’ bit but it’s so weird they refer to him as President Trump.

I believe - or she claims, at least - that she was attempting to say, 'right to life'. But given her past 'Hitler was right' comments, it is hard to give her the benefit of the doubt.

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/L7CQWKiG1Hw" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/L7CQWKiG1Hw</a>

[Sammy5IsAlive]

I disagree with the Supreme Court decision as far as I understand the principle - that the issue of abortion is one that should be decided democratically at the ballot box. My view both in terms of the US constitution and in terms of our own unwritten constitution and things like the Human Rights Act is that these institutions exist to protect people from the 'tyranny of the majority' in certain protected areas. My view is that decisions on health and family planning should come under that right to privacy described in Roe v Wade.

That said I do find some of the discussion around this topic to be very black and white. "My body, my choice" is an easy slogan to support on the face of it - but do we feel that the principal holds against any challenge?

So for example - given the (very valid) criticism of the situation in America - what are people's views on the abortion laws in the UK? In the UK women do not have an unrestricted "right to choose". Even prior to the 24th week of pregnancy an abortion is still only legal if

the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family

In practice this requirement is interpreted broadly so that it is left to the individual woman to make that decision unchallenged on whether continuing with the unwanted pregnancy would risk causing injury to her mental health.

But it is worth keeping in mind that in the UK a woman's right to an abortion is not based on 'freedom of choice' but more on 'freedom from harm'. Do people feel that this legal fiction should be removed so that before the 24th week a woman has a right to an abortion free of any legal restriction based purely on their freedom of choice?

Where do people feel that the principle of "my body, my choice" ends? Say for example the law was changed so that all 'abortion' decisions was based on the choice of the woman, regardless of how far along they are in the pregnancy. Practically I guess this would involve the doctors trying to induce a premature birth with the intention of trying to save the life of the infant. A baby's chance of survival at 24 weeks compared to their chance of survival if born at full term is about 60%. So does a woman's right to choose trump all rights of the baby to be given the best chance of survival? Do we consider all unborn children to be 'unpersons' with no rights?

[Boston always unofficial]

Probably not in states like Texas that have zero state income tax.

 

That's one thing thing they need to do countrywide defo for the low paid, stop taxing the poor bastards.Tax the churches, tax the uni's,tax the fucking wealthy.Madness i know.

[Nobby Reserve]

[snip]

My own belief is that the woman should have the absolute right to choose. It is she whose body is carrying the baby. It's also worth pointing out that women don't make the decision to abort their foetus without consideration. And that consideration deepens the longer into the pregnancy the woman is. About 90% of abortions are carried out in the first trimester, with the majority of those carried out later done so for medical reasons (mother or foetus)

The 24 weeks is based on viability, and the question of when a foetus becomes a fully viable human. I personally believe that until a foetus becomes viable, it should not be considered a human being. But then, I don't believe in the concept of a soul (we're just extremely developed biological machines)

The UK (exc NI) law on abortion is a slight fudge, written at a time even less socially progressed than now that was still uneasy about abortion. That it's applied with sensitivity, pragmatism and maturity makes it work. I guess if a bunch of backwards sky-fairyists got into power and began imposing oppressive puritanism on the country, they could force the law to be more strictly applied - but even if the current law was changed to explicitly give carte blanche abortion rights whatever, our law-making process means they could just change it anyway. So it's moot.

[Chakan]

dunno if I need to spoiler this

Spoiler

[close]

[Robinred]

Forgive me for changing the subject, but did anyone else watch tonight’s documentary on Sky - ‘JFK revisited: through the looking glass’?

It was essentially a revisiting of Oliver Stones’ largely discredited film ‘JFK’. Even so, and despite it’s markedly selective source material, it was a fascinating examination of the conspiracy theories surrounding the alleged CIA involvement in JFK’s assassination.

[thejbs]

My own belief is that the woman should have the absolute right to choose. It is she whose body is carrying the baby. It's also worth pointing out that women don't make the decision to abort their foetus without consideration. And that consideration deepens the longer into the pregnancy the woman is. About 90% of abortions are carried out in the first trimester, with the majority of those carried out later done so for medical reasons (mother or foetus)

The 24 weeks is based on viability, and the question of when a foetus becomes a fully viable human. I personally believe that until a foetus becomes viable, it should not be considered a human being. But then, I don't believe in the concept of a soul (we're just extremely developed biological machines)

The UK (exc NI) law on abortion is a slight fudge, written at a time even less socially progressed than now that was still uneasy about abortion. That it's applied with sensitivity, pragmatism and maturity makes it work. I guess if a bunch of backwards sky-fairyists got into power and began imposing oppressive puritanism on the country, they could force the law to be more strictly applied - but even if the current law was changed to explicitly give carte blanche abortion rights whatever, our law-making process means they could just change it anyway. So it's moot.

Agreed.

There’s the old hypothetical conundrum for anti-choice campaigners:

If you rushed into a burning building and could only save one, would you choose to save a vat of 500 viable embryos or a newborn child. If you believe life begins at conception, the moral imperative is to save the most lives.

[GreatEx]

This is it. My mother and mother in law, devout Catholics, are anti-abortion but pro-choice. Anti-choice activists are not pro-life and pro choice activists may be anti-abortion.

Agreed. I'm not religious at all, but I couldn't honestly tell you whether I'm "pro-abortion" or "anti-abortion". And it misses the point anyway. My gut feeling has always been that if faced with an unwanted pregnancy, I would want to keep it, and if the mother was uncertain I would try to convince her - but if the mother was against it, I would concede. So however uncertain I may feel about abortion itself, the underlying principle that the woman, as carrier, should have the final word, holds true - and most fundamentally, the principle of choice is absolute. That earlier article about "regretters" trying to deny their choice to others makes my blood boil. It's easy to have regrets about the things you didn't do - I have plenty, but if I had my time again I would never accept someone enforcing the other option upon me. Let's face it, if forced to have their children, the reasons those women had the procedure in the first place would probably come to the fore and fill them with opposite regrets. They can absolutely fucking do one.

[skipper757]

So what's the way forward then? I acknowlege everything you've said but the voters who have reliably voted Dem through all those years aren't robots. It's natural if even they begin to be disillusioned when you're urging them to vote like it's the most important election ever when the message you're sending out to them is that the best they can hope for in return is a shitty status quo, and even that's not really true anymore as things are going backwards. There's a difference between being disillusioned because the Green New Deal or Medicare 4 All hasn't been passed and being disillusioned because a Dem trifecta refuses to act to prevent current abortion and voting rights from being eroded. The latter should be bare minimum stuff.

It doesn't need to be an AOC/Bernie type that primaries Manchin but the Dem leadership should start requiring the likes of filbuster reform as requirements for endorsement. To still treat that as some sort of progressive/far-left/purity politics in the face of the current political landscape is negligent IMO.

You're not wrong, but they have to keep voting because the rules are stacked as such.  Sure, it makes sense to make changes (if Moderates running the show with Progressives as a side-group isn't working, you might as well go more Progressive).  It's not something I disagree with, and I think filibuster reform as requirements for endorsement is certainly interesting.

However, at the state and local levels, when it comes to messaging and winning voters, Democrats are going to have to continue to have a hard time unless they go full unity, but given the broad church the Democrats need, and their wide stances on every issue, it's very difficult.

[Alan_X]

Forgive me for changing the subject, but did anyone else watch tonight’s documentary on Sky - ‘JFK revisited: through the looking glass’?

It was essentially a revisiting of Oliver Stones’ largely discredited film ‘JFK’. Even so, and despite it’s markedly selective source material, it was a fascinating examination of the conspiracy theories surrounding the alleged CIA involvement in JFK’s assassination.

It’s a pile of shite like the original. Stone did so much damage with his first film and fortunately this one has largely gone unnoticed.

[BarryCrocker]

SLJ throwing some serious shade at Clarence Thomas after he suggested the court should reconsider other key decisions.

[killer-heels]

Was watching GMB, is it true that in Ohio during an ectopic pregnancy they try to re implant the egg into the correct place?

[GreatEx]

Was watching GMB, is it true that in Ohio during an ectopic pregnancy they try to re implant the egg into the correct place?

I seem to recall one of their lawmakers/governors intending to make it mandatory for doctors to attempt to re-implant, with the threat of murder charges if they failed to do so, and he had to be talked down by more knowledgeable people pointing out that there was no known re-implantation procedure.

[GreatEx]

I believe - or she claims, at least - that she was attempting to say, 'right to life'. But given her past 'Hitler was right' comments, it is hard to give her the benefit of the doubt.

Yeah, the tongue always slips in the same direction. These people have form for doing this - throw out a tidbit for the WS crowd, then walk it back with a flimsy excuse. The WS mob get their red meat and the speaker gets away with it because they have enough apologists willing to swallow and regurgitate the excuses.

[12C]

Remember the woman who used to lie for Trump, she has just won a gubernatorial primary and in her speech…

https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/status/1541102529483640832?s=21&t=aOifGPNyz7VT40IX7CslhQ

Words actually fail me

[Lusty]

Women are being advised to remove period tracking apps from their phones as the data could show conception dates which prosecutors could use to charge if the pregnancy doesn't make it to term...

Fertility clinics offering IVF could now have to limit access due to the risks of miscarriage...

Any natural miscarriage could be considered an illegal abortion

Eptopic pregnancies could be considered abortion. 

Fuck America

I'm late to this, but in case any American women are reading this, you need to think beyond the tracking apps.

The first thing people do when they fall pregnant is start searching on Google.  Looking for clinics on Google maps, sending emails, call logs etc.  All of this data is stored and sold off to data brokers, and potentially sold on to law enforcement.  If they don't have it already, the agencies can issue a subpoena to the tech companies, and they will comply.

I always get stick on here when I bring up digital privacy issues, tin foil hat, what have you got to hide etc.  Well, 50% of the US population now potential have something to hide, and they need to start getting serious about this kind of thing.

[Jiminy Cricket]

SLJ throwing some serious shade at Clarence Thomas after he suggested the court should reconsider other key decisions.

I was waiting for someone to mention this. Loving was decided under similar principles/reasoning as the other Supreme Court decisions Thomas would like to revisit. The man is a moron.

[So… Howard Philips]

It’s a pile of shite like the original. Stone did so much damage with his first film and fortunately this one has largely gone unnoticed.

I watched it with a dawning sense that I was watching a bunch of crap.

How anyone gives such a crank the opportunity to make such gibberish is beyond comprehension.

[GreatEx]

The film was worth it for the Seinfeld scene it inspired

[Red-Soldier]

It may be fiction (like many others), but JFK was a superb film.

[BarryCrocker]

The film was worth it for the Seinfeld scene it inspired

[Nobby Reserve]

Lots of comments in the US about outraged moderate Republican voters shifting their votes to Democrat, which is great in principle... but! What exactly would the Democrats even do with a Senate majority if they secured it?

Biden has ruled out flooding the SC.

The Democrats should be fighting these mid-terms mainly on this ruling - and the accompanying comments by 'Uncle' Thomas (to use SLJ's vernacular). Promise that, if they got a majority, they would do everything to reverse the flawed judgment. Make it about personal freedoms against the forces of oppression.

The far-right and the Christianist Fundamentalists are massivley going to turn out. Give moderates and progressives alike something to be inspired by.

Make it a battle. Crank up the culture war.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Remember the woman who used to lie for Trump, she has just won a gubernatorial primary and in her speech…

https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/status/1541102529483640832?s=21&t=aOifGPNyz7VT40IX7CslhQ

Words actually fail me

Fucking. Hell.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

I'm late to this, but in case any American women are reading this, you need to think beyond the tracking apps.

The first thing people do when they fall pregnant is start searching on Google.  Looking for clinics on Google maps, sending emails, call logs etc.  All of this data is stored and sold off to data brokers, and potentially sold on to law enforcement.  If they don't have it already, the agencies can issue a subpoena to the tech companies, and they will comply.

I always get stick on here when I bring up digital privacy issues, tin foil hat, what have you got to hide etc.  Well, 50% of the US population now potential have something to hide, and they need to start getting serious about this kind of thing.

If you use Google to search for anythnig then you're already asking for it

Use something like DuckDuckGo, Norton Anti-Track, Ghostery etc as a default

[Kenny's Jacket]

Lots of comments in the US about outraged moderate Republican voters shifting their votes to Democrat, which is great in principle... but! What exactly would the Democrats even do with a Senate majority if they secured it?

Biden has ruled out flooding the SC.

The Democrats should be fighting these mid-terms mainly on this ruling - and the accompanying comments by 'Uncle' Thomas (to use SLJ's vernacular). Promise that, if they got a majority, they would do everything to reverse the flawed judgment. Make it about personal freedoms against the forces of oppression.

The far-right and the Christianist Fundamentalists are massivley going to turn out. Give moderates and progressives alike something to be inspired by.

Make it a battle. Crank up the culture war.

If Biden was too put extra judges in there., Would they be able to reverse the decision ?

[Jiminy Cricket]

If Biden was too put extra judges in there., Would they be able to reverse the decision ?

Yes. It would be dependent upon an appeal of a relevant case - which would seem certain.

But really, there needs to be a constitutional amendment to prevent this happening again. I just cannot see how this will happen, even if the Republicans are hammered in the autumn.

[Nobby Reserve]

Yes. It would be dependent upon an appeal of a relevant case - which would seem certain.

But really, there needs to be a constitutional amendment to prevent this happening again. I just cannot see how this will happen, even if the Republicans are hammered in the autumn.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that appointments to the SC need only a simple Sentate majority (and there's nothing in the Constitution that dictates there have to be 9 SC judges), but amending the Constitution requires the supermajority due to the existence of the fillibuster. The whole filibuster issue, however, can be got rid of with a Senate simple majority (but at present Sinema and Manchin refuse to even consider that)

[Kenny's Jacket]

Yes. It would be dependent upon an appeal of a relevant case - which would seem certain.

But really, there needs to be a constitutional amendment to prevent this happening again. I just cannot see how this will happen, even if the Republicans are hammered in the autumn.

OK, so why isnt this something Biden wants to do?

[Nobby Reserve]

OK, so why isnt this something Biden wants to do?

He's always been a consensus politician, and one who played not just by the letter of the rules, but the spirit of them.

The problem now is that the Repugs - who have shifted a mile to the right (from a social issue perspective, and that's partly as a result of knowing they needed the millions of religionist nutters onside or their electoral chances were toast) - repeatedly ride roughshod over both the letter and spirit of the rules. And keep winning.

It's like Biden doesn't want to stoop to the same underhand and partisan tactics that the Repugs do.

[Chakan]

OK, so why isnt this something Biden wants to do?

Because democrats are the only one's still playing by the rules. Plus democrats couldn't find their arse from their elbows to get it passed.

It's like Biden doesn't want to stoop to the same underhand and partisan tactics that the Repugs do.

Meanwhile the country and the people suffer. But hey, as long as Biden and the other democrats can sleep at night.

[Machae]

Because democrats are the only one's still playing by the rules. Plus democrats couldn't find their arse from their elbows to get it passed.

They always shoot themselves in the foot don't they? Same with Labour

Obama had a super majority, didn't pack the supreme court

Democrats got rid of Al Franken (holding themselves to a higher bar than Republicans)

Ruth Ginsberg thinking she can live forever

Biden will probably want to run again (the country needs someone more energised and dynamic)

[Jiminy Cricket]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that appointments to the SC need only a simple Sentate majority (and there's nothing in the Constitution that dictates there have to be 9 SC judges), but amending the Constitution requires the supermajority due to the existence of the fillibuster. The whole filibuster issue, however, can be got rid of with a Senate simple majority (but at present Sinema and Manchin refuse to even consider that)

Yes, a simple majority is all that is required. Again, yes, the number of justices is not specified in the Constitution and the number of justices has varied over time. Yet again, yes, a super-majority is required to amended the constitution. I posted a few days ago about what is required to create a new Amendment:

https://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=349165.msg18396736#msg18396736

The super-majority required for most votes in the Senate are based upon a rule. And, yes, the rule can be changed by a simple majority. But as you wrote, Manchin and Sinema are roadblocking this. However, the requirement for a super-majority is certainly unconstitutional. I think the Democrats should just declare it so and pass laws based upon a simple majority. The Republicans would go nuts of course, and I could see it ending up at the Supreme Court. I think we should also expect that Manchin and Sinema to put a spanner in the works by not voting for something where the Democrats state that they will not apply the super-majority rule. So, don't announce it. Pass a law legalising abortion, let it pass by a simple majority and then announce that it is law since the super-majority rule is unconstitutional. This surely would end up at the Supreme court. The Democratic Party has to play hardball now - there is no choice.

https://legaljournal.princeton.edu/tyranny-of-the-minority-the-unconstitutionality-of-the-filibuster/

https://archive.ph/fPF6i

[Jiminy Cricket]

OK, so why isnt this something Biden wants to do?

Because it would make the Republicans extremely unhappy. To be fair to him, there is not universal support for this within the Democratic Party. I am not sure what Manchin would do. But, given his (and Collins's) public comments about the repeal of Row and how they had been mislead by the justices, just maybe one or more of them would support and expansion. I don't know.

The US democracy is severely broken. And I do not believe there is yet a broad enough will to fix it or even close to it.

[Red-Soldier]

If you use Google to search for anythnig then you're already asking for it

Use something like DuckDuckGo, Norton Anti-Track, Ghostery etc as a default

Was about to suggest that. 

[Lusty]

If you use Google to search for anythnig then you're already asking for it

Use something like DuckDuckGo, Norton Anti-Track, Ghostery etc as a default

I think it's a little unfair to say they're 'asking for it'.

It goes beyond just search though. There's trackers all over the place, and everything you do now creates a data trail. Get an Uber to the clinic? Buy a product on Amazon? Use Venmo to pay for it? You can bet your life that the nuttier states will be trying to get this data and build a dragnet out of it.

[Kenny's Jacket]

Thanks for the replies, Im quite behind the door with US politics..

I guess I dont need to ask my next question, why doesnt he get some Executive Orders going. Trump seem to use them all the time?