Roe Overturned?
-
wrote on 3 May 2022, 12:58 last edited by
Those are probably errors introduced by optical character recognition.
-
wrote on 3 May 2022, 13:26 last edited by
-
wrote on 3 May 2022, 13:47 last edited by
"I'll say ANYTHING to get elected.".
I'm reminded of one Ohio attorney general or something candidate back in the 80's or 90's who campaigned on getting tough about drugs, showed aa picture of the electric chair and said "drug dealers, have a seat!".
-
wrote on 3 May 2022, 13:53 last edited by
Well, this guy just called for the overthrow of the government, didn't he?
-
wrote on 3 May 2022, 14:07 last edited by
LOL: My pansexual queer 3-year-old child of color, Pebble Solomon Haworth, just read the Politico SCOTUS leak, looked up at me and asked, through tears, “non-birthing parent, why would Ron DeSantis do this?”
-
wrote on 3 May 2022, 14:18 last edited by
So, they've got the crowds already. I think the final decision is really going to be the thing to watch, though. My guess is, that's when it might get stupid.
There are a lot of protesters out there right now with signs that say, "HANDS OFF OUR VAGINAS." Isn't that literally what this decision will lead to?
-
wrote on 3 May 2022, 14:21 last edited by
"MEN SHOULD NOT DECIDE WOMEN'S HEALTH!"
"MEN SHOULD NOT DECIDE WOMEN'S HEALTH!"
"MEN SHOULD NOT DECIDE WOMEN'S HEALTH!"
"MEN SHOULD NOT DECIDE WOMEN'S HEALTH!"What's a woman? Are they biologists now?
-
wrote on 3 May 2022, 14:21 last edited by
Yeah, but what has Disney said about it?
-
"MEN SHOULD NOT DECIDE WOMEN'S HEALTH!"
"MEN SHOULD NOT DECIDE WOMEN'S HEALTH!"
"MEN SHOULD NOT DECIDE WOMEN'S HEALTH!"
"MEN SHOULD NOT DECIDE WOMEN'S HEALTH!"What's a woman? Are they biologists now?
wrote on 3 May 2022, 14:22 last edited by"MEN SHOULD NOT DECIDE WOMEN'S HEALTH!"
"MEN SHOULD NOT DECIDE WOMEN'S HEALTH!"
"MEN SHOULD NOT DECIDE WOMEN'S HEALTH!"
"MEN SHOULD NOT DECIDE WOMEN'S HEALTH!"What's a woman? Are they biologists now?
But now that men can get pregnant, my opinion matters as much as theirs.
-
"MEN SHOULD NOT DECIDE WOMEN'S HEALTH!"
"MEN SHOULD NOT DECIDE WOMEN'S HEALTH!"
"MEN SHOULD NOT DECIDE WOMEN'S HEALTH!"
"MEN SHOULD NOT DECIDE WOMEN'S HEALTH!"What's a woman? Are they biologists now?
But now that men can get pregnant, my opinion matters as much as theirs.
wrote on 3 May 2022, 14:25 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in RIP Roe:
"MEN SHOULD NOT DECIDE WOMEN'S HEALTH!"
"MEN SHOULD NOT DECIDE WOMEN'S HEALTH!"
"MEN SHOULD NOT DECIDE WOMEN'S HEALTH!"
"MEN SHOULD NOT DECIDE WOMEN'S HEALTH!"What's a woman? Are they biologists now?
But now that men can get pregnant, my opinion matters as much as theirs.
There are an assload of people in this country who (1) think biology is physical, not a choice, (2) are critical of trans "rights" and (3) are adamant Roe supporters.
-
wrote on 3 May 2022, 14:31 last edited by
Probably a good thing if those who feel super strongly about the right to choose, move to states which share their belief.
-
Probably a good thing if those who feel super strongly about the right to choose, move to states which share their belief.
wrote on 3 May 2022, 14:39 last edited by -
wrote on 3 May 2022, 14:48 last edited by
@89th said in Roe Overturned?:
Probably a good thing if those who feel super strongly about the right to choose, move to states which share their belief.
Yeah, it's kind of the point of having states. Mini-democracies to provide for their citizenry and try out the efficacy of legislative efforts.
Pretty tone deaf to presume anyone who wants to move can just go ahead and do so.
-
wrote on 3 May 2022, 15:08 last edited by
POTUS speaks:
-
@89th said in Roe Overturned?:
Probably a good thing if those who feel super strongly about the right to choose, move to states which share their belief.
Yeah, it's kind of the point of having states. Mini-democracies to provide for their citizenry and try out the efficacy of legislative efforts.
Pretty tone deaf to presume anyone who wants to move can just go ahead and do so.
wrote on 3 May 2022, 15:10 last edited by@Aqua-Letifer said in Roe Overturned?:
@89th said in Roe Overturned?:
Probably a good thing if those who feel super strongly about the right to choose, move to states which share their belief.
Yeah, it's kind of the point of having states. Mini-democracies to provide for their citizenry and try out the efficacy of legislative efforts.
Pretty tone deaf to presume anyone who wants to move can just go ahead and do so.
I don't make that assumption. My point was that it's for the good if people self-select and congregate over this, to whatever extent they are able. Right now we don't put "local laws" high on the list of reasons we move to or from states, but maybe this will change that. I would like to see people who feel viscerally about issues like this, go ahead and live amongst one another. Even if it's not always feasible for everybody to do so.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in RIP Roe:
"MEN SHOULD NOT DECIDE WOMEN'S HEALTH!"
"MEN SHOULD NOT DECIDE WOMEN'S HEALTH!"
"MEN SHOULD NOT DECIDE WOMEN'S HEALTH!"
"MEN SHOULD NOT DECIDE WOMEN'S HEALTH!"What's a woman? Are they biologists now?
But now that men can get pregnant, my opinion matters as much as theirs.
There are an assload of people in this country who (1) think biology is physical, not a choice, (2) are critical of trans "rights" and (3) are adamant Roe supporters.
wrote on 3 May 2022, 15:12 last edited by@Aqua-Letifer said in RIP Roe:
@LuFins-Dad said in RIP Roe:
"MEN SHOULD NOT DECIDE WOMEN'S HEALTH!"
"MEN SHOULD NOT DECIDE WOMEN'S HEALTH!"
"MEN SHOULD NOT DECIDE WOMEN'S HEALTH!"
"MEN SHOULD NOT DECIDE WOMEN'S HEALTH!"What's a woman? Are they biologists now?
But now that men can get pregnant, my opinion matters as much as theirs.
There are an assload of people in this country who (1) think biology is physical, not a choice, (2) are critical of trans "rights" and (3) are adamant Roe supporters.
I disagree. Change #3 to adamant choice supporters and I agree. Many pro-choice attorneys and legal specialists find the decision problematic at best and some will even tell you it’s crap. But it upholds their issue so they support it. It’s kind of like the Donald J Trump of Supreme Court Decisions… A whole bunch of BS, but you liked the policies that came from it…
-
wrote on 3 May 2022, 15:13 last edited by
@George-K said in Roe Overturned?:
POTUS speaks:
No hand-wringing about "institutional degradation" regarding the leak itself. Shocking. The leaker is just a soldier for the cause, doing righteous battle. Nothing to see there. Any good person would have done the same in her position. I mean, his or her or their. No telling. The leaker is definitely not the whitiest progressiviest femaliest person in the circle of those potentially responsible.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Roe Overturned?:
@89th said in Roe Overturned?:
Probably a good thing if those who feel super strongly about the right to choose, move to states which share their belief.
Yeah, it's kind of the point of having states. Mini-democracies to provide for their citizenry and try out the efficacy of legislative efforts.
Pretty tone deaf to presume anyone who wants to move can just go ahead and do so.
I don't make that assumption. My point was that it's for the good if people self-select and congregate over this, to whatever extent they are able. Right now we don't put "local laws" high on the list of reasons we move to or from states, but maybe this will change that. I would like to see people who feel viscerally about issues like this, go ahead and live amongst one another. Even if it's not always feasible for everybody to do so.
wrote on 3 May 2022, 15:14 last edited by@Horace said in Roe Overturned?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Roe Overturned?:
@89th said in Roe Overturned?:
Probably a good thing if those who feel super strongly about the right to choose, move to states which share their belief.
Yeah, it's kind of the point of having states. Mini-democracies to provide for their citizenry and try out the efficacy of legislative efforts.
Pretty tone deaf to presume anyone who wants to move can just go ahead and do so.
I don't make that assumption. My point was that it's for the good if people self-select and congregate over this, to whatever extent they are able. Right now we don't put "local laws" high on the list of reasons we move to or from states, but maybe this will change that. I would like to see people who feel viscerally about issues like this, go ahead and live amongst one another. Even if it's not always feasible for everybody to do so.
That makes sense.
One thing I don't get is the tone in this thread—equating a Roe overturn to a frivolous liberal sit-in. That's ridiculous. This is seriously going to impact many people's lives. It's not Justice for the Social Media Martyr of the Week.
-
It will be interesting to see the electoral effects. With Roe/Casey in place, the GOP has tried to pass abortion-limiting laws that poll pretty well, like parental notification and late term stuff.
Without Roe we’ll see a lot of total bans, maybe including rape and incest. Those aren’t broadly popular. It will be interesting to watch.
wrote on 3 May 2022, 15:15 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Roe Overturned?:
It will be interesting to see the electoral effects. With Roe/Casey in place, the GOP has tried to pass abortion-limiting laws that poll pretty well, like parental notification and late term stuff.
Without Roe we’ll see a lot of total bans, maybe including rape and incest. Those aren’t broadly popular. It will be interesting to watch.
I wonder how it effects State Legislature Elections. This will breath some life and energy into the Dems over the coming mid-terms.
The Brad
