No Future for the GOP?

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
They've just overturned Roe v. Wade.
we all knew it was coming and we all know what will happen

women won't stop getting abortions

if they have the $, they'll go to places where it's legal and have it done safely by medical professionals

or they'll order mistoprostol etc

(if anyone you know needs the pills, or just want to post it in yr social media, here is a Link to Women On Web)

also, inevitably, this ruling will kill some number of women who try to get unsafe abortions

those who suffer most will be the poorest women - disproportionately women of color - who don't have $ or access to information for a safe abortion

congratulations to Alito et al on killing and harming women, because that is essentially what they've accomplished
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
or they'll order mistoprostol etc

(if anyone you know needs the pills, or just want to post it in yr social media, here is a Link to Women On Web)
nb: I don't know the ins and outs of abortion law state by state so anyone doing that should in a trigger state should act accordingly

the whole point is to be able to do it anonymously, but just yunno take precautions if necessary

i.e. Texas - no surprise - regulates mistoprostol much more strictly than the federal govt
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
which is why Texans are already going to Mexico for abortions drugs

where they're - again, not surprisingly - much more loosely regulated and readily available

other people will go to Canada, or one of the coasts, or etc
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
side note: this is obv terrible if expected news, but I am proud to live in the only state outside the coasts where abortion is explicitly protected by law

and I'm glad that women from Indiana, Michigan, Iowa, Ohio, Wisconsin, Missouri, etc will be able to come here for legal and safe abortions if needed
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
lmao @ the comments asking why he didn't also target protection interracial marriage while he was at it, under the exact same reasoning

I don't think that's realistic, fortunately, which is why it's a solo opinion

but to even see it brought up is depressing

I'd say he was the worst justice in the history of the SC but the competition is so strong - i.e. Roger Taney et al - that idk if that's actually true
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
we all knew it was coming and we all know what will happen

women won't stop getting abortions

if they have the $, they'll go to places where it's legal and have it done safely by medical professionals
I don't know how realistic it is but weren't some states (ie Texas of course) mooting the idea of trying to stop people from travelling for an abortion? In other words they would demand women prove that they are not pregnant before they leave the state. I assume that this is not ever gonna happen or even come close to happening, but the very idea of someone thinking it is terrifying enough.
 

Leo

Well-known member
we all knew it was coming and we all know what will happen

women won't stop getting abortions

if they have the $, they'll go to places where it's legal and have it done safely by medical professionals

or they'll order mistoprostol etc

(if anyone you know needs the pills, or just want to post it in yr social media, here is a Link to Women On Web)

also, inevitably, this ruling will kill some number of women who try to get unsafe abortions

those who suffer most will be the poorest women - disproportionately women of color - who don't have $ or access to information for a safe abortion

congratulations to Alito et al on killing and harming women, because that is essentially what they've accomplished

And you just know GOP/conservative woman (or their daughters) will be among those who will still get abortions in cases where their pregnancies are inconvenient/unwanted.
 

version

Well-known member
And you just know GOP/conservative woman (or their daughters) will be among those who will still get abortions in cases where their pregnancies are inconvenient/unwanted.

And their supporters will let it slide whenever it happens.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
I don't know how realistic it is but weren't some states (ie Texas of course) mooting the idea of trying to stop people from travelling for an abortion? In other words they would demand women prove that they are not pregnant before they leave the state. I assume that this is not ever gonna happen or even come close to happening, but the very idea of someone thinking it is terrifying enough.
no, I believe that was a reference to last year's law banning abortion after just 6 weeks, which already was forcing many women to travel out of state

I'd have to ask an actual lawyer, but I'm pretty sure there'd be no way to enforce such a law bc there is still isn't (and won't be) any federal law outlawing abortion - it's not a crime to be pregnant, or to leave Texas (or wherever), and Texas obviously can't prosecute someone under Texas law for something that happens in another state.
 

version

Well-known member
It's Kavanaugh so take it with a pinch of salt, but . . .

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a concurring opinion, appeared to nix an idea advocated by some anti-abortion advocates that the next step is for the court to declare that the Constitution outlaws abortion. "The Constitution neither outlaws abortion nor legalizes abortion," Kavanaugh wrote.

Kavanaugh also said that the ruling does not let states bar residents from traveling to another state to obtain an abortion, or retroactively punish people for prior abortions.

 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a concurring opinion, appeared to nix an idea advocated by some anti-abortion advocates that the next step is for the court to declare that the Constitution outlaws abortion. "The Constitution neither outlaws abortion nor legalizes abortion," Kavanaugh wrote.

Kavanaugh also said that the ruling does not let states bar residents from traveling to another state to obtain an abortion, or retroactively punish people for prior abortions.
yeah it would require a Constitutional amendment, which is a virtual impossibility (unfortunately, so is one protecting the right to abortion)

that's why even tho the Texas law from last year has that insane proviso that any citizen can sue any other citizen who "aids and abets" someone to obtain an abortion, they wouldn't be able to sue someone who goes to Mexico or Nevada or wherever, I believe. Since TX is, ofc, a trigger suit, I assume that law will be superceded by whatever their trigger law says, and idk if has a similar provision or not, but yeah just as an example.

the case of fugitive slaves, pre-USCW, was different because there was a federal law not only allowing slaveholders and their agents to go to free states and recapture slaves but actually requiring Northern citizens to assist in their capture. most free states tried to nullify that by passing their own laws counteracting it but they were overruled by the SC (one of the finest pieces of irony in all American history, given that the CW was nominally about Southern states asserting their right to resist federal authority, but there you go - the ideals always exactly as long as they're self-serving)
 
Last edited:

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
And you just know GOP/conservative woman (or their daughters) will be among those who will still get abortions in cases where their pregnancies are inconvenient/unwanted.
oh I'm sure the party of Larry Craig and Mark Foley will be a completely hypocrisy-free pillar of rectitude
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
no, I believe that was a reference to last year's law banning abortion after just 6 weeks, which already was forcing many women to travel out of state

I'd have to ask an actual lawyer, but I'm pretty sure there'd be no way to enforce such a law bc there is still isn't (and won't be) any federal law outlawing abortion - it's not a crime to be pregnant, or to leave Texas (or wherever), and Texas obviously can't prosecute someone under Texas law for something that happens in another state.
No I read this just after the recent decision was first leaked. But, yeah, obviously I know very little of US law but I cannot believe that any such law could be enforced. Or more than that, I don't believe that there could be any support for that as surely it would be fiercely resisted by the libertarian right and the free-to-choose left.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
surely it would be fiercely resisted by the libertarian right and the free-to-choose left
I think there would be very little help from libertarian right, simply bc there are very few actual libertarians in the U.S.

digression: like all empires, we have a core value - rugged individualism - we nominally cherish and use to measure the worth of our society against others, but for the most part don't live up to or want to live up to

just as mid-late Republic Roman nobles liked to pretend they still embodied the values of the traditional yeoman farmer rather than the opulent plutocrats they'd become, or the Victorian British and their stiff upper lips

with good reason, bc libertarianism in the minarchist, anarcho-capitalist sense is a terrible and insane way to organize a society

actual libertarians are very few and relatively harmless (look up "Grafton New Hampshire bears" if you want a good laugh)

most of what passes under the name libertarian is more like "don't tax me, but still provide the services I want. also, don't infringe on personal liberty, unless it's a kind of personal liberty I don't approve of, in which case crush it into dust", or just a sheen for outright authoritarianism, of the dark enlightenment variety or otherwise
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
anyway, I could see such laws being passed in bible belt states

but they'd be impossible to enforce and, I believe, still unconstitutional barring an amendment

the Supreme Court can make absolute terrible decisions on existing law but it can't create new law whole cloth
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
Kavanaugh also said that the ruling does not let states bar residents from traveling to another state to obtain an abortion, or retroactively punish people for prior abortions.
Damn, I hadn't even thought about retroactive punishment. Does that ever occur, that they make something illegal and then punish people who did it when it was legal?
I guess... you could make an argument about countries which had effectively legalised genocide but that would be splitting hairs.
 
Top