Abortion rights have won in every election since Roe v. Wade was overturned
Abortion has been on the ballot in seven states since June 2022. In each instance, anti-abortion groups have lost.
Abortion has been on the ballot in seven states since June 2022. In each instance, anti-abortion groups have lost.
They didn't overturn abortion, they overturned a right to privacy. Much more scary when you think of it like that
Are you claiming that they overturned the 4th amendment?
Yeah, pretty much. Look at how stupid-state AGs are demanding women's health records from sane states. https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/republican-state-ags-are-seeking-state-medical-records-rcna94935
It's the ultimate example of the dog catching the car. People took the right to choose for granted and the conservatives used is solely as a campaign tool to raise money. Now that that people have woken the fuck up they're realizing how harmful abortion bans are to a women's health and how demeaning it is to say that women can't make their own decisions when it comes to their own body. The Dobbs decision have put Republicans in an impossible position and are almost certainly going to cost them elections statewide and federally for the foreseeable future.
Having a central dictating authority over every state is fascist and evil.
this is an absolute meme of an argument
should states have the right to execute people who are the wrong religion?
if no, then what's the difference between that and allowing them to ban a life-saving operation on what boils down to religious grounds?
Thats an argument against federalism itself lol
And it is no doubt a facetious argument, they don't actually believe that they just say it but what they mean is they want us for only them to have that control
Good to see that they have.
I wish this was true but sadly it is not. Anti-choice candidates have continued to be elected and pass laws since June 2022.
I assume they're only referring to when abortion was voted on by itself, not when it was a package deal with a politician (since pretty much all Republicans are gonna be anti-choice).
That’s because you’re a good read.
Because these sheep vote for a letter next to their name. But an issue on a ballot may be backed by them but it doesn't have a letter itself, so people actually turn into individuals a bit more
Just happened in Ohio. If there were a candidate called "R-issue 1" he would have won with 53% of the vote. But since it was just "Issue 1" and it affected people, they struck it down 43-57 for-against
I hate that phrasing. Their “luck” didn’t run out. That does not describe what happened at all
Makes you wonder if the corporate elite class uses this issue (and other) just as a tool for control. Easy divide and move a population back and forth on hot push button topic. Meanwhile the top 1 percent.. investment bank continue to hoard all wealth as we see it stripped away by inflation.
I will vote for a glib, anti union, pro corporate generic candidate because he / she “strongly” supports (or not) abortion.
Yes this is a cynical take and the abortion issue is important … just cannot shake the issue is in a continual cycle to keep people divided, distracted as they get poorer and work harder.
That’s been a big chunk of the political landscape. The Republicans and the Catholics are not natural bedfellows and campaigning on Abortion has been how they pulled a ton of them to the right. If the Republicans lose the Catholic vote, they will not win for 50 years, especially since they have been counting on Hispanic anti-abortion votes to cover what they lost on the white college educated elite in the long term.
It's a shame that the SUPREME COURT is the highest court in the land.
That headline is like saying "Well our team scored the most 3-point shots" as if somehow that negates the fact that the final score is what determines who wins a game. People are trying to gloss over the fact that the SC determines the law of the land and they are simply trying to latch onto these smaller (and probably meaningless) victories because if anything gets challenged and ends up in front of the SC, it won't win.
Not at all. The majority opinion in Dodd clearly states that the issue should be decided at the state level, so even if a case somehow did make it to the SC, they would almost certainly decline to hear it since the matter, as far as they're concerned, is already settled. In that event the last ruling stands and cannot be further appealed.
they would almost certainly decline to hear it
I remember when Roe was "settled law", too. They'll hear whatever they want if it lets them achieve their political goals. Remember that at least one Justice (Thomas?) was on record basically asking for more abortion cases to get to the SC so they could decide on them. He got his wish.
That's how it SHOULD work. But the SC has given up almost every shred of impartiality.
It's a bit odd that there isn't a legal mechanism to force a Supreme Court ruling.
The supreme court doesn't make laws. Congress can protect abortion rights. Obviously elections determine the make up of Congress, but ultimately they determine who is on the supreme court too. If Trump weren't elected, protections provided by RvW would have been secure for decades.
The supreme court doesn’t make laws.
With their overturning Roe, completely ignoring precedent and redefining "standing" to include hypothetical fantasies (ala, the Web 'designer' Lorie Smith who never was asked to create a LGBTQ+ wedding website, but "might have to someday"), they are indeed making laws.
SC determines if a law is constitutional and in today's court, right wing tomfoolery is legal while everything else, no matter how sane and logical, can get struck down.
This was very obvious to many of us years back. As you said, if that clown Trump wasn't elected this would have been all a non-issue for decades.
Abortion rights do great on ballot measures, but not as well in general elections.
Yeah, most people support abortion rights, but those who oppose them are the most powerful single-issue voting block in the country.
Pro-choice people rarely base 100% of their vote on abortion. A pro-choicer who holds conservative beliefs on other issues generally votes Republican, but will vote in favor of abortion rights on a ballot measure.
Pro-lifers are different. They sincerely believe that abortion is mass murder of children, and that all other political issues combined don't matter in comparison. A pro-lifer who holds liberal views on every other issue generally votes Republican.
And yet they are inconsistent on companies that pollute air food and water. Somehow when corporations do it knowingly for the profit motive it's God's will despite causing miscarriages and birth defects en masse.
It's not that all of them support these companies. It's that they literally believe children are being murdered and that until they can permanently put a stop to the legal murder of children, no other political issues matter AT ALL. They're the single-issue voting group that is really, truly single-issue, and they're massive.
If Biden were anti-abortion due to his Catholicism while Trump was pro-choice, how many pro-choice Democrats would have voted for Trump? Almost none.
Meanwhile, millions of pro-lifer Republicans would have voted for Biden.
The closer you can get the government to the people, the more they can be held accountable
by what metric?
any argument you can make for it being easier to justly oust them from power can also be made for it being easier to unjustly keep them in power
That’s why the power should flow upward, not downward
while a lovely, pithy statement, this has absolutely nothing to do with your argument, and doesn't really mean anything in this context
So you think women should have no rights to their own bodies, eh?
If this keeps up, 2025 is going to be lit.
In what way?
I'm thinking the good if this keeps up is the Republicans will lose a lot of seats. Of course the bad is Dems will be in charge. So it balances out to being lit.
It doesn't matter.
Democrats are never going to kill the golden goose. The Roe leak alone made them $80,000,000 in contributions. Being anti-choice accomplishes the same objective for Republicans: lots and lots of money, money that candidates can legally pay themselves by making loans to their campaigns at 20% interest.
LOL at the downvotes.
So, so many voters in absolute denial here. We could have real change if the 49% that votes Democrat voted Green instead. The Greens would actually try to get you legal abortion at the federal level, too.
So why do libs have this mania for killing innocent babies?
Are you serious? Nobody, and I mean nobody, is promoting such a thing. It should be the woman's right to decide though.
My own mother wouldn't be here today if she hadn't needed the unfortunate procedure for what would have been an extremely deformed sister of mine.
Let me ask you, is it your uterus? No? Then mind your own business and let women manage their own bodies as they see fit.
Why does god? The vast preponderance of abortions happen in the same window as the vast preponderance of miscarriages, which can happen to 87 percent of fertilized embryos in the case of in vitro fertilization, and some other smaller but also shockingly high number for in vivo fertilization.
Also if you don't want 'innocent babies' to be killed why have such a hard on against prophylactics and plan b, especially since it takes 24h for sperm and egg to actually merge DNA and form a new organism? Why have an issue with birth control or porn or premarital conjugation and why make it everyone else's issue?
If women are getting abortions in the same period that God randomly gives miscarriages, I tend to think they are actually part of the same thing and that the feeling the prospective mother has about her future child being unwanted is just one final 'God given' protection against creating something broken.
Why do people with your mindset have to think you own women?
God, what a garbage take.
Except that states have no fucking business telling someone what they can do with their body. “State’s rights” my ass! This is a “personal right”that was stolen.
Because a lot of states no longer have power from the people, they've gerrymandered and made it hard to vote enough that you need a supermajority to get the will of the people into law.
the federal government has a lot of similar issues, but it also innately has some more checks. For instance, its districts are the states, and you cannot arbitrarily redraw state borders like how states can redraw voting districts.
Because several ass-backward states then took advantage of the fact that the right to undergo an abortion was no longer protected under Constitutional law and passed legislation that stripped away reproductive rights from their citizens.
Just because the SC didn't ban abortion itself, doesn't mean that it wasn't the effective result for millions of Americans.
It’s not a state rights issue, it’s a human rights issue and the SCOTUS was protecting the people of the US from the States until the court overturned Roe v Wade
States do not have unrestricted rights and cannot negate human rights.
Lol. State's rights like slavery. I knew someone who said the same thing about slavery and why it was/is still a right.
Because In many state you are beholden to large swaths of Rural land and the representatives they send to the statehouse. Those reps can be swayed (bought). Lucky for Ohio they were able to use their constitution to protect themselves. Ballot initiatives can give the people a voice on pressing matters... As in Ohio, The Reps were trying to take away the voice of the majority of the state voters. They lost and I expect they will brought to heel by the will of the people of Ohio in November. State constitutions are a check against legislative power. No wonder the R's don't like that. They want to rule, not represent.
I've seen this argument elsewhere and it seems (pardon me) like patent horseshit.
Why is this a state's right? What makes a uterus in Delaware different than an uterus in Nebraska? I'm a woman and an American citizen. Everyone keeps telling me that I live in a first-world nation. This makes no sense. "Oh sorry. You live in a first world nation, but you picked the neighborhood of Ohio."
And let's be realistic - I can afford to travel to anywhere that local, precious state laws where I live are irrelevant.
The idea of state autonomy made sense in some way in the America that existed before telephones. Emergency decisions might need to be made and horses are slow. But let's be honest for just a moment. The whole idea of federation was a hard sell to the slave states and invested powers. These were a mixture of landowners and merchant classes who had been running things locally in their colonies. They didn't want to give up control, and who could blame them? Meanwhile, the young country needed to have everyone on board for some sort of federation if post-colonial America was going to survive. States rights were a compromise. We've been choking on it for 200+ years.
As a country we should have evolved past this many years ago. But we haven't. The biggest disruption to our American system was the Civil War. States rights again. Yeah, so we have that to look back upon but never really seem to reckon with it. The last time I heard anyone significantly whine about infringement of "states rights" was with regard to chattel slavery.
Why is everyone worried about giving power to fascist Florida and Texas? It only takes two or three brain cells to figure it out.
You really think Texas and Florida deserved the power they already had?
if it were up to people like you, slavery would still be up to states' discretion