Tuesday Open Thread

The war in the Ukraine continues.

Johnny Depp's Libel case against Amber Heard continues.
The Karashian sisters won a laswuit against their former sister-in law who had sued them for defamation (or slander).

I'm going to give some props to Pantaya TV, a spanish streaming station, because in addition to have some original programming it has a ton of recent Spanish movies and several TV shows, and everything I've watched is so far has been commercial Free. I liked Senorita 89. I am really looking foward to the new seasons of La Reina Del Sur and El Senor de los Cielos on Telemundo, but it seems the release dates keep getting pushed back.

Does here believe the news articles claiming the media has seen a draft of Roe v. Wade which would appeal it -- written by Justice Sam Alito? Maybe he's engaging in wishful thinking. It seems to me the likely effect will be to turn more Dems out to vote in November.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Swap Deal: Russian Pilot Yaroshenko Returns Home | New Details of Torture of CIA Detainee in Black Site Prisons >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Constituent Services (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by KeysDan on Tue May 03, 2022 at 04:21:50 PM EST
    The draft ruling of the the Roe v Wade overturn by Alito, begins with Roe is "egregiously wrong" from the start and its reasoning is "exceptionally weak."

    The very same should be said for this noxious, self-righteous, faux pious and mean draft ruling. A reading of the Alito draft does not require knowledge of the law, just an understanding of reactionary politics.

     To illustrate: "while the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment might guarantee some rights that are not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution, such rights have to be "deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition."

    So, the central argument that abortion rights do not fall into that "deeply rooted" category is based on a phrase that does not appear in the Constitution.  And in true reactionary form, progress is impossible if rights exist only if they have been recognized for generations. Alito is on a mission to ossify the status quo, at least, the status he likes.  Moreover, the findings clearly do not give a care about  what happens next.

    Given the fact that Alito, and the judicial miscreants who joined him, acknowledge that the debate about abortion is as old as the history of history itself (a line one might read in a middle-schooler's essay), and that abortion presents a "profound moral issue on which Americans hold sharp conflicting views."

     So, of course, Alito will make the decision by uprooting the judgment of the Court and ridicule the work of Justices who came before him.

    Of course, he needed to give Roe a whack with a two-by-four to justify relegation of stare decisis to the judicial dust bin and satisfy his political constituency.

    To placate the Handmaiden, he included her silly argument made during the hearings that "safe haven" laws diminish the need for abortion since a woman can legally give up the child.

     And, too, her justification that increased availability of health care for pregnant women is a terrific reason to now be able to overturn Roe was included.  Talk about out of touch.

    Alito trolls Professor Lawrence Tribe, for no good reason other than to troll a liberal.  And, he addresses the Solicitor General's position that Alito's decisions would "threaten the Court's precedents holding that the Due Process Clause protects other rights,such as privacy, foundational to Obergefell, Griswald, Lawrence, Loving, by pulling a Bush v Gore---to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized , we emphasize the decision deals with abortion rights and no other. Nothing that casts doubt on precedents."

    Yeah, right.  He also has a bridge to sell you. This draft ruling, if unchanged (and I do not think it will be in any substantial way) not only takes away abortion rights, but also,  all modern rights on the chopping block. And, all in the same ruling.

    How is this not a religious decision? (none / 0) (#10)
    by desertswine on Tue May 03, 2022 at 04:33:14 PM EST
    What happened to good ol' freedom of religion?

    Better yet. (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Chuck0 on Wed May 04, 2022 at 10:02:57 AM EST
    Freedom FROM religion.

    The CEO of the Federalist Society, (none / 0) (#52)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 04, 2022 at 11:05:09 AM EST
    Leo Leonard, is said to have prepared TFG's list of judges, including SC justices Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. And, Leo is a long-time champion of Clarence Thomas. Leo is on the Board of Opus Dei's Catholic Information Center on 15th and K streets, two blocks from the White House.

    Opus Dei has its roots in fascist Spain. The Information Center is a rallying point for uber-conservative Catholics eager for a voice in the secular halls of government power and it  advances a hard-right political agenda.

    Membership in Opus Dei is secret, but a former priest, Matthew Fox, asserts that Alito and Clarence Thomas belong to Opus Dei.  Justice Amy Barrett, acknowledges her relationship with the secret, conservative Catholic group, People of Praise.


    Here's what he said in confirmation hearings (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 03, 2022 at 04:36:08 PM EST
    From the Hill

    Alito, who was appointed to the court by former President George W. Bush, conveyed in strong words during his hearing how the reaffirmation of Roe v. Wade has strengthened the case throughout history.

    "I think that when a decision is challenged and it is reaffirmed that strengthens its value as stare decisis," Alito said.

    Alito would not say Roe v. Wade was settled law, as back in 2006, like in the present, the abortion issue was under litigation on all levels in the judicial system.

    "It is a precedent that has now been on the books for several decades. It has been challenged. It has been reaffirmed, but it is an issue that is involved in litigation now at all levels," Alito said.

    When asked if the legitimacy of the Supreme Court was at stake if Roe v. Wade was overturned, Alito said the court needed to not be concerned with public opinion when considering the law.

    "Well, I think that the court, and all the courts, the Supreme Court, my court, all the federal courts, should be insulated from public opinion. They should do what the law requires in all instances. That's why they're not -- that's why the members of the judiciary are not elected. We have a basically democratic form of government, but the judiciary is not elected, and that's the reason, so that they don't do anything under fire. They do what the law requires."

    Absolute insanity. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by desertswine on Tue May 03, 2022 at 05:01:04 PM EST
    I am really, really tired of these nutcases, I'm with MO Blue, if I were younger, I'd be seriously considering a move.  The Democrats seem to be turning into the Weimar Germans.  It's time they started driving the bus instead of just filling the seats.  

    Susan Collins is shocked, (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by desertswine on Tue May 03, 2022 at 05:04:33 PM EST
    SHOCKED to see that gambling is going on in Rick's Cafe.

    Has the statute of limitations run (none / 0) (#21)
    by Peter G on Tue May 03, 2022 at 07:02:57 PM EST
    on a criminal referral for perjury in the Gorsuch or Kavanaugh hearing? At least Barrett, I think, did not actually lie on the RvW question.

    Perjury at a confirmation hearing (none / 0) (#27)
    by Peter G on Tue May 03, 2022 at 07:38:58 PM EST
    would also be a "high crime or misdemeanor" under the Impeachment Clause. With no statute of limitations.

    They finally (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 05, 2022 at 08:11:41 AM EST
    SCOTUS Blog (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 05, 2022 at 01:50:14 PM EST

    How the leak might have happened

    Start from the premise that there were actually (at least) two leakers, and three leaks

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#97)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 05, 2022 at 01:56:45 PM EST

    It is also important to look at the leak of the opinion through the lens of the fact that someone - almost certainly a conservative - had just before leaked the court's tentative decision and the state of the voting to The Wall Street Journal. That leak was itself an extraordinary and unethical breach of confidences and certainly caused very deep concern inside the court.

    My guess is that someone on the left felt somewhat justified in releasing the opinion in response. Through the opinion, one would see what the Journal was saying Kavanaugh and Barrett were considering. That leak was a historically unprecedented violation of the deepest and most solemn trust among the justices and the court's staff. It wounded the institution.

    One small note about the identity of the leaker. There has been some speculation that turns on a supposed relationship with Josh Gerstein, the Politico legal affairs reporter who is the lead author on their story. It seems to me that the leak very likely runs instead through the other reporter with a byline on the story: Alexander Ward, who is a national security reporter. In response to questions from The Washington Post, Politico confirmed that the story was very tightly held from even its own staff. Almost surely, the leaker would have insisted on that confidentiality. I cannot think of a reason that Ward would have been on the story other than that the leaker communicated through him, not Gerstein. And Politico would have felt compelled to give Ward a byline on such a historic scoop.

    My money is on (none / 0) (#104)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 05, 2022 at 03:53:56 PM EST

    The early draft release (aka leak) (none / 0) (#110)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 05, 2022 at 04:54:59 PM EST
    of the overturn of Roe and Casey may have been a Birthday gift from One Best Friend to another Best Friend. Ginni's Birthday was February 23. What better way to honor his Best Friend than to gut people's rights and to recognize her attempts to destroy democracy.

    So is mine, (none / 0) (#153)
    by leap2 on Fri May 06, 2022 at 05:29:08 PM EST
    and I ain't a betting person

    Another interesting perspective on the leak (none / 0) (#145)
    by Peter G on Fri May 06, 2022 at 03:48:46 PM EST
    from lawyer and designer/typographer Matthew Butterick, who studied the document as an artifact. Notes that the leaked doc is an OCR'd scan of a printed copy that had been stapled. Which makes it more likely that the leaker was a friend or family member of a Justice, not someone with direct access to the Court's document server, or possibly someone related to a law clerk (although clerks are forbidden to take drafts out of the building).

    The New Yorker's Jonathan Chait ... (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 06, 2022 at 05:43:42 PM EST
    ... notes just such a scenario as you have described. He notes that although it's currently fashionable in the GOP to blame the left for the leak, evidence suggests that Justice Alito's draft opinion was leaked by someone on the right who opposes abortion, is aligned with the High Court's conservative majority, and likely resented Chief Justice Roberts' efforts to cobble together a majority to rule in the plaintiff's favor in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health without explicitly overturning Roe and Casey in toto:

    "One thing to note in response is that this very thing has already happened. Several days before Politico received the draft of Samuel Alito's ruling, The Wall Street Journal published an editorial cagily describing the court's internal deliberations. It warned that Chief Justice John Roberts 'may be trying to turn another Justice now' -- naming Brett Kavanaugh or Amy Coney Barrett as his targets -- away from the conservative bloc and toward a compromise ruling that would preserve some version of Roe."

    It makes sense that the leaker would seek to pre-empt Roberts and thus lock the 5-4 majority in place prior to the decision. And it would be richly ironic is the leak had the opposite effect, prompting such angry public pushback against Alito that it blows up his tentative majority by sending one or two of his erstwhile allies scurrying for the cover of the chief justice's robes.



    The plot (none / 0) (#150)
    by KeysDan on Fri May 06, 2022 at 04:37:52 PM EST

    Uh, huh. The country is divided. IOW (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by Peter G on Thu May 05, 2022 at 06:57:03 PM EST
    according to your figures, twice as many people believe that the person carrying the pregnancy can be trusted to make the right decision for herself in all cases, as believe she can never be trusted. The circumstances in which someone would choose one of those "late term abortions" that you fear are quite rare, and almost always dangerous and frightening.

    There are a lot of issues under (1.00 / 1) (#122)
    by ladybug on Thu May 05, 2022 at 07:43:57 PM EST
    the "abortion" question in those polls. 49% are pro-choice and 47% are pro-life. 48% want some legal limits to abortion. That is middle-of-the-road to me.

    I am surprised that 32% think there should be no limits to abortion at all. You can frame it as a woman's health issue or you can frame it as a human life, and that is where the division comes in.


    Those figures are meaningless (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by Yman on Thu May 05, 2022 at 08:06:32 PM EST
    "Pro life" and ""pro choice" are entirely subjective and meaningless for purposes of determining whether people want Roe to be overturned or not.  Someone can be personally against abortion and identify as "pro-life", yet recognize that there should be a legal right to abortion services.  But you think it helps your false narrative that it's a closely divided issue.  Not to mention the fact that your focus on the 32% as "extreme" is very revealing (actually, "confirmatory" would be more accurate).

    I'm not hiding my view. I am in the 48%. (1.00 / 1) (#129)
    by ladybug on Thu May 05, 2022 at 08:24:24 PM EST
    Polls are probably meaningless but everyone is citing them all the time. I agree with Peter that most people (including me) do not know all the legal issues that are involved in Roe v Wade, but most of us have general views on abortion. I don't think it is an either-or issue (health vs human life) but it is often framed as such. I don't think that even biologists will agree on when human life actually begins.

    That's not what it reveals (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Yman on Fri May 06, 2022 at 04:46:50 PM EST
    But it was worth a shot, right?

    I'm wondering how different our views (1.00 / 1) (#184)
    by ladybug on Sat May 07, 2022 at 05:40:08 PM EST
    actually are. Polls are difficult, but I think the Gallup poll I linked is interesting because it tracks people's opinions over time. Even if a little outdated, the opinions haven't fluctuated a great deal.

    In 2018, in the first trimester, 60% felt abortion should generally be legal while 34% said illegal. That 60% dropped a great deal from second (28%) and third (13%) trimesters. When it gets to specific issues like the mother's health being in danger, rape or incest, Down's syndrome, etc. the numbers again diverge over time depending on the issue and the trimester.

    It seems to me that there could be compromise and agreement if people did not get stuck in the extreme views of never abortion or always abortion. I think there is a larger middle ground,  and that is where I am.


    Roe (the subject at hand) (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Yman on Sun May 08, 2022 at 07:39:14 AM EST
    ... already IS (was) a compromise.  It permits states to restrict abortion after the first trimester (or after viability, as indicated in Casey).  The "always abortion" is a strawman fallacy ... but it's fun to pretend to be just a "middle-of-the-road" kinda person, right?

    The second trimester begins around 13 weeks, (2.00 / 4) (#196)
    by ladybug on Sun May 08, 2022 at 11:42:04 AM EST
    which is why some states wish to limit abortion to the first trimester (before 15 weeks). The current 24-week viability limit is at the end of the second trimester. The youngest premie to survive is at 20 weeks but survival at 24 weeks is more common.

    The problem with this debate, for me, is that most people do not understand what the issues are, and it is also complicated by the fact that these fetuses do become human babies at some point, although when they do is contested.

    It seems to me that Roe advocates want to keep the 24-week viability limit for all states, while pro-life factions want to advocate for the human child.

    The consensus we see is for legal abortion during the first trimester, which ends at 12 weeks, for mother's health or for rape and incest. The states can handle this.


    Unfortunately, we are at the end of this (none / 0) (#199)
    by ladybug on Sun May 08, 2022 at 12:36:26 PM EST
    thread, but I am curious about what "misinformation" I am spreading here. I agree we have different viewpoints.  

    From Christian Author (5.00 / 6) (#123)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 05, 2022 at 07:54:25 PM EST
    Mary Katherine Backstrom:
    I know this is a loaded topic, and I gain nothing from speaking out on it. But today the SCOTUS stands ready to rip away a significant human right, and I can't sit in silence.
    You see, if Roe v Wade is overturned, we must prepare for the following realities:
    After a miscarriage, women could be compelled to testify under oath or undergo medical exams to prove that pregnancy loss wasn't a crime. This isn't a made up scenario, this is literally happening in Texas already.
    Victims of rape will be forced to give birth. In states that offer exceptions to this law, those victims will be forced to "prove" their rape. As a survivor of rape, and a child advocate, let me tell you a fact: that won't happen. In Alabama, where I live, a victim was forced by the court to allow her rapist custodial visitation.
    Pregnant women in domestic violence situations will have a significantly escalated threat on their lives. Nearly 20% of women experience violence during pregnancy.
    The foster care system, which currently has nearly 500,000 children, will immediately be overwhelmed. This doesn't mean "less abortion, more adoption". This means more abuse, neglect, and misery.
    IVF and birth control both qualify as abortion. In many states, those will be made inaccessible, and women who are attempting to start families could find themselves criminally liable.
    Children will have babies.
    Sick women will have babies.
    Unviable babies will be born, only to suffer.
    People who do not wish to have babies will have babies.
    Or, like STATISTICS HAVE PROVEN, the rich will continue to access abortion and the poor will die on bathroom floors.
    I am not pro abortion, so don't even throw that at me. It's a garbage label that was created by extremists. I am neither immoral nor cruel.
    What I AM is pro access to contraception, medical care, sex education, and choice.
    What I AM is pro empathy for victims, children, and women who deserve to have agency over their bodies.
    What I AM is pro reality, which says that abortions decrease when (& ONLY WHEN) access to care is increased.
    The fact of the matter is this: 70% of Americans support Roe vs Wade.
    And as a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, I can't fathom how much worse my life would have been if I was pregnant and forced to carry.
    I am a woman, a Christian, a mother, and one of the 70% of Americans who believes that Roe v Wade must stand.

    So for those right wingers who think every Christian is with you, you have another surprise coming for you at the polls.

    It already happened in Oklahoma. (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 06, 2022 at 06:07:46 PM EST
    Mary Katherine Blackstrom (via Ga6thDem): "After a miscarriage, women could be compelled to testify under oath or undergo medical exams to prove that pregnancy loss wasn't a crime. This isn't a made up scenario, this is literally happening in Texas already."

    Brittney Poolaw, a Native American and member of the Comanche Nation, was convicted of first-degree manslaughter and sentenced to 4 years in prison for miscarrying her child in May 2020, while she was still a teenager.

    This occurred after the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that criminal laws can be applied to pregnant women in the context of child abuse and child neglect, and therefore by extension manslaughter and murder, when the harm is felt by a viable fetus.

    I'd note here that there is no conclusive evidence that Poolaw's drug use contributed to her miscarriage. In fact, although an autopsy confirmed that her unborn child had tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine, it also found a congenital abnormality, placental abruption, and chorioamnionitis, an infection associated with maternal, perinatal, and long-term adverse outcomes including stillbirth.

    And so, Poolaw now resides in an Oklahoma correctional center because the prosecution successfully persuaded a jury with an emotional argument, rather than one conclusively rooted in fact. The implications of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health are going to be so ugly on so many levels, if Justice Alito's draft opinion is allowed to stand as the final legal word.



    70% of the country (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 05, 2022 at 08:18:37 PM EST
    according to the most recent polling does not want Roe v. Wade overturned. Overturning Roe is the issue at hand not all the deflecting nonsense you are posting. Overturning Roe will void what 80% of the poll you quote want and the overturn is going to please 19% of Americans. Conservatives are doing what the 19% want. Joni Ernst is introducing a bill to ban all abortions all over the country once Roe is overturned. So even blue states will have no rights if they get their way.

    Roe is well written (5.00 / 3) (#189)
    by MKS on Sat May 07, 2022 at 07:05:38 PM EST
    Here is the best sentences from Roe imo:

    This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

    The Ninth Amendment secures protection for "unenumerated rights."  So what if the words "abortion" or "privacy" are not found in the Constitution?  Neither is there an express right to travel or to contribute to a campaign found in the text.

    So, according to Alito there is a constitutional right of corporations to contribute to a campaign (where is that written in the Constitution) but not of privcay?

    Corporations have more rights than women in Alito's view.  Typical of conseratives.

    Against all odds (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 07, 2022 at 10:14:50 PM EST
    Rich Strike wins the 2022 Kentucky Derby at Churchill Downs

    Rich Strike, who was on the also-eligible list until Friday morning, made a stunning move along the rail to win the Kentucky Derby on a cool and cloudy first Saturday in May at Churchill Downs.

    At 80-1 odds, Rich Strike scored the second-biggest upset in Kentucky Derby history and paid $163.60 on a $2 win bet. Donerail, at 91-1 odds in 1913, is the longest shot to win the race.

    I love stories like this. They make me smile.

    The court has (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 03, 2022 at 12:46:06 PM EST
    confirmed it's real.  Roberts is putting the hounds onto finding the leaker.

    I hope we get to know who it was.

    Supreme court Chief Justice John Roberts confirms leak of draft abortion ruling and orders investigation - live

    When it turns out to be (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Towanda on Tue May 03, 2022 at 02:41:12 PM EST
    a conservative, as smart SCOTUS watchers suggest -- to lock down the conservative justices -- will Roberts really act on the leak?

    Since we have come to know (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by KeysDan on Tue May 03, 2022 at 03:10:10 PM EST
    that Republicans are masters of projection, the wailing and gnashing of the toothless and FOX,  strongly suggests the leak was from the reactionaries.  Could it be Ginni?

    Wouldn't it be lovely (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 03, 2022 at 04:22:40 PM EST
    if it were Thomas' good friend Ginni. Dual benefit since it will definitely show that not only does their pillow talk include discussions of SC actions but also sharing documents.

    I hope Alito was behind it (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 03, 2022 at 02:49:23 PM EST
    and gets caught.  He has shown a level of contempt for tradition before.   Kind of sounds like him.  IMO of course.

    Will one Republican hold another (none / 0) (#9)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 03, 2022 at 04:27:18 PM EST
    Republican legally  responsible for their actions? ROTFLMAO. More likely they will find a way to blame the Republican's actions on Biden or Obama. If all else fails, it is Hunter's fault.

    What are the odds we will ever learn the (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Tue May 03, 2022 at 05:33:09 PM EST
    identity if it turns out to be a conservative?

    MAYBE (none / 0) (#5)
    by jmacWA on Tue May 03, 2022 at 03:49:24 PM EST
    Roberts is putting the hounds onto finding the leaker

    I think it is more likely that he is doing a little legacy polishing.


    If it turns (none / 0) (#15)
    by KeysDan on Tue May 03, 2022 at 05:03:02 PM EST
    out, upon investigation, that it is one of the reactionaries, we will hear nothing, just like that FBI investigation of Kavanaugh.  

    ... which I admittedly have very little nowadays, the primary issue here is not who leaked Justice Alito's draft ruling on Roe V. Wade.

    Rather, it's the deliberately harsh and disrespectful tone employed by the High Court's reigning incel, who's apparently decided that he's going to avenge himself on all those mean girls from high school and college.

    This moment was inevitable. The next logical step in this struggle will be attempts by the various GOP-led state legislatures to impose criminal penalties upon those female constituents who decide to seek abortion services outside their state.

    The only question still outstanding is the level of political blowback to the GOP from suddenly aroused and angry voters who never took seriously the conservative SCOTUS majority's overt threat to women's rights, until the day it actually arrived on their doorsteps.

    Throw on top of the heap the House Jan. 6 Select Committee's hearings and reports this summer, and there's a fairly good chance that the GOP could be facing a rough time of it by fall.



    How does it work (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 03, 2022 at 03:57:05 PM EST
    for conservatives overturning a law that is supported by around 70% of Americans? I have seen people who have read Alito's opinion say that birth control, gay marriage and a whole host of other things are now going to be challenged and overturned.

    70% (2.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue May 03, 2022 at 10:39:22 PM EST
    It depends on how you ask the question. If it's about abortion in the last month of pregnancy, then it's about 70% opposed.

    In any case if Roe is overturned the net practical effect will be that a prospective birthing person may have to travel farther to a provider.   Racists will hate overturn as about 40% of the aborted have black skin.

    One immediate effect of the leak is just about every Dem pol became a biologist and can now recognize it is women that can become pregnant.


    When the question is properly framed (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Peter G on Tue May 03, 2022 at 10:56:45 PM EST
    that is, some version of: "Should the question of whether, when and under what circumstances an abortion should be allowed be a decision made in each case by the woman who is pregnant, or in advance under rules laid down by the State Legislature?" at least 60% of Americans will say it ought to be a personal choice, not a legal issue.

    As I said, and as you noted (none / 0) (#45)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed May 04, 2022 at 07:52:03 AM EST

    It depends on the framing of the question. The 60% majority you site is abortion with some restrictions as agreed to by a state legislature. In other words, the democratic answer.

    Similarly, if you ask "do you have a right to kill another human being?" The near unanimous answer will be NO!  OTOH, if you ask, "do you have the right to kill another person to prevent the imminent murder of  your self or others?" The answer will be quite different.


    Probably why no one polls ... (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Yman on Wed May 04, 2022 at 08:32:54 AM EST
    ... such ridiculous "questions".  Personally, I prefer my public policy and legal decisions to be based on science and logic, rather than someone's religious beliefs - especially when those same "pro-life" "Christians" choose to ignore all of the tenets of their religion once an actual person is born.

    Unlike your criteria (none / 0) (#54)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed May 04, 2022 at 12:11:02 PM EST
    I prefer public policy determined by the democratic process, where elected representatives vote on policy.

    No kidding (none / 0) (#58)
    by Yman on Wed May 04, 2022 at 01:01:41 PM EST
    Public policy is determined (directly or indirectly) by some form of democratic process.  I was pointing out that those policies should be based upon science and logic (and facts) rather than someone's religious belief of "alternative facts".  Unlike your criteria, however, a truly democratic process relies upon a system where each person's vote counts equally when electing those representatives.  It also relies on elected representatives who honor the rule of law and commit to a peaceful transition of power when they lose, as opposed to inciting violence with laughable conspiracy theories which undermine the foundation of our democracy.

    I agree that legislators should not permit (none / 0) (#60)
    by Peter G on Wed May 04, 2022 at 01:51:09 PM EST
    religious dogma to supersede historical or scientific facts. But it is totally appropriate, indeed desirable, in my opinion for legislative policy to be informed by moral values, and for moral values to be informed, for those who are so moved, by religious beliefs. Consider the abolitionists, or Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., for that matter, or a lot of today's immigration reformers. Many social reforms in U.S. history, including women's rights, were sparked and greatly influenced by Quaker (a small minority) religious principles, for example. As was Prohibition, just to be fair that not all such moves are good ones.

    I would agree to an extent (none / 0) (#64)
    by Yman on Wed May 04, 2022 at 03:56:54 PM EST
    My problem with using moral values is how they are often conflated with religious values, either intentionally or because there can be some inherent overlap.  For example, I think murder is an act which is clearly immoral, yet some self-professed "Christians" use their religious beliefs to equate abortion at any time after conception with murder.  There is any scientific or secular reason for concluding that a recently fertilized egg is a human being.

    The same people tend to frequently use their (often selective) religious beliefs as a basis for determining what they find morally objectionable and seek to make public policies/laws around those beliefs, regardless of whether there is any secular or logical basis for that judgment apart from their religious beliefs.  Contraception, inter-racial marriage, homosexuality, etc., etc.  Everyone has the right to participate in democracy and have their voice heard, but I'm of the opinion that - if someone's basis for a public policy/law is religious and relies on faith rather than something that can be debated with facts, science, data and logic - it belongs as a rule in their church and not a law or public policy.


    Conflating religious values to moral values? (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 04, 2022 at 04:14:39 PM EST
    The people who claim to be right to life equate abortion with murder, punishable by death and in the next breath are on board with executing their political enemies.

    Yes, indeed (none / 0) (#84)
    by Yman on Thu May 05, 2022 at 08:57:45 AM EST
    I'm right there with you.  Not saying they're intellectually honest or consistent - just that they often do it.  Apart from the fact that the bible is open to a million interpretations, they're also very selective in the parts they choose to believe.  They love to pretend it prohibits abort (even if they don't subscribe to the Old Testament), but they quickly dismiss all of the admonitions to love their neighbor, take care of the poor, etc., etc.

    Then the debate over abortion (none / 0) (#93)
    by ladybug on Thu May 05, 2022 at 12:42:34 PM EST
    is indeed a proper social and legal argument, as the poll you linked in another thread shows that only 43% of American think abortion is morally acceptable.

    Does the Democratic Process Allow Minority Rule? (none / 0) (#59)
    by RickyJim on Wed May 04, 2022 at 01:30:41 PM EST
    With the Senate and Supreme Court so powerful, that is what the US has.

    The Senate is a good example for you (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Peter G on Wed May 04, 2022 at 01:53:09 PM EST
    but not the Supreme Court. A free society needs an independent, non-political judiciary to enforce minority rights against popular majority oppression.

    In a democracy, (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 04, 2022 at 03:20:04 PM EST
    the majority has power and the minority has rights.  It becomes topsy turvy when the minority has power and the majority has no rights.

    The imposition of a minority's religious beliefs, for example, on a majority may foster the growth of humankind, or it may result in religious authoritarianism or Christo-fascism.


    And that, we just don't have right now. (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 05, 2022 at 04:25:39 PM EST
    Peter G: "A free society needs an independent, non-political judiciary to enforce minority rights against popular majority oppression."

    On the contrary, what we do have is a SCOTUS conservative majority that is effectively acting as a willing adjunct of the Republican Party's increasingly noxious right-wing politics.

    We also have an array of Federalist Society-promoted judges at the district and appellate levels who have of late shown little restraint in their willingness to legislate from the bench and turn back the clock. Small wonder that far-right activists engage in courtroom-shopping, choosing to file cases in those districts and venues where they're likely to draw a sympathetic ear in black robes.

    As some of my starry-eyed messiah-seeking friends on the far left are now learning the hard way, it really does matter who presides in our state and federal courtrooms.

    Personally, while I certainly don't expect judges to necessarily share my political opinions, I do expect them to be fair and impartial in their application of the law. And it's become increasingly difficult to respect a legal finding or outcome when it's readily apparent that the judge's thumb was on the scales.



    The process in the US sure does (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Yman on Thu May 05, 2022 at 09:03:09 AM EST
    It's the very essence of the Senate - Wyoming has less than 600,000 people, yet those people receive the same representation in the Senate as the 40,000,000 in California.  Not to mention the electoral college, which permits Presidents to be elected (and choose SC judges) despite the fact that they received fewer votes than the other candidates.

    I should have made more clear that (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by Peter G on Wed May 04, 2022 at 08:47:06 AM EST
    by "properly framed" I mean "framed to pose the actual issue at stake," not "framed by a push-poll strategy designed to generate a favored but misleading result." The issue, for public policy purposes, is not and never has been, "Do you believe that abortion is bad?". The only issue is what restrictions on the pregnant person's options, if any, the state will impose.

    Interesting question. (none / 0) (#92)
    by ladybug on Thu May 05, 2022 at 12:22:01 PM EST
    A while ago, Peter linked some surveys to me that showed a majority of Americans hold liberal opinions om moral issues. When I looked at the first poll I was surprised to see this:
    The public is most divided on abortion and medical testing on animals. Currently, 43% of Americans say abortion is morally acceptable, and 49% say it is morally wrong. Meanwhile, 51% say medical testing on animals is OK, while 44% disagree.

    I wondered why this number was so low on abortion.


    'Morality' is hardly an objective standard. (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 05, 2022 at 05:15:39 PM EST
    "But what is truth?
    Is truth unchanging law?
    We both have truths.
    Are mine the same as yours?"

    - Pontius Pilate, to Jesus of Nazareth, "Jesus Christ Superstar" (Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice, 1971)

    For most people, truth is often relative. That is, what I find perfectly acceptable, you might consider to be absolutely appalling - and vice versa. For a considerable number of us, it's not unlike first throwing darts at the wall and then afterward, drawing the bullseye conveniently around them.

    Personally, I believe that in many respects our willingness to do the so-called right thing is often entirely dependent upon the outcome of our own conscious and subconscious struggle with our personal desires, particularly when those desires are in active conflict with what may well be the greater good.

    Most of us like to believe that we'll always do the right thing, until we're inevitably confronted with a situation when we don't. And then, we're pretty adept at rationalizing our decisions whenever we act in our own self-interest, and alleviating our own residual feelings of guilt - "Damned conscience! Out! Out!" - when we know that decision comes at someone else's expense.

    Regardless of experience and education, not everybody can or should be a judge. May Heaven bless those persons who possess both the character and the capacity to rise above themselves and their own prejudices in the interest and pursuit of justice.



    I agree with this. (none / 0) (#114)
    by ladybug on Thu May 05, 2022 at 05:48:13 PM EST
    Maybe we shouldn't "judge" but the "moral instinct"  may be baked into our DNA somehow, although what is considered moral often varies across cultures.

    Personally, as a Roman Catholic, abortion is not a choice I'd make - with emphasis on "choice" rather than "Roman Catholic." Having long worked in government, I also believe fervently in the separation of state and church. I have no right to harness the power of the state to coerce others into compliance with my religion's articles of faith.

    As far as I'm concerned, any religion which demands an individual's surrender, subservience and obedience to doctrine through the use of threat and intimidation, rather than inspire personal devotion of faith through good works and individual example, really isn't worth the time of day. We do not live in a black-and-white world of good and evil in which people and situations can be so easily defined and rigidly catalogued. We have to allow for nuance.

    I believe that women are sovereign beings, and as such they enjoy full agency over their own bodies and autonomy over their personal decision making. Because embryos and fetuses are generally non-viable outside the womb, they are not sovereign beings and enjoy no such agency and autonomy.

    As such, any decision to either terminate a pregnancy or take it to term should rightly rest with the prospective mother, her partner (if any) and her attending physician. It should not involve third parties without any actual standing in the matter, such as government officials or other outside interests.

    Anyway, that's where I'm coming from. Aloha.


    you are (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 04, 2022 at 11:01:14 AM EST
    twisting things like normal. The question asked is do you support overturning Roe v. Wade which supported by 70% of the public. Only around 30% support the conservative version where women have no say over their own bodies.

    If the poll asked "Do you support keeping or (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Peter G on Wed May 04, 2022 at 12:52:44 PM EST
    overturning Roe v Wade?," then I'd have to know what explanation of "Roe v Wade" was provided, and whether "overturning" included "modifying in some way." No way more than 5% of the population could give a half-way accurate answer to the question, "What was the holding of the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade?" or even "What kind of restrictions, if any, on a pregnant person's right to choose whether to have an abortion were authorized by the decision in Roe v Wade?" All of which is moot anyway, because the current legal regime is not based on Roe v Wade but rather on Planned Parenthood v. Casey (2003). It is definitely immaterial that 30% of the respondents would support no legal regulation at all. Roe v Wade, by its terms, allowed the states to ban abortion entirely in the third trimester, if they wished to do so, subject only to exceptions based on necessity to protect the life or health of the pregnant person; and it allowed abortion access to be regulated in the second trimester, so long as any and all restrictions were directed in good faith to protection of the health of the pregnant woman. But as I said above, that is not the current regime and hasn't been for 30 years (since Casey).

    sorry for date error (none / 0) (#57)
    by Peter G on Wed May 04, 2022 at 12:53:50 PM EST
    "30 years" is correct. Casey was decided in 1992.

    And only about 30% (none / 0) (#55)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed May 04, 2022 at 12:15:31 PM EST
    Support abortion on demand at any time for any reason. The 70% you reference includes support for abortion with some legislative restrictions.  

    Some legislative (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 04, 2022 at 02:32:08 PM EST
    restrictions is not what conservatives are offering. They are going for a full out ban.

    You all keep pushing forth this lie about women showing up 9 months pregnant and getting an abortion. Late term abortions are only done when the fetus is gonna die. So it's dead baby now or dead baby later. According to you 70% of women support mandating a woman carry an nonviable pregnancy.

    You want total control and do not trust women to make their own decisions. Conservatives believe that women are inherently evil or stupid and need to be controlled by men. Women should only be able to do what men allow them to do.

    Nobody is going back to the 1950's no matter how hard y7u try. You cannot strip rights from people and not pay the consequences and there will be consequences for conservatives.


    Medication abortions (none / 0) (#67)
    by MKS on Wed May 04, 2022 at 05:41:15 PM EST
    make much of any attempt to ban abortion moot.

    I heard somewhere that medication abortions make up about half of the abortions in the U.S.  


    Well, (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 04, 2022 at 08:17:38 PM EST
    medication abortions certainly reduce the number who actually have to go to a clinic and get harassed on the way in.

    However here in GA they wrote in their "heartbeat" law that a doctor prescribing it could be put in jail and anyone taking the abortion pill would be charged with murder and banned it from being sold in the state and banned people from buying it online. So I am sure they will attempt similar laws in other places. How effective they will be is the question.


    Let's talk about the law in question (none / 0) (#86)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu May 05, 2022 at 10:22:58 AM EST

    It allows abortion for any reason but limited to the first fifteen weeks of pregnancy.

    What's noticeable is that like Florida's parental rights bill no one is polling on what is actually in the bill.


    Let's instead talk about what Mississippi's (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 05, 2022 at 12:19:41 PM EST
    law will be once Roe is overturned.

    Mississippi law states that within 10 days of the state attorney general confirming Roe has been overturned, abortions are prohibited in the state. Limited exceptions are provided in cases of rape or when the procedure would preserve the mother's life.


    13 states have trigger laws that will become law once Roe is overturned that will further restrict  or ban abortions and make them felony offenses.

    Let's talk about Louisiana:

    Louisiana already has a"trigger law" criminalizing abortion should Roe v. Wade be overturned, which would subject doctors or others who perform abortions to up to 10 years in prison. But the law does not call for prosecution of the pregnant woman.

    Evidently they want to correct that and now allow prosecution of everyone involved with an abortion with murder.

    The Louisiana state House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday advanced a bill that would make abortion a homicide, opening the door for mothers who terminate a pregnancy in the state to be charged with murder.

    House Bill 813, also known as the "Abolition of Abortion in Louisiana Act of 2022," would not only makes abortion a homicide, it would make it a homicide "from the moment of fertilization." The fertilized cluster of cells, the bill states, would be afforded all the protections of a human being.

    The bill also holds that "any and all federal statutes, regulations, treaties, orders, and court rulings which would deprive an unborn child of the right to life or prohibit the equal protection of such right" would be treated as void. It later notes that the bill would be enforced "without regard to the opinions and judgments of the Supreme Court of the United States in Roe v. Wade and its judicial progeny, past and future."


    The leaked draft does not refer to upholding the Mississippi law but rather overturning Roe entirely. So let's stop with your posts trying to distract from the real issue. No one here is buying it.


    You would (none / 0) (#96)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 05, 2022 at 01:56:45 PM EST
    think the Republicans would be popping the champagne bottles and toasting Alito.  Instead, they are beside themselves  about a leaker offending the privacy of the SC deliberations about taking away privacy rights of Americans.  And, there really is no need for worry, as Justice Handmaiden proclaims(and is included in the draft opinion), unwanted babies can just be dropped off at the nearest fire house. All those voter suppression drop boxes can be re-purposed. A win win ---for fascism.

    I'm with Howard Stern. (none / 0) (#103)
    by Chuck0 on Thu May 05, 2022 at 03:44:12 PM EST
    Unwanted babies should be dropped off on the steps of the US Supreme Court.

    Overturning Roe v. Wade will not end abortion. It will merely fill up emergency rooms next to the unvaxxed COVID deniers.


    you guys (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 05, 2022 at 02:19:16 PM EST
    have been caught with your pants down and apparently you know it since you keep trying to talk about anything other than the facts. The GOP already has a nationwide abortion ban ready to go once Roe is overturned. Even blue states will not be safe for women.

    You should start incel retreats. You probably could make a lot of money since there's likely going to be a lot of incels once Roe is overturned.


    There are currently (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by MKS on Wed May 04, 2022 at 05:39:54 PM EST
    significant restrictions on abortion.  Roe permits restrictions in third trimester.

    National legislation has passed in essence banning late term abortions.

    There is no such thing as an unrestricted right to abortion in the U.S.  Just another conservative straw man.  Like voter fraud.


    Not in the Mississippi law in question (none / 0) (#87)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu May 05, 2022 at 10:29:54 AM EST

    On top of that abortion will still  be legal with no restrictions in several states and therefore available to residents of all states.

    Fixed it for you (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Yman on Thu May 05, 2022 at 01:51:05 PM EST
    On top of that abortion will still  be legal with no restrictions in several states and therefore available to residents of all states.

    You mean, available to residents of all states who have the ability and resources to travel (sometimes great distances) for medical care and presuming a family members, friends, or others who help them won't face civil or criminal consequences for helping them travel out of state for an abortion - as is already being proposed in other states.


    Quit lying (none / 0) (#100)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 05, 2022 at 02:30:16 PM EST
    The GOP has a national abortion ban ready to go once Roe is overturned. Here in GA with their "heartbeat" legislation they banned women for going out of state for treatment. You go to jail if you go get an abortion in California. The national GOP has already admitted that they are going to use laws to ban people from going to other states.

    And even if what you are saying was true, it would cost money to get to those other states.

    Y'all love to talk about communism but you all have just done exactly what communist dictator Nicolae Ceaușescu. The handmaid seems to be a particular fan talking about how you can just drop the baby off at a fire station which is basically what they did in Communist Romania. Is the GOP going to force us to act like the Romanians did to retain our freedom? Remember those that make peaceful peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.


    This may not be the gotcha issue you think (1.00 / 1) (#101)
    by ladybug on Thu May 05, 2022 at 02:49:43 PM EST
    Your (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 05, 2022 at 04:09:40 PM EST
    poll is 5 years old. GOP has been caught with their pants down and they know it by the way they are acting.

    Current polling shows around 70% support for upholding Roe.

    Most people would say murdering people with a gun is morally wrong and then they would say Kyle Rittenhouse was fine to murder people. But again, your information is very old.


    Note that the poll is asking about morality (1.00 / 1) (#106)
    by ladybug on Thu May 05, 2022 at 04:23:01 PM EST
    and the numbers have been consistent since they first asked the question in 2012:

    One of the six issues showing virtually no change is birth control. Opinions on this issue have been highly permissive since Gallup first asked about it in 2012, ranging between 89% and 91% finding it acceptable. The other five issues showing no change since Gallup first measured them are abortion, buying and wearing clothing made of animal fur, extramarital affairs, cloning animals, and gambling.

    The other poll was in 2020, and we shall see if the current Roe issue will have an effect on voters.  But this has been a highly contested issue for a long time, as shown in this thread.


    Here is another Gallup poll (1.00 / 1) (#108)
    by ladybug on Thu May 05, 2022 at 04:32:50 PM EST
    that is more current and asking more varied questions. Again, no overwhelming majority, but opinions are divided.



    Another (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 05, 2022 at 04:39:09 PM EST
    old poll but that one says only 19% support the view of conservatives. The ones that say all or some abortion rights which would cover Roe is 80%.

    Abdul: "The 70% you reference includes support for abortion with some legislative restrictions."

    ... it's really none of your business. There's no basis for the prevailing and paternalistic assumption of so many on the right that a woman's determination regarding whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is often motivated by frivolous concerns.

    On the contrary, approximately one out of four women in the U.S. have undergone an abortion in their lifetime. I daresay the majority of them would tell you that it was probably one of the most difficult personal decisions they've ever had to make in their lives.

    Any such decision to end a pregnancy or carry it to term is the sole purview of the woman, her partner (if any) and her attending / presiding physician. The rest of us need to butt out and tend to our own affairs.



    All true (none / 0) (#115)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 05, 2022 at 05:58:43 PM EST
    Every word

    But imagine if you actually believe a zygote is a living human.  I don't.  That's not my point.  Just that if these poor stupid people have been convinced abortion is killing babies .... what to do?

    I mean, hard to defend.  Killing babies.  How do we educate or re-educate these folks.


    I could have a grain of sympathy for (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 05, 2022 at 06:31:53 PM EST
    Their viewpoint if they supported rather than demonized birth control methods to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Free, easily available methods of preventing pregnancy such as the morning after bill could drastically reduce or eliminate the need for most abortions other than those required for medical, life saving reasons.

    I will still believe in a woman's right to choose regardless and believe that much of this religious fever is punishment for women engaging in sex more than anything else.


    That too (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 05, 2022 at 06:43:53 PM EST
    rules made by people who aren't getting any and don't want you to either.

    To be clear (er) (none / 0) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 05, 2022 at 06:09:27 PM EST
    I don't for a minute think Alito or any of the people driving this bus believe that.

    As someone said above it's really about power.

    But they are manipulating ignorant people who do believe this because of bad education or religious indoctrination or both.

    Not sure I have a point. Just thinking it must be a dreadful world they live in.


    No, I disagree. I have known Alito pretty well (5.00 / 4) (#121)
    by Peter G on Thu May 05, 2022 at 07:07:44 PM EST
    for almost 50 years. He does genuinely believe, as a matter of religious doctrine and faith, that a zygote is a human being that has the same moral right to life as a person born alive. What is shocking, even now, is that he (along with several other Justices who, like him, are part of this same minority of Catholic believers) is trying to impose that view, which is totally contrary to the Anglo-American legal tradition for hundreds of years, as matter of transparently bogus constitutional law.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 05, 2022 at 08:26:26 PM EST
    That's scary.

    Does he plan to make witch (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 06, 2022 at 12:21:51 PM EST
    trials once again part of US legal system. Two of the "expert" opinions cited in Alito's draft, Sir Edward Cooke and Sir Matthew Hale, were deeply involved in witch trials lovingly sending women to their deaths through judicial murder. How about reestablishing the legal precedent that there is no such thing as martial rape, a theory developed by Alito's "expert" Hale and once was the law of the land.

    By placing religious zealots on the court we are going back in time and establishing the very conditions that the founder's were trying to protect against.


    In a NYTimes article (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by KeysDan on Fri May 06, 2022 at 02:56:36 PM EST
    by Jennifer Schuessler (May 4), the history and arguments about history and its relationship to abortion jurisprudence is reviewed.  

    In Roe, Justice Blackmun wrote that state laws prohibiting abortion at all stages of pregnancy were not of ancient or even common-law origin, but dated mostly to the late 19th century. Before that, citing various scholars, abortion early in pregnancy was legal in most states.

    Alito, in putting his sledge hammer to Roe, presents a very different history, stating that Blackmun's opinion "either ignored or misstated this history."  And, "it is therefore important to set the record straight."

    However, Alito's claim of an "unbroken tradition" of criminalizing abortion set off strong criticism from many historians, including some whose work was cited in an amicus brief submitted by the American Historical Association and the Organization of American Historians, the two main organizations of professional historians in the U.S.A.  

    Mary Ziegler, author of several books on the history of abortion, and others, argue that for the first 100 years of American history, early abortions (before fetal "quickening"..time of fetus movement) were not illegal.

    This argument is made in the historians' amicus brief. The central historical claims in Roe "were accurate". the brief asserts, "and remain so today."

    Leslie Reagan, author of "When Abortion Was a Crime: Women, Medicine and Law in the United States, 1867 to 1973, argues that abortion was common in the early 19th century, even more than Roe depicted. And, regulation relied on women's own experience, since they were the ones who would know when "quickening" occurred. Professor Reagan reports that taking medications early in pregnancy was not even considered abortion, just trying to get your menstrual period "back."

    Alito relies, among others, on a 2006 book by Joseph Dellapenna, a law professor at Villanova University, a Catholic institution,  that challenges Justice Blackmun's historical account.

    Alito adopts Professor Dellapenna's "unbroken tradition" of laws protecting "unborn life." going back to English common law into the U.S.A. of 1970.  This book has been hotly debated by historians.

    Abortion restrictions have also changed over time.  Early laws in the US were poison-control measures meant to protect from dangerous drugs. And the newly formed AMA, in 1857, moved to make abortion at every stage, illegal.  Motivation was not only concern for fetal life, but also, a desire to take control from midwives.

    It appears, that, at a base-line, there have been a mix of motives and readings of abortion history. The Court is the unlikely body to "set the record straight," on its way to taking away the existing Constitutional rights of women.


    Joe Dellapenna is a neighbor and a friend (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Peter G on Fri May 06, 2022 at 04:12:12 PM EST
    We have gone to concerts together. I've enjoyed cookouts in his back yard. Our kids went to school together. Joe is an expert on water rights and on suing foreign governments. He is not a legal historian, or a historian at all.

    Hale and Coke (pronounced "cook") (none / 0) (#138)
    by Peter G on Fri May 06, 2022 at 01:25:05 PM EST
    are universally respected experts on what English law in fact was at the time they wrote. Of course, historians are free to argue that any given passage in one of their treatises is mistaken. Whether as judges they supported or criticized the law of their times seems, to me, immaterial to the present discussion of whether Alito's account of history is accurate (as well as whether and how it is relevant in construing the U.S. Constitution today).

    I guess that was my main point (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 06, 2022 at 02:18:37 PM EST
    How should  the laws in the 16th and 17th century in Europe be used to determine our laws here in the US now? One,  many of the laws during that period were more barbaric than enlightened. Two, our forefathers left Europe to escape having the government impose their religion and religious practices on everyone.

    While other countries (even extremely Catholic ones) are easing their restrictions on abortions our religious zealots want to go back to laws written centuries ago.

    Sorry about the spelling of Coke's name. Still IMO, whether they were respected experts of their time, some of their opinions were horrible and resulted in inhumane laws.


    The World's Religions and Abortion (none / 0) (#131)
    by RickyJim on Fri May 06, 2022 at 09:33:25 AM EST
    Good Wikipedia survey.  However there is plenty I don't understand.  Can anybody explain by example what "indirect abortion" is?
    The Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodoxy, and most evangelical Protestants oppose deliberate abortion as immoral, while allowing what is sometimes called indirect abortion, namely, an action that does not seek the death of the foetus as an end or a means, but that is followed by the death as a side effect.

    My guess (none / 0) (#132)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 06, 2022 at 09:47:42 AM EST
    some action that would cause a miscarriage

    It sounds to me like a reference to (none / 0) (#133)
    by Peter G on Fri May 06, 2022 at 09:59:53 AM EST
    a principle in moral philosophy that holds that if you take an action for a purpose that is good and moral, knowing that the action will have a certain side effect, even an inevitable effect, that would be impermissible for you to seek as a principal objective, you are not deemed to have immorally "intended" the side effect. For example, an operation to separate conjoined twins who cannot survive in their present natural state, designed to save the life of one twin but which almost certainly will result in the death of the other, is not deemed (in this view) to be "killing" the one who dies.

    What an assinine (none / 0) (#68)
    by MKS on Wed May 04, 2022 at 05:46:03 PM EST
    comment.  That Dems recognize that it is women who become pregnant.

    Typical idiotic one liner from a conservative.  Probably picked up from the local ecco chamber.

    The "racists" line is the new ecco chamber come back.  Gawd, these people just regurgitate any kind of rubbish they hear--and think it is somehow valid or persusive or witty.  But it is stupid regurgutation.

    And, of course, no support for the "racist" comment.  Because "I saw it on the intertubes, so it must be true."


    Only since the opinion leaked. (1.00 / 4) (#88)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu May 05, 2022 at 10:34:23 AM EST
    Before that virtually every Dem pol referred to "birthing persons."  If you recall the newest Supreme Court justice was unable to provide a definition for "woman."

    This confounded me too. (none / 0) (#102)
    by ladybug on Thu May 05, 2022 at 03:10:00 PM EST
    Most words have fuzzy boundaries, but replacing "woman" with "birthing person" seems extreme. Can't we distinguish sex from gender and be able to agree on a biological definition for woman and man? According to linguists, men, women and children are linguistic universals.

    There are only about 50 concepts or so that can be found across all languages and cultures.



    The Kaiser foundation (1.00 / 4) (#90)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu May 05, 2022 at 10:47:46 AM EST

    Finds blacks as the leading demographic for abortion in 2019 at 38%.  Maggy Sanger would be so happy.


    Do you really not think that makes virulent racists happy? Talk about suppressing the black vote!


    Have you looked at any polls? (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Yman on Thu May 05, 2022 at 01:58:15 PM EST
    Here's a novel concept - before you go using sophomoric logic in a laughable attempt to paint abortion rights as racist, why not look at what African Americans really want?  Because, ya know, they're actual adults and are better able to define racism than old, white men.  Seems like the virulent racists are fully on board with the overturning of Roe and African Americans (especially women) are highly in favor of abortion rights.

    The whole (none / 0) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 04, 2022 at 08:20:13 PM EST
    racist thing is funny. Conservative racists are fine with black babies being born. They just don't want them to be the majority and besides they need black people to pick their crops and be maids.

    The playbook's certainly there. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 03, 2022 at 07:23:48 PM EST
    But the Republicans use it at their peril. They've been running against the 1960s for over 50 years, only it's not the '60s anymore. the GOP's attempts to turn back the clock may enjoy some preliminary successes but ultimately, Republicans have embarked upon a fool's errand that will alienate far more people than it will attract.

    I hope you are right (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 03, 2022 at 07:37:34 PM EST
    I really do.  And I wish I had more confidence the alienated would do anything about it beyond complaining on Twitter and Facebook.  

    THis is my fear (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 03, 2022 at 07:52:20 PM EST
    that is it going to take women dying in droves, women being put in jail and a lot of other horrible things happening before it sinks in with some.

    Any republican should be every republican (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 03, 2022 at 04:41:10 PM EST

    Ron Johnson Suggests Covid Vaccines May Cause AIDS
    May 3, 2022 at 5:06 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 93 Comments

    In a video interview, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) said it "may be true" that vaccines against COVID-19 cause AIDS, the Wisconsin Examiner reports.

    Said Johnson: "The way to approach this is from a criminal point of view because that's what has happened. And until we start holding people accountable, Fauci number one, you're going to see people still falling out, still getting sick."

    He added: "You've got more than a hundred doctors here, all of whom will tell you that these shots caused vaccine-induced AIDS. they purposefully gave people AIDS. They knew this."

    Maybe something (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by KeysDan on Tue May 03, 2022 at 04:57:02 PM EST
    Johnson learned when he and seven other Republican senators and one Republican House member spent a patriotic Fourth of July weekend in Moscow.  

    Updated information (5.00 / 3) (#171)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 07, 2022 at 11:03:17 AM EST
    Update to 2020 Story on HIV and Adenovirus Type-5 COVID-19 Vaccine

    From the editors: This article, describing a letter written in The Lancet, was published in October 2020, 2 months before the emergency use authorization of the first COVID-19 vaccine in the United States. It also discusses a type of vaccine that is not currently in use in the United States for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.

    Surprise, surprise! Johnson and others are using erroneous, information. Unless, you want to search outside of the US and take the Adenovirus Type-5 Covid-19 Vaccine.


    Thanks for the update. It is good (1.00 / 3) (#194)
    by ladybug on Sun May 08, 2022 at 11:11:07 AM EST
    to be able to address the facts. My only point was that Ron Johnson may have been referencing that source in his comment. Even Dr. Fauci has changed some recommendations based on new info. There's lots of misinformation going around so it is good to be able to talk and compare sources.

    The facts have been available (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 08, 2022 at 12:09:26 PM EST
    since October, 2020. It is now May, 2022. That is over a year and a half ago. 5 minutes on google would have produced the fact that the letter in The Lancet did not apply to vaccines authorized in the US. It is apparent that you and Ron Johnson don't check the accuracy of your information prior to spreading disinformation. You have a pattern of posting faulty information here and share Johnson's reputation.

    I have also been curious about this. (1.00 / 3) (#200)
    by ladybug on Sun May 08, 2022 at 12:46:42 PM EST
    It seems to me from my experience that "trolling" here refers to someone with a different opinion. I do try to present arguments and sources. I am really only posting here because I find the ideas interesting, not to fight with anyone.

    I beg to differ. (none / 0) (#198)
    by ladybug on Sun May 08, 2022 at 12:20:08 PM EST
    This is clearly written on the update that you did not bother to read.
    This story was updated in February 2022 to show that this original story, published in October 2020, is out of date, and adds new information.

    Sometimes I am curious about some of the comments made on this site so I look them up. I should have looked a little further and appreciated your update.

    I did notice from your link that this retraction came out just two months ago and am surprised you did not.


    Neural (none / 0) (#18)
    by FlJoe on Tue May 03, 2022 at 06:48:01 PM EST
    implants? Explains a lot.

    Maybe he picked it up (none / 0) (#168)
    by ladybug on Sat May 07, 2022 at 10:22:21 AM EST
    They (none / 0) (#19)
    by FlJoe on Tue May 03, 2022 at 06:55:54 PM EST
    really are a pack of liars, grifters, whackos and other assorted weirdos, with few exceptions, from top to bottom.

    So, What Can Be Done About It? (none / 0) (#24)
    by RickyJim on Tue May 03, 2022 at 07:29:01 PM EST
    With all the moaning and groaning I read here, I had hoped there would be more support for the opinion that the answer is nothing as long as the US still operates under it current Constitution.  There will be no progress with the institutions of the US Senate and the Supreme Court that it appoints in place. So how do we get a billionaire to finance a Madison and a national referendum?  The Madison will make a scholarly review, like he did in 1787, of all the previous attempts in the world of establishing a constitutional government and make a proposal.  The referendum will let the country debate and vote on the proposed document. If it gets 70% of the vote, how much resistance to the new order would the establishment be able to muster?

    You have a point (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 03, 2022 at 07:38:55 PM EST
    even if it's a kind of pointless one.

    I Sort of Agree (none / 0) (#29)
    by RickyJim on Tue May 03, 2022 at 07:42:56 PM EST
    that a new Constitution is unlikely to be adopted in this country in the foreseeable future.  It would be sort of like the possibility that Donald Trump could be elected President of the United States of America.

    Someone on CNN just said (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 03, 2022 at 07:11:11 PM EST
    Unless the leak was the result of a theft or a hack it would be a "political issue" not a criminal one.

    So, that's a little surprising with all the talk about how unprecedented and unheard-of this was.

    There was once upon a time (none / 0) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 03, 2022 at 07:41:06 PM EST
    respect for the norms of precedent and acceptable behavior. That time has passed due to the actions of the SC and various other governmental entities at the state and federal level.  

    If they have decided that precedents no longer apply, it should be no surprise that other long standing precedents are ignored as well.


    What I'm trying to figure (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 03, 2022 at 07:56:10 PM EST
    out is why the GOP is so incensed about this because everybody was going to find out the answer. The only suggestion I have come across is that they wanted it to come out right before recess hoping everybody would ignore the decision since it was during the summer. I guess perhaps they are mad because they wanted the news to come out on their timeline and now is way too bad for them with the J-6 hearings coming up.

    Deflection (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 03, 2022 at 08:09:13 PM EST
    The Republicans want to talk about the leak rather than talk about the ramifications of the upcoming decision.

    The Dems should ignore this distraction and stay loudly focused on the the actual issue. Republicans are extremely good at saying they don't want to talk about this but want to talk about the leak. Dems should not talk about the leak, not answer questions about the leak and just just talk about the threat this is to us whenever the subject comes up.  

    An extremely smart man during my business career told me the winning strategy is to ignore the BS and stay focused on the real issue. The Dems need to learn and implement this strategy.


    Well (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 03, 2022 at 08:36:29 PM EST
    the GOP sure is trying to go on and on about the leak but it's not working. Nobody really cares where it came from it seems yet everybody is talking about the ramifications of overturning Roe. So for once the GOP strategy is NOT working.

    It (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by FlJoe on Wed May 04, 2022 at 04:08:20 AM EST
    doesn't have to work, throwing sht up against the wall strategy has a high failure rate anyway, it's quantity over quality.

    It's standard GOP/abuser tactics "we are the victim here", it doesn't even have to make sense, just to keep the base fired up, they can't just let them sit back and be happy with this "win", the mob must always be riled up for the Republicans to continue their march to fascism.


    I don't think (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 03, 2022 at 08:21:09 PM EST
    everyone is necessarily going to find out who the leaker is.

    WHat I meant (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 03, 2022 at 08:38:54 PM EST
    was everybody was going to find out what the SC decision was. It could come out now or later but either way it was going to come out.

    No matter how "bad" the behavior (none / 0) (#32)
    by Peter G on Tue May 03, 2022 at 08:03:43 PM EST
    nothing is a crime unless there is a specifically written criminal law in place, at the time, making it so, and declaring a punishment to be imposed upon conviction for that offense.

    Yes, thank you (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 03, 2022 at 08:18:25 PM EST
    what I meant was it's surprising leaking this kind of court document is not a crime.

    It occurs to me that it could potentially (none / 0) (#40)
    by Peter G on Tue May 03, 2022 at 09:43:14 PM EST
    be prosecuted as a criminal contempt of court, if the Chief Justice's admonition to all staff to maintain strict confidentiality is viewed as a court "order" or "rule."

    You mentioned this was a first draft (none / 0) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 04, 2022 at 05:46:44 PM EST
    what do you think the chances are, given all the hoopla, they would reach another decision now.

    Curious because it would probably kill evangelical turnout in November if they dared to do that after teasing them with a big win.


    Oh, man (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 04, 2022 at 08:13:16 PM EST
    it definitely would kill evangelical turnout in November if they do not overturn Roe v. Wade. Even without this no overturn would kill turnout. The GOP has to deliver now that they've been promising this for 40 years. They've always had the excuse that it wouldn't pass the court but now they no longer have that.

    Your observation (none / 0) (#81)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 04, 2022 at 09:11:11 PM EST
    gives credulity to the suggestion that the leak was to lock-in the Alito majority.  And, perhaps more feasible, to lock-in the "take no prisoners" language of the draft.  

    The draft ruling to overturn Roe is Alito's magnum opus.  He, along with Thomas, have no doubt been dreaming of this day and can't brook any threats to changes to his masterpiece.  Alito's references to historic labeling of abortion as a crime--going back to early centuries and to witchcraft.  And, to wack jobs of long ago.  Not arguments on the tip of the tongue.


    I am very confident that at least four (none / 0) (#82)
    by Peter G on Wed May 04, 2022 at 10:13:55 PM EST
    and probably five will sign on to an edited version of this opinion, probably somewhat toned down and perhaps with the language supposedly protecting contraceptive rights, the striking down of sodomy laws, and equal marriage beefed up. But fundamentally changed, no, I don't think so. I guess it could conceivably go down to four votes, and if so, then the narrower opinion (presumably by Roberts, perhaps with Kavanaugh, the weakest link) will be the controlling decision.

    Shades of Scorsese's "Casino"! (none / 0) (#36)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 03, 2022 at 08:25:41 PM EST
    The water level at Lake Mead outside Las Vegas, NV has dropped so low that people are finding things that some other people were likely thinking would never be found such as, let's say, a metal barrel stuffed with a body of a man who'd been shot dead. Authorities have estimated from the shoes and other items with the body that the barrel was dumped into Lake Mead sometime in the late 1970s or early 1980s.

    Do you think (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 03, 2022 at 08:37:49 PM EST
    maybe they've finally found Jimmy Hoffa?

    Someday (none / 0) (#71)
    by MKS on Wed May 04, 2022 at 05:51:48 PM EST
    they will have to tear it down for something better.  It ain't a great place.  And then?

    I've never understood the logic ... (none / 0) (#157)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 06, 2022 at 07:12:12 PM EST
    ... behind all those stories which have long suggested that after having murdered Jimmy Hoffa somewhere in suburban Detroit, mobsters then transported his body 600+ miles across several state lines to New Jersey in order to bury him under a parking lot at a public facility. I mean, it sounds like an awful lot of unnecessary work with a lot of attendant risk. Far easier instead to just drop him into the middle of Lake Erie.

    But mobsters just (none / 0) (#158)
    by MKS on Fri May 06, 2022 at 08:57:32 PM EST
    love New York...and Jersey. Where else but Giants' stadium?  

    It would be worth it .. (none / 0) (#159)
    by desertswine on Fri May 06, 2022 at 09:37:53 PM EST
    if they planted him in the End Zone.  I mean, c'mon.

    I really think (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 04, 2022 at 08:52:39 AM EST
    It's looking (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 04, 2022 at 11:05:23 AM EST
    good here in GA for Warnock to be reelected. SURVEY USA has it 50-45 in Warnock's favor and that's before Warnock starts taking Walker apart on his abuse of his wife, talking of killing the police etc. etc.

    Hope your are right (none / 0) (#70)
    by MKS on Wed May 04, 2022 at 05:50:02 PM EST
    But a self-proclaimed Trump "hillbilly" will sell in certain parts of Ohio.

    No doubt (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 04, 2022 at 05:58:20 PM EST
    The bobbleheads can't stop talking about the Senate race in terms of how much Trump won the state.  SUCH a high mountain to climb for a democrat!!!

    They kind if forget to mention Sherrod Brown.  The senior senator.


    Yes, good point. (none / 0) (#73)
    by MKS on Wed May 04, 2022 at 05:59:26 PM EST
    Good to remember.  And the Dem is the kind of blue collar Dem who should do well.

    More than half of republicans (none / 0) (#75)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 04, 2022 at 06:15:15 PM EST
    voted against the winner.  And about half of those  voted for the anti Trump guy who said the big lie was a big lie.

    And I would say (none / 0) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 04, 2022 at 06:01:31 PM EST
    never in the history of politics has a guys petard been so ripe for hoisting

    I kept reading about this (none / 0) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 04, 2022 at 09:42:27 AM EST
    and decided I had to read it.  Technically I'm listening to it but it's outstanding.

    It's great SciFi but also the opening of the book, by a Chinese author, is about the cultural revolution.  The really scary part is how familiar many of the scary parts are.  And how timely.

    The Three Body Problem

    It's a series.  Of 4, I think.  I'm still in one but not for long.

    So, another day (none / 0) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 04, 2022 at 06:29:05 PM EST
    another damming recording of republicans talking about Jan 6.

    But really

    this one, of McCarthy talking about how the 25th amendment would "take to long"

    is pretty stunning

    It is going (none / 0) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 04, 2022 at 08:52:50 PM EST
    to be drip, drip, drip all the way to November it seems. Most people think it is Elise Stefanik releasing all these McCarthy tapes. At this point no matter what happens in November McCarthy is never going to be majority or minority leader.

    Then there is the NC GOP in a huge fight trying to get rid of Cawthorn. So it makes people believe that there really are cocaine orgies being held by Republicans.


    And (none / 0) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 05, 2022 at 10:43:34 AM EST
    1,000,000 dead from COVID.

    My guess is at least 2/3 were Trump voters.  

    Let's hope they were frequent voters.


    Unbelievable (none / 0) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 05, 2022 at 06:26:16 PM EST

    Collins Opposes Creating Statutory Right to Abortion
    May 5, 2022 at 4:16 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 173 Comments

    "Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), one of two prominent Republican senators who support abortion rights, said Thursday that she does not support a measure that would create statutory right to the procedure, arguing that the legislation does not provide sufficient protection to antiabortion health providers," the Washington Post reports.

    "The statement from Collins comes as the Senate is preparing to vote next week on the legislation."

    Certainly it's most important to protect "anti-abortion health providers".  All else is secondary

    Completely bogus argument, Sen Collins (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by Peter G on Thu May 05, 2022 at 08:14:06 PM EST
    The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, particularly as construed by the Supreme Court in Hobby Lobby and other cases, gives robust protection to any health care providers who have a religious scruple against complying with a federal law protecting their patients' abortion rights.

    Her actions have over the years (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 06, 2022 at 11:03:08 AM EST
    proved that she is a total fake with no real moral compass. People, especially her Democratic colleagues, who have believed anything she has said and tried to work with her are fools. The old adage of "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." applies a thousand fold especially after her performance during the ACA negotiations.

    TOtally (none / 0) (#124)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 05, 2022 at 07:55:17 PM EST
    believable honestly. She isn't pro-choice. She lies about being pro-choice.

    Can you state the obvious ... (none / 0) (#125)
    by Yman on Thu May 05, 2022 at 07:57:48 PM EST
    ... a few more times?

    That would be awesome.

    This will the PA Senate race (none / 0) (#135)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 06, 2022 at 11:31:16 AM EST
    even more interesting.

    Mike Pompeo to Hold Press Conference: Has `National Security Concerns' About Trump-Endorsed `Dr. Oz'

    Axio's Jonathan Swan reports that Mike Pompeo announced that he will hold a press conference in which Pompeo will reveal national security concerns he has regarding Trump's pick for the Republican nomination for the Pennsylvania U.S. Senate seat, Mehmet Oz, or "Dr. Oz."

    Pompeo is IMO establishing the groundwork to challenge Trump in 2024. On the positive side, he is a gutter fighter and will use these talents on Trump. On the negative side, he is almost as disgusting as Trump and the country would suffer greatly if he ever becomes President.

    Watching these low-lifes attack one another (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Peter G on Fri May 06, 2022 at 01:19:13 PM EST
    as the primary approaches is the best part of my day, here in Pennsylvania.

    I want to know how (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by Chuck0 on Sat May 07, 2022 at 12:31:35 PM EST
    Oz is going to "fire Fauci." As a US Senator, he would have as much authority to fire Fauci as he has to fire me.

    The TV ads are just absurd. The ones for GQP governor nomination are downright silly. But it is fun to watch them tear each other apart.


    Agreed they are mostly absurd (none / 0) (#175)
    by jmacWA on Sat May 07, 2022 at 04:04:40 PM EST
    Fire Fauci is ridiculous.

    But the ad which accuses Mastriano of voting for the unconstitutional Mail in voting is just as crazy.  But as you say they are ripping into each other quite nicely.

    The other one that gets me is that Lt Gov. ad for the trusted conservative.  I watch the philly local news for maybe 30-45 mins in the evening and I must hear that commercial a minimum of 4 times.  


    Can Fetterman win? (none / 0) (#143)
    by MKS on Fri May 06, 2022 at 03:17:16 PM EST
    I certainly hope so (none / 0) (#144)
    by jmacWA on Fri May 06, 2022 at 03:23:01 PM EST
    but I do not plan on taking anything for granted.  I will mark my ballot in blue ink, seal it in its secrecy envelope and mail it in plenty of time.

    My favorite part of the ridiculous GOP commercials is the fact that as a legislator Doug Mastriano voted for the UNCONSTITUTIONAL mail in ballot bill that allows me to vote by mail.  

    I agree with Peter, it makes my day to hear the GOP candidates tear each other up nightly while I am listening to the local news.


    I think any of the three Dems can win (none / 0) (#146)
    by Peter G on Fri May 06, 2022 at 03:52:27 PM EST
    the Senate seat. But only with a big turnout in and around Philadelphia. The Dem candidate with the most appeal in Philly is Malcolm Kenyatta. I may very well vote for him (have to decide this weekend, and then get to the drop-box).

    That's scary (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Jack E Lope on Fri May 06, 2022 at 01:30:14 PM EST
    From what I've seen of Pompeo, he is quick and effective at framing issues to support his views, and he speaks endlessly and aggressively - resulting in not-enough-space for anyone to slip in any truth, even edgewise.

    It's as if Drumpf's nastiness and selfishness have been packaged in a more-competent container.


    Yes, Pompeo (none / 0) (#152)
    by KeysDan on Fri May 06, 2022 at 05:05:10 PM EST
    would be a disaster as president.  However, the former Tea Party Congressman would fit right in  having had a taste of grifting capabilities, while Secretary of State.

    A State Department watchdog investigation reported Pompeo and his second wife, Susan, reported the couple breached ethics rules using federal resources for personal benefit (e.g., dinner reservations, pet care, dinner events for nongovernmental relationships).  And, of course, Pompeo is an Evangelical zealot.  The perfect Republican candidate.


    Only in 2022 (none / 0) (#160)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 07, 2022 at 07:27:54 AM EST
    could a Putin Stooge like Pompeo be "concerned" about a candidate's national security threat. He seemed to have zero problems with Trump being a national security threat.

    More than likely he thinks Oz cannot win against any Dem and he's probably right. The whole voting in Turkey thing isn't so much a national security problem IMO as it is an huge boulder hampering electoral chances.


    Questions (none / 0) (#142)
    by RickyJim on Fri May 06, 2022 at 03:02:50 PM EST
    1. If both abortion and firearms laws were left to the states, would that be a fair trade?

    2. Suppose since 1787, the only national legislature in the US was the House of Representatives.  Then in what instances would the Supreme Court have been needed to guard human rights?  My impression is that most of time it has so acted was because the Senate had filibustered legislation.

    3. Is the following scenario possible?  Congress passes a law that it can override a Supreme Court decision by passing the law again.  Supreme Court declares the law unconstitutional.  Congress passes the law again and tell SCOTUS to GtH.

    Happy to oblige (none / 0) (#147)
    by Peter G on Fri May 06, 2022 at 04:00:26 PM EST
    1. No. Women are human beings, not bargaining chips.
    2. Nearly all instances, if not literally all.
    3. Ask Andrew Jackson.

    While not directly answering any of those... (none / 0) (#149)
    by Jack E Lope on Fri May 06, 2022 at 04:16:45 PM EST
    1. Makes me think of a different split that would intertwine abortion and firearm legislation. Each state could choose to commit to "pro-life" as a package - they can ban abortion if they ban guns. I suppose we should come up with some middle-ground options, too, since only states run by strawmen have an absolute gun ban or an absolute right to abortion until the moment of birth. I wonder how we should calculate the inverse relationship of the waiting period for buying a firearm vs. the length of time after conception that an abortion is allowed.  And other details....

    2. Removing the Senate from the mix may reduce the imbalance of legislative power, but The House would still give more power to the demographics that are allowed to vote - and a disproportionate amount of power to the slave states, who get more Representatives per voting population.  Plus, with two-year terms, I'd expect big changes in the law over short periods - if we ended up with a 2-party system again, it might even turn into a tit-for-tat rivalry every time the majority changes party.

    3. Is an interesting hypothetical.

    The supreme (none / 0) (#161)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 07, 2022 at 07:34:56 AM EST
    court overturning Roe news gets worse and worse. Now Coney Barrett is talking about a "domestic supply of infants" basically advocating for fetal farms.

    I see this attributed (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by jmacWA on Sat May 07, 2022 at 08:07:33 AM EST
    to Alito, not Barrett, although she has said many similar things.

    The thing I find strange about the quote is the word that I assume to be implied, but not stated:

    domestic supply of (white) infants

    From what I read, (none / 0) (#163)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 07, 2022 at 09:39:27 AM EST
    that wording was a quote from a 2008 CDC paper on adoption. Of course, it was Alito's choice to include that quote in his opinion.

    Around the same time period, there were articles stating that while people in the US were adopting white babies from other countries, we were sending black and mixed race babies to other countries due to lack of adoption opportunities for them here.


    Links (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 07, 2022 at 09:54:19 AM EST
    2008 study

    Overseas adoptions rise - for black American children

    African-American babies are going to parents overseas even as US couples adopt children from other countries

    I haven't been able to find more recent articles but during the time period of the 2008 study referenced in Alito's opinion the "domestic supply of infants" being "virtually nonexistent" did not seem to be the case for African-American babies.


    Yes, these CDC references (none / 0) (#167)
    by KeysDan on Sat May 07, 2022 at 10:14:13 AM EST
    are cited in Alito's majority draft opinion as a footnote (46):

    See, e.g. Centers for Disease Control, Adoption Experiences of Women and Men and Demand for Children to Adopt by Women 18-44 Years of Age in the United States 16 (Aug.2008) ("Nearly 1 million women were seeking to adopt children in 2002 (i.e., they were in demand for a child), whereas the domestic supply of infants relinquished at birth or within the first month of life and available to be adopted had become virtually nonexistent."); .....

    This footnote seems to be input from Barrett along with her Fire House drop box idea.


    Seems that the US (none / 0) (#170)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 07, 2022 at 10:49:36 AM EST
    only lacked white babies if we had to "export" African-American outside of the US to be adopted.

    More accurate information (none / 0) (#165)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 07, 2022 at 10:08:47 AM EST
    This was originally a 2002 study published in Vital Health Statistics in 2002, and republished by the CDC in 2008.

    DEMOCRATS IN DISARRAY!!! (none / 0) (#166)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 07, 2022 at 10:12:10 AM EST
    *the subject line is ironic

    Idaho GOP Riven by Primary Civil War
    May 7, 2022 at 8:53 am EDT By Taegan Goddard 108 Comments

    "Idaho's dominant Republican Party is at war with itself up and down the ballot ahead of its May 17 primaries," Politico reports.

    "It's not just Gov. Brad Little, whose reelection campaign became national news when Donald Trump endorsed a primary challenge from Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin. The state attorney general is staring down a challenge from a former rabble-rousing member of Congress. The senior of Idaho's two GOP House members is facing a primary that has drawn millions in spending. And contentious open races for lieutenant governor and the secretary of state -- Idaho's chief election official -- echo some of the national divisions within the party."


    Trump-Inspired Candidate Divides Nebraska GOP
    May 7, 2022 at 7:55 am EDT By Taegan Goddard 30 Comments

    New York Times: "Like his political role model -- and chief backer -- Mr. Herbster is proving to be a one-man political wrecking ball. In a state long known for genteel, collaborative politics and, for the last 24 years, one-party rule, Mr. Herbster's bid has cracked his party into three camps, with Trump supporters, establishment conservatives and business-friendly moderates battling for power. A major donor for years to conservative candidates, Mr. Herbster has been abandoned by longtime political allies and seen his running mate quit his ticket to run for governor herself. The allegations of groping are coming from fellow Republicans."

    "Behind all the drama is a question with resonance far beyond Nebraska. Mr. Trump's endorsement of Mr. Herbster, a major donor to Mr. Trump's political career, isn't just the first-time candidate's top credential -- it is his campaign's entire rationale. Mr. Trump's name is on Mr. Herbster's lawn signs, ads and billboards."


    Dr. Oz Booed at Trump Rally
    May 6, 2022 at 11:09 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 140 Comments

    Pennsylvania U.S. Senate candidate Mehmet Oz (R) was booed Friday night at a rally in the commonwealth headlined by former President Donald Trump.


    This is just from today's headlines.

    Have you heard a single bobblehead talk about republicans in disarray?

    Although J.D. Vance (none / 0) (#169)
    by KeysDan on Sat May 07, 2022 at 10:23:21 AM EST
    was endorsed by TFG, the win was really for Peter Thiel.  Or, more accurately, Peter Thiel's $15 million campaign support (plus, whatever $ millions Thiel gave to TFG for the endorsement, probably).

    And, as you mentioned earlier, this grand win gives a real leg-up to Tim Ryan.  


    OF course not (none / 0) (#173)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 07, 2022 at 01:09:21 PM EST
    but then totalitarians rarely ever get called out for being in "disarray".

    According to Trump's (none / 0) (#174)
    by KeysDan on Sat May 07, 2022 at 03:14:44 PM EST
    Defense Secretary, Mark Esper's memoir, in summer of 2020, TFG wanted to launch missies into Mexico to take out drug labs.  And, to do it secretly so no one would be the wiser.  

    Aside from the awkwardness of attacking our neighbor to the south, Trump apparently believed the cartels located their drug labs in the sky, since he suggested using Patriot missiles, which are surface to air missiles.

    But to be fair, he probably knows you can get high from drugs, so there was logic there.  MAGAt logic.

    I like the part where (none / 0) (#177)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 07, 2022 at 04:42:13 PM EST
    Esper says if he had not been looking him in the face he would have thought it was a joke.

    You know, as one would.


    Interesting Sidelight (none / 0) (#179)
    by RickyJim on Sat May 07, 2022 at 05:30:49 PM EST
    Even though this book is set for release on May 10, since May 3 there have been 3 summaries of it for sale on Amazon both, in paperback and Kindle formats. I will probably get the Audible version of the original.  I thought I was over with books about the Trump presidency but I recently listened to former press secretary and communication director Stephanie Grisham read her memoir and I assume/hope Esper will be more interesting. As an example of what Stephanie has to say, "Not in two million years had I ever thought I'd have a conversation with the president of the United States about his penis". If you are a dog lover, you may be interested in Stephanie's account of the custody conflict she had with an ex-lover (not named), who also had been working at the White House, about a pooch they shared.

    Doesn't that make (none / 0) (#181)
    by MKS on Sat May 07, 2022 at 05:33:36 PM EST
    two of Trump's Secretaries of Defense, Esper and Mattis, who thought the guy was bonkers and dangerous?

    These Trump aides belatedly (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by KeysDan on Sun May 08, 2022 at 11:34:56 AM EST
    revealing these horror stories conjures up scenarios in my mind such as Hitler having a meeting at Berchtesgaden with his ministers and generals when he suddenly rolls on the floor, pounds his fists on the legs of the conference table, and eats the carpets.  He gets up, wipes the foam from his mouth and tells his generals to invade Poland.

    The whole room yells back, Hell yeah,  Let's make Germany great again.  Later, from the ruble of Berlin the ministers write a book about their experiences with the "oddness" of the fuhrer.  But, you know he helped the economy and stuff.


    Hmm, (none / 0) (#182)
    by MKS on Sat May 07, 2022 at 05:34:23 PM EST
    I have not been one to buy Trump p*rn, but this did catch my interest.

    I really did not want (none / 0) (#183)
    by MKS on Sat May 07, 2022 at 05:35:01 PM EST
    to r3eward Bob Woodward with any more money.....he is an establishment guy just looking for money.

    Coming soon (none / 0) (#176)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 07, 2022 at 04:28:33 PM EST

    GOP Candidate Wants States to Ban Contraceptives
    May 7, 2022 at 4:35 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 94 Comments

    After the U.S. Supreme Court overturns women's constitutional right to abortion this summer, Arizona U.S. Senate candidate Blake Master (R) thinks judges should also take aim at the right to buy and use contraception, the Arizona Mirror reports.

    They are on a roll (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 07, 2022 at 06:33:04 PM EST
    How Are We Still Debating Interracial Marriage in 2022?

    "You would be OK with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states?"

    "Yes," said Senator Mike Braun of Indiana while fielding questions from local media on Tuesday. "If you're not wanting the Supreme Court to weigh in on issues like that, you're not going to be able to have your cake and eat it, too," he said. "That's hypocritical."
    Braun wasn't the only Republican to speak candidly this week. In a video statement criticizing Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, President Biden's nominee to the Supreme Court, Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee condemned the court's "constitutionally unsound" ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut, the landmark 1965 case that established a constitutional right to privacy, striking down a Connecticut law that restricted married couples' access to birth control. And Senator John Cornyn of Texas used his time during the Jackson hearings to question the merits of the Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in 2015.

    Braun, not surprisingly, latter walked his back comment. Yep, yep,...definitely made a mistake and said the quite part out loud.


    The Supreme Court precedent that is (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Peter G on Sat May 07, 2022 at 11:26:46 PM EST
    most like Roe v Wade, and thus most vulnerable to the same "reasoning" attacking it, in my opinion, is Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 decision that held anti-sodomy laws to be unconstitutional.

    Yes, Scalia, (none / 0) (#193)
    by KeysDan on Sun May 08, 2022 at 09:52:25 AM EST
    in his dissent, bewailed the unsustainability of state laws against, for example, incest, adultery, masterbation, and beastiality based on the Court's ruling.  And, lamented the  Court yielding to the homosexual agenda.

    But, we need not worry about any further erosion of privacy, substantive due process rights since Alito flat-out stated in his draft opinion that "this ticket is good for one ride only."


    Maybe (none / 0) (#187)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 07, 2022 at 06:40:21 PM EST
    we can create sanctuary cities for women in the US. I know some are already talking about constructing an underground railroad to bring women to freedom in the free states. Of course, they know that too and that's why Marco Rubio has introduced a bill to ban abortion nationwide. There will be no free states.

    3 videos of Pete Buttigieg on the topic (none / 0) (#188)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 07, 2022 at 06:55:13 PM EST
    Why culture war?

    He is very,  very good at discussing issues. Worth the short time it takes to listen to them.


    What on earth (none / 0) (#178)
    by MKS on Sat May 07, 2022 at 05:30:02 PM EST
    could their "reasoning" be for such?

    This is just so bizarre.

    But, I do know. They are anti-women. They do not want them in the workplace and want to turn the clock back to the 1950s.


    The changing role (none / 0) (#180)
    by MKS on Sat May 07, 2022 at 05:31:43 PM EST
    and equality for women has really undone conservatives.  

    This is the root cause, imo, for much of their "cultural" or "religious" viewpoints.


    Yes, (none / 0) (#186)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 07, 2022 at 06:36:02 PM EST
    and they are going to come for everybody---gays, African Americans and the list goes on until only straight white men have any freedom in America.

    I am starting to think I may need to look into retiring in a freedom state like NY and living there 1/2 the year and then winter in Mexico.

    I hope all of this has woken people up but we will have to wait until November to see if it has.


    There is a new open thread up. (none / 0) (#201)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 09, 2022 at 05:23:30 PM EST
    Please continue the discussion there.