HB2 is "an undue burden on abortion access"
June 27, 2016 7:57 AM Subscribe
Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Abortion Restrictions. In a 5-3 decision the Supreme Court has held that the two restrictions placed on abortion clinics, namely the requirement that all clinics in the state to meet the standards for ambulatory surgical centers, including regulations concerning buildings, equipment and, staffing and also requiring doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital "places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the Federal Constitution". The decision was authored by Breyer and was joined by Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor Elena Kagan. Roberts, Thomas, and Alito dissented.
HB2, the subject of much activism in Texas during its passage, culminating in an incredible filibuster, has seen half of Texas's abortion clinics close already and another half again facing closure with the full implementation of the laws.
What this means for other TRAP laws, laws that are designed to curtail abortion by making the operation of a clinic unworkable, is unknown at this point however opponents of Ohio's recent attempts to regulate abortions in the same way may find it easier to have the laws thrown out.
HB2, the subject of much activism in Texas during its passage, culminating in an incredible filibuster, has seen half of Texas's abortion clinics close already and another half again facing closure with the full implementation of the laws.
What this means for other TRAP laws, laws that are designed to curtail abortion by making the operation of a clinic unworkable, is unknown at this point however opponents of Ohio's recent attempts to regulate abortions in the same way may find it easier to have the laws thrown out.
From RBG's concurring opinion: Many medical procedures, including childbirth, are far more dangerous to patients, yet are not subject to ambulatory-surgical-center or hospital admitting-privileges requirements. Given those realities, it is beyond rational belief that H. B. 2 could genuinely protect the health of women, and certain that the law “would simply make it more difficult for them to obtain abortions.” When a State severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners, faute de mieux, at great risk to their health and safety.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:00 AM on June 27, 2016 [37 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:00 AM on June 27, 2016 [37 favorites]
I'm so thrilled that the clock on our Handmaid's Tale-like future dystopia has been turned back a little bit today.
posted by batbat at 8:02 AM on June 27, 2016 [110 favorites]
posted by batbat at 8:02 AM on June 27, 2016 [110 favorites]
Crying a little at work. After months in a dystopian "post-factual" global landscape where feelings and ideology trump actual facts, it is such a relief for a finding to be based on reality.
TX: We did this to make people safer.
SC: Did it? Even once, ever?
TX: No.
SC: BYEEEEEEEEE
posted by a fiendish thingy at 8:03 AM on June 27, 2016 [152 favorites]
TX: We did this to make people safer.
SC: Did it? Even once, ever?
TX: No.
SC: BYEEEEEEEEE
posted by a fiendish thingy at 8:03 AM on June 27, 2016 [152 favorites]
Praise the Lord, hallelujah.
posted by Melismata at 8:03 AM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Melismata at 8:03 AM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
"We add that, when directly asked at oral argument whether Texas knew of a single instance in which the new requirement would have helped even one woman obtain better treatment, Texas admitted that there was no evidence in the record of such a case."
Come on guys, this isn't even a fig leaf, you're not even bothering at this point.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 8:04 AM on June 27, 2016 [80 favorites]
Come on guys, this isn't even a fig leaf, you're not even bothering at this point.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 8:04 AM on June 27, 2016 [80 favorites]
Somewhere conservative Republicans are furiously burning Anthony Kennedy in effigy.
posted by imnotasquirrel at 8:08 AM on June 27, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by imnotasquirrel at 8:08 AM on June 27, 2016 [5 favorites]
FUCK YEAH! *fist pump of justice*
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:08 AM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:08 AM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
There are a ton of similar laws around the country that are now laid completely bare to lawsuits. This may turn out to be a bigger fuckin' deal than it looks like.
Oh, and also: At least Roberts and Alito considered making modifications to the law, but Thomas is such a shitbird that he thought it was all totally cool. He can definitely go fuck a cactus, and I hope the rumors of him retiring after the election are true.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:08 AM on June 27, 2016 [57 favorites]
Oh, and also: At least Roberts and Alito considered making modifications to the law, but Thomas is such a shitbird that he thought it was all totally cool. He can definitely go fuck a cactus, and I hope the rumors of him retiring after the election are true.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:08 AM on June 27, 2016 [57 favorites]
It is sweet to have a little victory here and there.
posted by rtha at 8:08 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by rtha at 8:08 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
Presidential elections matter.
posted by biogeo at 8:09 AM on June 27, 2016 [84 favorites]
posted by biogeo at 8:09 AM on June 27, 2016 [84 favorites]
I had a sure to infuriate me meeting at 11 that just got cancelled, so I think I'll read Thomas's dissent, no reason to waste a good hour of righteous indignation.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 8:10 AM on June 27, 2016 [62 favorites]
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 8:10 AM on June 27, 2016 [62 favorites]
How can Alito and Roberts and Thomas seriously think there is even the slightest basis for dissent? Come on, man. I wonder if they only dissent in this type of case because they know it won't affect the outcome, so they can get away with sticking to principles they know are not technically rational.
posted by something something at 8:10 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by something something at 8:10 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm also happy because, as a person who is pregnant by choice, I cannot fathom forcing another human being to go through this against their will. Enduring pregnancy has been one of the greatest physical and emotional trials of my life. Forcing someone to do this is beyond inhumane. I can't wrap my head around the cruelty inherent in the nature of someone that would.
posted by batbat at 8:10 AM on June 27, 2016 [134 favorites]
posted by batbat at 8:10 AM on June 27, 2016 [134 favorites]
"We add that, when directly asked at oral argument whether Texas knew of a single instance in which the new requirement would have helped even one woman obtain better treatment, Texas admitted that there was no evidence in the record of such a case."
Come on guys, this isn't even a fig leaf, you're not even bothering at this point.
I think it's fair to say that they feel they haven't needed to bother, that in fact these sort of wink, wink, nudge, nudge legal fig leaves are all that is necessary. I wonder if they were shocked it wasn't enough.
posted by dawg-proud at 8:11 AM on June 27, 2016 [12 favorites]
Come on guys, this isn't even a fig leaf, you're not even bothering at this point.
I think it's fair to say that they feel they haven't needed to bother, that in fact these sort of wink, wink, nudge, nudge legal fig leaves are all that is necessary. I wonder if they were shocked it wasn't enough.
posted by dawg-proud at 8:11 AM on June 27, 2016 [12 favorites]
I was very worried the court would split on this. I agree with the Guardian, which describes the decision as -- " the most significant legal victory for reproductive rights advocates since the right to abortion was established in 1973." I am so thankful the justices not only struck down HB2, but also that they recognized the blatant hypocrisy of the laws, which were never about protecting women, they are only about making abortion more difficult to obtain.
posted by pjsky at 8:11 AM on June 27, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by pjsky at 8:11 AM on June 27, 2016 [6 favorites]
Just saw the award winning documentary Trapped, on PBS, which brought this vote to my attention. The restrictions on abortion are a blight that must constantly be fought. An extraordinary waste of resources to provide women with health care access.
posted by waving at 8:12 AM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by waving at 8:12 AM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
Presidential elections matter.
Next one gets to pick several Supreme Court Justices, so yes. Hell, that's pretty much the only single issue reason to vote a particular way.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:12 AM on June 27, 2016 [24 favorites]
Next one gets to pick several Supreme Court Justices, so yes. Hell, that's pretty much the only single issue reason to vote a particular way.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:12 AM on June 27, 2016 [24 favorites]
has seen half of Texas's abortion clinics close already and another half again facing closure with the full implementation of the laws.
Does anyone know any further details on this? Are those clinics that already closed able to come back now, legally and financially?
posted by Dalby at 8:13 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
Does anyone know any further details on this? Are those clinics that already closed able to come back now, legally and financially?
posted by Dalby at 8:13 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
I wonder if they were shocked it wasn't enough.
ah - to finish my thought - and if they are shocked, then, well, I hope it shocks them into being less horrible humans, cause fuck them with a cactus, indeed...
posted by dawg-proud at 8:14 AM on June 27, 2016
ah - to finish my thought - and if they are shocked, then, well, I hope it shocks them into being less horrible humans, cause fuck them with a cactus, indeed...
posted by dawg-proud at 8:14 AM on June 27, 2016
I would encourage everyone to watch Trapped, which is available streaming on PBS right now.
posted by all about eevee at 8:18 AM on June 27, 2016
posted by all about eevee at 8:18 AM on June 27, 2016
And I hope Wendy Davis takes time today to dance a jig in her pink running shoes while flipping off the Governor and the entire Texas Legislature.
posted by pjsky at 8:18 AM on June 27, 2016 [91 favorites]
posted by pjsky at 8:18 AM on June 27, 2016 [91 favorites]
Does anyone know any further details on this? Are those clinics that already closed able to come back now, legally and financially?
According to the statement just issued by the National Organization for Women, yes, legally they can reopen. Financially is a different matter. They'll need money.
posted by palomar at 8:19 AM on June 27, 2016 [5 favorites]
According to the statement just issued by the National Organization for Women, yes, legally they can reopen. Financially is a different matter. They'll need money.
posted by palomar at 8:19 AM on June 27, 2016 [5 favorites]
I recommend the movie because it really shows the logistical and financial impact on clinics that these laws had.
posted by all about eevee at 8:20 AM on June 27, 2016
posted by all about eevee at 8:20 AM on June 27, 2016
*sigh* I often wish I lived in the nightmare world of Thomas's fever dream dissents. It sounds so nice there.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 8:21 AM on June 27, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 8:21 AM on June 27, 2016 [4 favorites]
Presidential elections matter.
Senate elections too. I'm not sure what's going to happen if Clinton wins but Mitch McConnell is still running the senate.
posted by octothorpe at 8:21 AM on June 27, 2016 [17 favorites]
Senate elections too. I'm not sure what's going to happen if Clinton wins but Mitch McConnell is still running the senate.
posted by octothorpe at 8:21 AM on June 27, 2016 [17 favorites]
What is it with HB2's these days from batshit GAs? Must be fracking & humidity.
Also, hell fucking yes, fuckers.
posted by yoga at 8:23 AM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
Also, hell fucking yes, fuckers.
posted by yoga at 8:23 AM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
Congress won't do anything because they can't stand having a black man for president. How they'll do for a white woman, good question.
posted by Melismata at 8:23 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Melismata at 8:23 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm not sure what's going to happen if Clinton wins but Mitch McConnell is still running the senate.
Given that McConnell has gotten away with blocking one sitting president's SCOTUS nomination, I don't see why he wouldn't do the same thing for Clinton.
posted by Gelatin at 8:23 AM on June 27, 2016 [8 favorites]
Given that McConnell has gotten away with blocking one sitting president's SCOTUS nomination, I don't see why he wouldn't do the same thing for Clinton.
posted by Gelatin at 8:23 AM on June 27, 2016 [8 favorites]
Looks like Kennedy is trying to protect his legacy by showing that he can be on the right side of history (at least about some things).
Still it would be awesome to replace the odious troll Scalia and maybe even Thomas if reports are accurate with 2 justices that actually believe in the slow march towards equal justice under the law.
Don't ever let anyone tell you elections don't matter, they matter.
posted by vuron at 8:24 AM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
Still it would be awesome to replace the odious troll Scalia and maybe even Thomas if reports are accurate with 2 justices that actually believe in the slow march towards equal justice under the law.
Don't ever let anyone tell you elections don't matter, they matter.
posted by vuron at 8:24 AM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
~Presidential elections matter.
~Senate elections too.
ALL elections matter. We wouldn't be in this position were it not for state-level elections, filling legislatures and governorships with right-wing ideologues and evangelical maniacs.
posted by Thorzdad at 8:26 AM on June 27, 2016 [109 favorites]
~Senate elections too.
ALL elections matter. We wouldn't be in this position were it not for state-level elections, filling legislatures and governorships with right-wing ideologues and evangelical maniacs.
posted by Thorzdad at 8:26 AM on June 27, 2016 [109 favorites]
In what will surely be the only time I ever say this, I wish Scalia was alive to see this.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 8:30 AM on June 27, 2016 [52 favorites]
posted by MCMikeNamara at 8:30 AM on June 27, 2016 [52 favorites]
Given that McConnell has gotten away with blocking one sitting president's SCOTUS nomination, I don't see why he wouldn't do the same thing for Clinton.
I can hear the Republicans now: "She only has four years left in her first term, and we don't even know yet if she will have a second term, so it would be premature for us to consider her nominee for the Supreme Court at this time."
posted by TedW at 8:32 AM on June 27, 2016 [33 favorites]
I can hear the Republicans now: "She only has four years left in her first term, and we don't even know yet if she will have a second term, so it would be premature for us to consider her nominee for the Supreme Court at this time."
posted by TedW at 8:32 AM on June 27, 2016 [33 favorites]
woo! this is AMAZING, I am really quite pleased!
posted by rebent at 8:32 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by rebent at 8:32 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
How can Alito and Roberts and Thomas seriously think there is even the slightest basis for dissent?
Well, Thomas doesn't think there's any constitutional right to abortion in the first place. Additionally, he thinks that the doctors and clinics shouldn't have been able to bring the suit, rather it should have been brought by an affected person. It's true that 3rd parties can't ordinarily bring suits on behalf of others, but as Thomas acknowledges that Roe v. Wade
After that it's basically hand-wavey complaining that the majority wasn't specific enough about why the restrictions were an undue burden and that the majority effectively employed a new standard not represented by past abortion cases.
Alito's dissent is different. He invokes some legal procedural details to say that the petitioners in this case had filed a related case before and failed, therefore they shouldn't get a second try. He then says the majority went too far by overturning parts of the statute that don't seem so bad (e.g. requiring abortion facilities to follow the fire code). This was done despite a severability clause in the law that would ordinarily protect against 'collateral damage.' But Alito fails to recognize that those additional restrictions were not put in place to protect patients but solely for punitive reasons. In many cases they are almost certainly redundant with other laws or regulations (e.g. I'm pretty sure doctors are already required to obtain informed consent before doing research on patients).
posted by jedicus at 8:33 AM on June 27, 2016 [13 favorites]
Well, Thomas doesn't think there's any constitutional right to abortion in the first place. Additionally, he thinks that the doctors and clinics shouldn't have been able to bring the suit, rather it should have been brought by an affected person. It's true that 3rd parties can't ordinarily bring suits on behalf of others, but as Thomas acknowledges that Roe v. Wade
held that women seeking abortions fell into the mootness exception for cases “‘capable of repetition, yet seeking review,’” enabling them to sue after they terminated their pregnancies without showing that they intended to become pregnant and seek an abortion againExcept, of course, that this wasn't a case about the legality of abortion per se, but rather a case about restrictions on clinics. A person can't "sue after terminating a pregnancy" if they don't have access to care in the first place, and it would be difficult for a person to prove "I was effectively forced to have an unwanted child, and so I'm suing". And it seems horribly cruel to require an unwanted child to be born just to create legal standing.
After that it's basically hand-wavey complaining that the majority wasn't specific enough about why the restrictions were an undue burden and that the majority effectively employed a new standard not represented by past abortion cases.
Alito's dissent is different. He invokes some legal procedural details to say that the petitioners in this case had filed a related case before and failed, therefore they shouldn't get a second try. He then says the majority went too far by overturning parts of the statute that don't seem so bad (e.g. requiring abortion facilities to follow the fire code). This was done despite a severability clause in the law that would ordinarily protect against 'collateral damage.' But Alito fails to recognize that those additional restrictions were not put in place to protect patients but solely for punitive reasons. In many cases they are almost certainly redundant with other laws or regulations (e.g. I'm pretty sure doctors are already required to obtain informed consent before doing research on patients).
posted by jedicus at 8:33 AM on June 27, 2016 [13 favorites]
How can Alito and Roberts and Thomas seriously think there is even the slightest basis for dissent?
I haven't read Alito and Roberts, but a quick skim of the dissent of Justice Thomas made me think all his complaints were about procedural issues and the Court being uneven and preferential in the application of balancing tests and that policy preferences drive decision making.
posted by nubs at 8:33 AM on June 27, 2016
I haven't read Alito and Roberts, but a quick skim of the dissent of Justice Thomas made me think all his complaints were about procedural issues and the Court being uneven and preferential in the application of balancing tests and that policy preferences drive decision making.
posted by nubs at 8:33 AM on June 27, 2016
*fist pump*
posted by chaoticgood at 8:34 AM on June 27, 2016
posted by chaoticgood at 8:34 AM on June 27, 2016
In what will surely be the only time I ever say this, I wish Scalia was alive to see this.
Nah, I'm sure there'll be many other times.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:34 AM on June 27, 2016 [15 favorites]
Nah, I'm sure there'll be many other times.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:34 AM on June 27, 2016 [15 favorites]
Given that McConnell has gotten away with blocking one sitting president's SCOTUS nomination, I don't see why he wouldn't do the same thing for Clinton.
It'd be a curious one. The argument McConnell is using right now is that, even though the president has 25% of his term left, he's a "lame duck" and he doesn't get to govern anymore, and the "voters should decide" who fills the vacancy. While they can vote down her nominee, saying that they need to wait four years for the voters to decide doesn't fly.
The general question is, with Trump as nominee, can the GOP hold down-ballot? I'm doubtful, at least for the senate.
posted by MrGuilt at 8:35 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
Meanwhile, in 95%-Catholic Poland (5min audio from Deutsche Welle's Inside Europe in English) where the state has been dominated since last year by the "Law and Justice Party", a bill has been put forward to eliminate all exceptions to the already-restrictive anti-abortion laws established in the post-Communist 1990s. Not even rape victims would be exempt under the new law. A massive, lucrative black market already exists for reproductive health services, abortifacients, and drugs that can serve as makeshift abortifacients.
posted by XMLicious at 8:35 AM on June 27, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by XMLicious at 8:35 AM on June 27, 2016 [5 favorites]
I can hear the Republicans now: "She only has four years left in her first term, and we don't even know yet if she will have a second term, so it would be premature for us to consider her nominee for the Supreme Court at this time."
I'm thinking McConnell saying that whatever her margin of popular victory is will be just a little short of the margin he thinks needed to declare "the people have spoken."
"Harrumph harrumph as Clinton's 52% popular vote margin shows, this country is still divided on many issues, and she doesn't have a mandate, and so it would be irresponsible of us to allow her to take the country in a direction half the country voted against, blah blah blah."
posted by Gelatin at 8:37 AM on June 27, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'm thinking McConnell saying that whatever her margin of popular victory is will be just a little short of the margin he thinks needed to declare "the people have spoken."
"Harrumph harrumph as Clinton's 52% popular vote margin shows, this country is still divided on many issues, and she doesn't have a mandate, and so it would be irresponsible of us to allow her to take the country in a direction half the country voted against, blah blah blah."
posted by Gelatin at 8:37 AM on June 27, 2016 [6 favorites]
In other words, it's a serious mistake to imagine McConnell's stance is based on any principle other than "don't let Democrats appoint anyone to SCOTUS."
posted by Gelatin at 8:39 AM on June 27, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by Gelatin at 8:39 AM on June 27, 2016 [15 favorites]
Can we outlaw pregnancy "crisis centers" now?
Kamala Harris has been trying to do so by a method compatible with the first amendment and so far, the 9th circuit has agreed that it is. But then again the 9th circuit is the most overruled circuit so who knows what will happen.
posted by Talez at 8:39 AM on June 27, 2016 [11 favorites]
Kamala Harris has been trying to do so by a method compatible with the first amendment and so far, the 9th circuit has agreed that it is. But then again the 9th circuit is the most overruled circuit so who knows what will happen.
posted by Talez at 8:39 AM on June 27, 2016 [11 favorites]
Holy shit. From Thomas' dissent:
I
find it astonishing that the majority can discover an “undue
burden” on women’s access to abortion for “those
[women] for whom [Texas’ law] is an actual rather than an
irrelevant restriction,” ante, at 39 (internal quotation
marks omitted), without identifying how many women fit
this description; their proximity to open clinics; or their
preferences as to where they obtain abortions, and from
whom. “[C]ommonsense inference[s]” that such a burden
exists, ante, at 36, are no substitute for actual evidence.
So apparently, the fact that HB2 would increase the amount of people who are 200+ miles out from an abortion clinic from 10,000 to 750,000, is just a distraction, a red herring.
posted by Dalby at 8:42 AM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
I
find it astonishing that the majority can discover an “undue
burden” on women’s access to abortion for “those
[women] for whom [Texas’ law] is an actual rather than an
irrelevant restriction,” ante, at 39 (internal quotation
marks omitted), without identifying how many women fit
this description; their proximity to open clinics; or their
preferences as to where they obtain abortions, and from
whom. “[C]ommonsense inference[s]” that such a burden
exists, ante, at 36, are no substitute for actual evidence.
So apparently, the fact that HB2 would increase the amount of people who are 200+ miles out from an abortion clinic from 10,000 to 750,000, is just a distraction, a red herring.
posted by Dalby at 8:42 AM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
> ALL elections matter.
Indeed. It seems a good part of why we get into these situations is because far too many people are interested in just higher-level positions and elections. Seeing just "presidental elections matter" compels me to bring up the Green Lantern Theory of the Presidency.
posted by cardioid at 8:43 AM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
Indeed. It seems a good part of why we get into these situations is because far too many people are interested in just higher-level positions and elections. Seeing just "presidental elections matter" compels me to bring up the Green Lantern Theory of the Presidency.
posted by cardioid at 8:43 AM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
But then again the 9th circuit is the most overruled circuit so who knows what will happen.
Eh, if you look at the absolute numbers, "most overruled" means approximately "1 or 2 more overruled cases per term than you'd expect, all things being equal."
posted by jedicus at 8:46 AM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
Eh, if you look at the absolute numbers, "most overruled" means approximately "1 or 2 more overruled cases per term than you'd expect, all things being equal."
posted by jedicus at 8:46 AM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
Presidential elections matter.
Conservatives are pointing out that this wouldn't have happened if Democratic senators hadn't blocked the appointment of Robert Bork in 1987.
posted by clawsoon at 8:48 AM on June 27, 2016
Conservatives are pointing out that this wouldn't have happened if Democratic senators hadn't blocked the appointment of Robert Bork in 1987.
posted by clawsoon at 8:48 AM on June 27, 2016
Conservatives are pointing out that this wouldn't have happened if Democratic senators hadn't blocked the appointment of Robert Bork in 1987.
Two wrongs don't make a right, and if the GOP wants to show their maturity, they can easily take The High Road...
posted by mikelieman at 8:50 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
Two wrongs don't make a right, and if the GOP wants to show their maturity, they can easily take The High Road...
posted by mikelieman at 8:50 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
Conservatives are pointing out that this wouldn't have happened if Democratic senators hadn't blocked the appointment of Robert Bork in 1987.
They didn't "block" it, the Senate rejected Bork's appointment in a straight up-or-down vote on the Senate floor as is their Constitutionally mandated role, and six Republicans voted against him.
posted by Etrigan at 8:52 AM on June 27, 2016 [89 favorites]
They didn't "block" it, the Senate rejected Bork's appointment in a straight up-or-down vote on the Senate floor as is their Constitutionally mandated role, and six Republicans voted against him.
posted by Etrigan at 8:52 AM on June 27, 2016 [89 favorites]
They didn't "block" Bork, he got an up or down vote.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:52 AM on June 27, 2016 [20 favorites]
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:52 AM on June 27, 2016 [20 favorites]
You don't get to be happy about this ruling and also refuse to vote Clinton in November without being a giant hypocrite. Elections matter.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:53 AM on June 27, 2016 [32 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:53 AM on June 27, 2016 [32 favorites]
Conservatives are pointing out that this wouldn't have happened if Democratic senators hadn't blocked the appointment of Robert Bork in 1987.
While conservatives have of course never forgiven Democrats for that incident, they didn't block his appointment; they voted him down 42-58, with six Republicans voting against as well, and two Democrats in favor.
posted by Gelatin at 8:54 AM on June 27, 2016 [5 favorites]
While conservatives have of course never forgiven Democrats for that incident, they didn't block his appointment; they voted him down 42-58, with six Republicans voting against as well, and two Democrats in favor.
posted by Gelatin at 8:54 AM on June 27, 2016 [5 favorites]
You guys with your "facts". This is a talking point reality and talking points don't have to be the truth as long as they have "truthiness" that affirms the listeners pre-existent biases.
posted by vuron at 8:55 AM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by vuron at 8:55 AM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
Correction: They aren't saying he got blocked, they're saying he got borked.
posted by clawsoon at 8:57 AM on June 27, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 8:57 AM on June 27, 2016 [7 favorites]
How can Alito and Roberts and Thomas seriously think there is even the slightest basis for dissent?
Alito and Roberts have two arguments for not overturning the laws.
1) The WWH plaintiffs already challenged HB2 when it was passed and lost -- they shouldn't get a second "bite at the apple" by suing over the law as it applies to them. The majority points out that a law which appears to be reasonable on paper may turn out to create intolerable burdens once applied, and says this can be the basis for a new suit by the same plaintiffs.
2) There isn't enough hard data in the record to make a decision on whether the surgical-facility and hospital-admitting provisions in HB2 have actually forced facilities to close as the plaintiffs claim they have (because parts of the law not under challenge, and the state's decision to pull funding to them, could reasonably have been a cause). Alito and Roberts would not reject these arguments outright, but instead would kick it back to the lower court to fully investigate those claims. Given that this implies Roe and Casey are good law and courts should apply them faithfully, I call it progress of a sort.
Thomas, by contrast, is just an unrepentant asshole.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:57 AM on June 27, 2016 [8 favorites]
Alito and Roberts have two arguments for not overturning the laws.
1) The WWH plaintiffs already challenged HB2 when it was passed and lost -- they shouldn't get a second "bite at the apple" by suing over the law as it applies to them. The majority points out that a law which appears to be reasonable on paper may turn out to create intolerable burdens once applied, and says this can be the basis for a new suit by the same plaintiffs.
2) There isn't enough hard data in the record to make a decision on whether the surgical-facility and hospital-admitting provisions in HB2 have actually forced facilities to close as the plaintiffs claim they have (because parts of the law not under challenge, and the state's decision to pull funding to them, could reasonably have been a cause). Alito and Roberts would not reject these arguments outright, but instead would kick it back to the lower court to fully investigate those claims. Given that this implies Roe and Casey are good law and courts should apply them faithfully, I call it progress of a sort.
Thomas, by contrast, is just an unrepentant asshole.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:57 AM on June 27, 2016 [8 favorites]
Believe it or not, the Washington Post's article on the decision is fantastic! Supreme Court rules against Texas and for science in abortion case The author lays out all the bogus arguments anti-choicers have trotted out and then knocks them down 1 by 1 using that magic silver bullet known as SCIENCE.
posted by pjsky at 8:58 AM on June 27, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by pjsky at 8:58 AM on June 27, 2016 [17 favorites]
Thomas, by contrast, is just an unrepentant asshole.
Alito is also an unrepentant asshole, he just hides it marginally better.
posted by mcstayinskool at 8:59 AM on June 27, 2016 [7 favorites]
Alito is also an unrepentant asshole, he just hides it marginally better.
posted by mcstayinskool at 8:59 AM on June 27, 2016 [7 favorites]
Conservatives are pointing out that this wouldn't have happened if Democratic senators hadn't blocked the appointment of Robert Bork in 1987.
Whoever these un-cited conservatives are, if they said this then they are liars, since the Senate vote on Bork was not blocked. If these conservative talking heads had claimed "This reasonable decision would never have happened if the entire Senate hadn't exercised its constitutional duty to evaluate our far-right reactionary nominee for the Court," that might have been an accurate claim.
But I don't expect news organizations to understand or make clear the distinction to viewers.
posted by aught at 9:00 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
Whoever these un-cited conservatives are, if they said this then they are liars, since the Senate vote on Bork was not blocked. If these conservative talking heads had claimed "This reasonable decision would never have happened if the entire Senate hadn't exercised its constitutional duty to evaluate our far-right reactionary nominee for the Court," that might have been an accurate claim.
But I don't expect news organizations to understand or make clear the distinction to viewers.
posted by aught at 9:00 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
Thomas, by contrast, is just an unrepentant asshole.
In most cases, Thomas is the least "asshole" of that bunch.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:01 AM on June 27, 2016
In most cases, Thomas is the least "asshole" of that bunch.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:01 AM on June 27, 2016
I find myself faced with a dilemma when the Supreme Court hears abortion cases, as an abortion-rights supporter who nevertheless believes that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. So I celebrate the increased access for women in Texas to the clinics they need, while I simultaneously regret that the judiciary has become so entwined with abortion issues (and helped create the reactionary anti-abortion lobby). As has been said above, elections matter, and hopefully we can continue to fight this fight in legislatures and not courthouses.
posted by enjoymoreradio at 9:06 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by enjoymoreradio at 9:06 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
that the judiciary has become so entwined with abortion issues (and helped create the reactionary anti-abortion lobby)
Huh? Is it your belief that the reactionary anti-abortion lobby exists primarily because of the legal technicalities of Roe, and not because they simply don't believe in a woman's right to choose?
posted by tonycpsu at 9:08 AM on June 27, 2016 [30 favorites]
Huh? Is it your belief that the reactionary anti-abortion lobby exists primarily because of the legal technicalities of Roe, and not because they simply don't believe in a woman's right to choose?
posted by tonycpsu at 9:08 AM on June 27, 2016 [30 favorites]
Thomas is predictably contrarian about just about everything. Basically it seems like his essential viewpoint is fundamentally that the Judiciary should defer to the will of the states (or Congress on the areas that the Constitution explicit gives authority to the federal system). He's pretty consistently in favor of that position even though it seems like he's trying to argue against about 200+ years of precedent when he makes his arguments.
Not really shocking. I think the guy is cloud cuckoo land but at least he's fairly consistent in his dickishness.
On the other hand Scalia and Alito were/are much more willing to backtrack on their previous jurisprudence to meet whatever political aims they had for the case at hand.
I actually have more respect for someone who is willing to be consistently wrong about virtually everything because it reflects his belief structure than someone willing to pivot endlessly for ideological advantage and who covered that inconsistency with wit. A witty douchebag is still just a douchebag.
posted by vuron at 9:09 AM on June 27, 2016 [8 favorites]
Not really shocking. I think the guy is cloud cuckoo land but at least he's fairly consistent in his dickishness.
On the other hand Scalia and Alito were/are much more willing to backtrack on their previous jurisprudence to meet whatever political aims they had for the case at hand.
I actually have more respect for someone who is willing to be consistently wrong about virtually everything because it reflects his belief structure than someone willing to pivot endlessly for ideological advantage and who covered that inconsistency with wit. A witty douchebag is still just a douchebag.
posted by vuron at 9:09 AM on June 27, 2016 [8 favorites]
palomar: "Does anyone know any further details on this? Are those clinics that already closed able to come back now, legally and financially?
According to the statement just issued by the National Organization for Women, yes, legally they can reopen. Financially is a different matter. They'll need money."
So who is best placed to take donations, which will result in actual clinics being reopened?
posted by Liesl at 9:09 AM on June 27, 2016 [7 favorites]
According to the statement just issued by the National Organization for Women, yes, legally they can reopen. Financially is a different matter. They'll need money."
So who is best placed to take donations, which will result in actual clinics being reopened?
posted by Liesl at 9:09 AM on June 27, 2016 [7 favorites]
Thomas is a brilliant jurist whose only problem is that his brilliance applies to the judicial system in his head and not to the actual system.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:11 AM on June 27, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:11 AM on June 27, 2016 [6 favorites]
I believe that the anti-abortion lobby is opposed to the women's right to choose, but that the Supreme Court's decision created a rallying point for anti-abortion activists and inflamed those activists to a greater degree than if anti-abortion laws had been fought solely in legislatures and ballot boxes.
posted by enjoymoreradio at 9:11 AM on June 27, 2016
posted by enjoymoreradio at 9:11 AM on June 27, 2016
Huh? Is it your belief that the reactionary anti-abortion lobby exists primarily because of the legal technicalities of Roe, and not because they simply don't believe in a woman's right to choose?
I don't know what enjoymoreradio is getting at, but IIRC Ruth Bader Ginsburg once lamented how Roe v. Wade was decided before the people were ready for it; she thought that the decision led to such ferocious backlash that it gave rise to the current & monstrous anti-choice lobby today. It's why she was so concerned with the idea that by contrast the American people were ready for marriage equality because she didn't want to trigger a similar uproar on the anti-LGBTQ front.
posted by imnotasquirrel at 9:12 AM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't know what enjoymoreradio is getting at, but IIRC Ruth Bader Ginsburg once lamented how Roe v. Wade was decided before the people were ready for it; she thought that the decision led to such ferocious backlash that it gave rise to the current & monstrous anti-choice lobby today. It's why she was so concerned with the idea that by contrast the American people were ready for marriage equality because she didn't want to trigger a similar uproar on the anti-LGBTQ front.
posted by imnotasquirrel at 9:12 AM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
but that the Supreme Court's decision created a rallying point for anti-abortion activists and inflamed those activists to a greater degree than if anti-abortion laws had been fought solely in legislatures and ballot boxes.
I don't think the anti-abortion activists even understand the ruling in Roe for the most part.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:13 AM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't think the anti-abortion activists even understand the ruling in Roe for the most part.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:13 AM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
hopefully we can continue to fight this fight in legislatures and not courthouses.
What fight needs to continue to be fought? Whether abortion should be legal? Because the court already decided that, and making it legal-but-not-really by applying rules that don't apply to any other medical procedure with the obvious and express intent of regulating its providers out of business is what's been happening lately.
posted by Etrigan at 9:14 AM on June 27, 2016 [14 favorites]
What fight needs to continue to be fought? Whether abortion should be legal? Because the court already decided that, and making it legal-but-not-really by applying rules that don't apply to any other medical procedure with the obvious and express intent of regulating its providers out of business is what's been happening lately.
posted by Etrigan at 9:14 AM on June 27, 2016 [14 favorites]
The fight against statutes like HB2, which, as you say, are de facto attempts to outlaw abortion. These are bad laws, and we should strive to elect people who are opposed to these laws. It's unfortunate that instead we have to rely on the Supreme Court's, in my opinion, tortured constitutional logic to strike down these laws. Better they never be enacted in the first place. Or better yet, enact state constitutional provisions explicitly guaranteeing the right to terminate a pregnancy in express, unambiguous language.
posted by enjoymoreradio at 9:18 AM on June 27, 2016
posted by enjoymoreradio at 9:18 AM on June 27, 2016
So the lives of all the women that might've been negatively impacted by restrictions on abortions based exclusively at the state's level are just a worthwhile loss to maintain "liberty"?
Nope, simply not going to accept that. I can accept some arguments for limiting the authority of the Judiciary to review and interpret laws but I am full on not willing to let states decide issues regarding civil rights.
Abortion is intimately linked to a right to privacy which is well established within our system even if it's not explicitly outlined in the constitution. Undermine that and there is no constitutional rights to birth control and the states can outlaw sodomy again and miscegenation.
Fuck that noise, I'm not willing to let states roll back the right of privacy because they want to use a procedure that even many pro-choice supporters personally find ethically problematic.
But we don't get to restrict people's rights when we find their behaviors and actions morally objectionable. That simply isn't compatible with any viewpoint of the Constitution I'm comfortable with accepting.
So even though I personally wish that abortion would never be needed (that there was free and easy access to birth control, that there was no rape, that pregnant women's lives are never at risk) I know that we also live in the real world and that for some percentage of women an abortion is a completely valid choice given the alternatives and in many cases can be a life saving procedure. So I don't let my personal preferences limit others options but the Pro-Life position is totally willing to let their moral preference dictate options for other people and that is fundamentally incompatible with our system.
posted by vuron at 9:24 AM on June 27, 2016 [12 favorites]
Nope, simply not going to accept that. I can accept some arguments for limiting the authority of the Judiciary to review and interpret laws but I am full on not willing to let states decide issues regarding civil rights.
Abortion is intimately linked to a right to privacy which is well established within our system even if it's not explicitly outlined in the constitution. Undermine that and there is no constitutional rights to birth control and the states can outlaw sodomy again and miscegenation.
Fuck that noise, I'm not willing to let states roll back the right of privacy because they want to use a procedure that even many pro-choice supporters personally find ethically problematic.
But we don't get to restrict people's rights when we find their behaviors and actions morally objectionable. That simply isn't compatible with any viewpoint of the Constitution I'm comfortable with accepting.
So even though I personally wish that abortion would never be needed (that there was free and easy access to birth control, that there was no rape, that pregnant women's lives are never at risk) I know that we also live in the real world and that for some percentage of women an abortion is a completely valid choice given the alternatives and in many cases can be a life saving procedure. So I don't let my personal preferences limit others options but the Pro-Life position is totally willing to let their moral preference dictate options for other people and that is fundamentally incompatible with our system.
posted by vuron at 9:24 AM on June 27, 2016 [12 favorites]
Or better yet, enact state constitutional provisions explicitly guaranteeing the right to terminate a pregnancy in express, unambiguous language.
While you're imagining this perfect universe, you might as well imagine one that has 100 percent effective, 100 percent reversible birth control that costs $1 per person and has no side effects.
In the universe we're in, though, we rely on the Supreme Court because of the unfortunate tendency of legislatures to enact laws that are repugnant to the foundational document of our nation's laws. Sure, let's work on electing more state legislators who want to relitigate the settled law, but we can probably do that more efficiently without the hand-wringing over how Roe isn't perfect.
posted by Etrigan at 9:24 AM on June 27, 2016 [13 favorites]
While you're imagining this perfect universe, you might as well imagine one that has 100 percent effective, 100 percent reversible birth control that costs $1 per person and has no side effects.
In the universe we're in, though, we rely on the Supreme Court because of the unfortunate tendency of legislatures to enact laws that are repugnant to the foundational document of our nation's laws. Sure, let's work on electing more state legislators who want to relitigate the settled law, but we can probably do that more efficiently without the hand-wringing over how Roe isn't perfect.
posted by Etrigan at 9:24 AM on June 27, 2016 [13 favorites]
They didn't "block" Bork, he got an up or down vote.
This is technically true. It is also true that "Block Bork" was the prevalent catch-phrase at the time, at least in DC. I'm never sure how much that last part translates to the rest of the country. But I had a button and everything.
posted by OmieWise at 9:26 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is technically true. It is also true that "Block Bork" was the prevalent catch-phrase at the time, at least in DC. I'm never sure how much that last part translates to the rest of the country. But I had a button and everything.
posted by OmieWise at 9:26 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
> These are bad laws, and we should strive to elect people who are opposed to these laws. It's unfortunate that instead we have to rely on the Supreme Court's,
We can, and do, do both.
People elect legislators, who in turn will sometimes enact laws that may violate the Constitution. It is the judiciary's job, all the way up to the SCOTUS, to act as a brake (and occasional reverse gear) on those laws. This is how the system is supposed to work.
posted by rtha at 9:26 AM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
We can, and do, do both.
People elect legislators, who in turn will sometimes enact laws that may violate the Constitution. It is the judiciary's job, all the way up to the SCOTUS, to act as a brake (and occasional reverse gear) on those laws. This is how the system is supposed to work.
posted by rtha at 9:26 AM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
The fight against statutes like HB2, which, as you say, are de facto attempts to outlaw abortion. These are bad laws, and we should strive to elect people who are opposed to these laws. It's unfortunate that instead we have to rely on the Supreme Court's, in my opinion, tortured constitutional logic to strike down these laws. Better they never be enacted in the first place. Or better yet, enact state constitutional provisions explicitly guaranteeing the right to terminate a pregnancy in express, unambiguous language.
Hi, have you met Texas? We are a fucked-up place where the worse excesses of capitalism and patriarchy in the US are making their stand against all that is good, and have captured or broken many of the mechanisms of progress. But thanks to many, many hardworking people who are fighting to change that, this case made it to SCOTUS. I am grateful that they are there to serve as a bulwark, nice as it would be not to need them.
posted by emjaybee at 9:28 AM on June 27, 2016 [36 favorites]
Hi, have you met Texas? We are a fucked-up place where the worse excesses of capitalism and patriarchy in the US are making their stand against all that is good, and have captured or broken many of the mechanisms of progress. But thanks to many, many hardworking people who are fighting to change that, this case made it to SCOTUS. I am grateful that they are there to serve as a bulwark, nice as it would be not to need them.
posted by emjaybee at 9:28 AM on June 27, 2016 [36 favorites]
I'm also happy because, as a person who is pregnant by choice, I cannot fathom forcing another human being to go through this against their will.
batbat, I think an important thing you're forgetting is that advocates of such an action don't really think of women as humans in a whole sense.
posted by spindrifter at 9:29 AM on June 27, 2016 [5 favorites]
batbat, I think an important thing you're forgetting is that advocates of such an action don't really think of women as humans in a whole sense.
posted by spindrifter at 9:29 AM on June 27, 2016 [5 favorites]
I don't know what enjoymoreradio is getting at, but IIRC Ruth Bader Ginsburg once lamented how Roe v. Wade was decided before the people were ready for it; she thought that the decision led to such ferocious backlash that it gave rise to the current & monstrous anti-choice lobby today.
She may feel that way, and far be it from me to tell her she's wrong, but empirical research into the theory of countermobilization seems to come to a much different (or at the very least more nuanced) conclusion:
She may feel that way, and far be it from me to tell her she's wrong, but empirical research into the theory of countermobilization seems to come to a much different (or at the very least more nuanced) conclusion:
The activity of state and lower federal courts in abortion politics is also relevant to the burgeoning literature on whether prominent judicial decisions on contested issues induce a “backlash” from the public and elites (Klarman 1994; Keck 2009; Fontana and Braman 2012). The conventional account in this literature is that Roe v. Wade emerged suddenly and inspired a broad countermobilization among antiabortion forces that persists to this day (see, e.g., Rosenberg 1991; Sunstein 1991; Eskridge 2005). A number of recent studies challenge this claim, arguing that the fault lines in the abortion debate began to emerge in the decade before Roe was decided, with antiabortion forces mobilizing well before 1973 (Nossiff 2001; Post and Siegel 2007; Lemieux 2009; Greenhouse and Siegel 2011). While my data cannot speak to interest group activity or the intensity of preferences, the fact that abortion litigation reached the doors of courts in more than half the states by the time Roe v. Wade was decided does illustrate the depth of abortion politics in the years before the decision. Moreover, as noted above, without action by the Supreme Court, policy was likely to lag behind opinion in many states, and so the claim that the decision in Roe cut off a secular trend toward liberalization in the states is not supported by the data.posted by tonycpsu at 9:30 AM on June 27, 2016 [7 favorites]
I'm surprised. Given Kennedy's waffling on this issue and his behavior during oral arguments I had been sure he would have voted to let Texas keep on with their anti-woman agenda.
I am worried about the damage already done. Clinics are closed and reopening will cost a lot of money. Is the general Planned Parenthood donation place the best place or is there any sort of organizing specifically to raise money to reopen the previously shut clinics?
posted by sotonohito at 9:32 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
I am worried about the damage already done. Clinics are closed and reopening will cost a lot of money. Is the general Planned Parenthood donation place the best place or is there any sort of organizing specifically to raise money to reopen the previously shut clinics?
posted by sotonohito at 9:32 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
Abortion is intimately linked to a right to privacy which is well established within our system even if it's not explicitly outlined in the constitution.
And hoo boy am I sick of hearing anti-choicers sneer at the "made up" right to privacy. The Ninth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states quite clearly:
But then, many anti-choicers attack the right to privacy, not just to abortion, because that's the foundation of the Griswold decision guaranteeing access to birth control.
posted by Gelatin at 9:32 AM on June 27, 2016 [13 favorites]
And hoo boy am I sick of hearing anti-choicers sneer at the "made up" right to privacy. The Ninth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states quite clearly:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.The right to privacy doesn't have to be explicitly protected by the Constitution to be a protected right, and what's more, SCOTUS decisions outlining privacy are quite clear that other, enumerated rights imply a right to privacy.
But then, many anti-choicers attack the right to privacy, not just to abortion, because that's the foundation of the Griswold decision guaranteeing access to birth control.
posted by Gelatin at 9:32 AM on June 27, 2016 [13 favorites]
Can we stop for good and ever saying anything like "fuck them with a cactus"? Because sexually violent language perpetuates rape culture no matter who it is directed against. Humanity isn't reserved for those we agree with.
Hear, hear.
I'm partial with "consign them to the dustbin of history," myself.
posted by Gelatin at 9:34 AM on June 27, 2016 [7 favorites]
Hear, hear.
I'm partial with "consign them to the dustbin of history," myself.
posted by Gelatin at 9:34 AM on June 27, 2016 [7 favorites]
Correction: They aren't saying he got blocked, they're saying he got borked.
I mean, if his parents wanted him to sit on the SC, they should have considered changing their last name, you know?
posted by spindrifter at 9:39 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
I mean, if his parents wanted him to sit on the SC, they should have considered changing their last name, you know?
posted by spindrifter at 9:39 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
Please let's not forget that the Republican Party decided to use a woman's right to choose as a very specific tool to attract a sector of the population considered 'religious voters" and then whipped them into a frenzy. I do not believe for one hot minute that Mitch McConnell loses 10 seconds of sleep over unborn babies. But he sure as shit pours every waking minute into figuring out how he can twist an issue to rile up the base so they will get out and vote. The anti-abortion platform has been uber-successful for Republicans.
posted by pjsky at 9:42 AM on June 27, 2016 [19 favorites]
posted by pjsky at 9:42 AM on June 27, 2016 [19 favorites]
Mod note: Folks, drop the cactus thing pronto.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:51 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:51 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
The wealthy people that form the basis of the Republican party's economic donor base aren't ever at risk of losing access to abortion. They will always have access to clinics in the US (or wherever) where the daughters of the elite can terminate unwanted pregnancies if needed. Or they'll always have ready access to birth control or emergency abortifacients because it's okay for the wealthy to have control over their uterus.
Laws like HB2 are explicitly designed to punish poor women who have unequal access to contraceptives. It's not just a war against women it's a war against poor women. Because you know if the women were living moral lives they probably wouldn't have got in the situation where they need access to an abortion.
And then we get the crazy justifications for wanting to block all forms of abortion even in the cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother. Because apparently it's god's will to punish these women. It's the state's responsibility to protect the lives of the unborn because of God's will or something but the second that child is born all state responsibility for the child seems to go out the window.
Hypocritical bullshit and explicitly why so many people feel like the right is explicitly anti-woman.
posted by vuron at 10:09 AM on June 27, 2016 [29 favorites]
Laws like HB2 are explicitly designed to punish poor women who have unequal access to contraceptives. It's not just a war against women it's a war against poor women. Because you know if the women were living moral lives they probably wouldn't have got in the situation where they need access to an abortion.
And then we get the crazy justifications for wanting to block all forms of abortion even in the cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother. Because apparently it's god's will to punish these women. It's the state's responsibility to protect the lives of the unborn because of God's will or something but the second that child is born all state responsibility for the child seems to go out the window.
Hypocritical bullshit and explicitly why so many people feel like the right is explicitly anti-woman.
posted by vuron at 10:09 AM on June 27, 2016 [29 favorites]
Please let's not forget that the Republican Party decided to use a woman's right to choose as a very specific tool to attract a sector of the population considered 'religious voters" and then whipped them into a frenzy
It's not quite that clear-cut. Evangelical voters and the Republicans seem to have chosen each other, with the specific rallying point of Abortion as a tool to provide moral cover for some of the truly-appalling policies that the Evangelicals and Republicans were pursuing.
As long as they could convince voters that the other party was literally killing babies, the Evangelicals and Republicans basically got a blank check to do whatever else they wanted.
posted by schmod at 10:09 AM on June 27, 2016 [9 favorites]
It's not quite that clear-cut. Evangelical voters and the Republicans seem to have chosen each other, with the specific rallying point of Abortion as a tool to provide moral cover for some of the truly-appalling policies that the Evangelicals and Republicans were pursuing.
As long as they could convince voters that the other party was literally killing babies, the Evangelicals and Republicans basically got a blank check to do whatever else they wanted.
posted by schmod at 10:09 AM on June 27, 2016 [9 favorites]
Presidential elections matter.
Except the last one, apparently.
I'm curious if there will ever be another 9 person court again and what that means to the system of checks and balances when we end up with a four or five Justice court.
posted by dances with hamsters at 10:12 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
Except the last one, apparently.
I'm curious if there will ever be another 9 person court again and what that means to the system of checks and balances when we end up with a four or five Justice court.
posted by dances with hamsters at 10:12 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
schmod -- the Patheos article by Fred Clark is very interesting. Thanks for the link!
posted by pjsky at 10:17 AM on June 27, 2016
posted by pjsky at 10:17 AM on June 27, 2016
Or better yet, enact state constitutional provisions explicitly guaranteeing the right to terminate a pregnancy in express, unambiguous language.
I'll put this in the "People should just be nice to each other and talk out their differences. Then we wouldn't need armies or laws any more." category.
I mean sure, in your happy theoretical universe that would work fine, but in the real world, we have state legislatures dominated by people who would gleefully violate the Constitution in order to enact their religious vision. We need Supreme Court rulings to protect us from people like that.
posted by happyroach at 10:19 AM on June 27, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'll put this in the "People should just be nice to each other and talk out their differences. Then we wouldn't need armies or laws any more." category.
I mean sure, in your happy theoretical universe that would work fine, but in the real world, we have state legislatures dominated by people who would gleefully violate the Constitution in order to enact their religious vision. We need Supreme Court rulings to protect us from people like that.
posted by happyroach at 10:19 AM on June 27, 2016 [4 favorites]
So if a woman in Texas ended up carrying to term a baby because she couldn't get to a clinic, and then law that forced her to do so is overturned...does the Texas Leg. owe her some kind of child support until the child turns 18?
It's a real question: the only reason that the baby was born at all was their bad law. Is sovereign immunity enough to protect them? Because if I was that woman, I would be boiling mad right now...and also I would be looking at a large, direct financial impact -- about $245,340 [SLPDF] -- and possible diminution of income, solely because of that bad law.
posted by wenestvedt at 10:21 AM on June 27, 2016 [8 favorites]
It's a real question: the only reason that the baby was born at all was their bad law. Is sovereign immunity enough to protect them? Because if I was that woman, I would be boiling mad right now...and also I would be looking at a large, direct financial impact -- about $245,340 [SLPDF] -- and possible diminution of income, solely because of that bad law.
posted by wenestvedt at 10:21 AM on June 27, 2016 [8 favorites]
I'm curious if there will ever be another 9 person court again and what that means to the system of checks and balances when we end up with a four or five Justice court.
If Trump wins, the Senate will likely remain in Republican hands, and he will no doubt run thru the wish lists provided him by conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society to nominate conservative ideologues. If the Democrats try to filibuster, the Republicans will no doubt eliminate that tactic in a New York minute. Republicans perceive, probably correctly, that placing movement conservatives on SCOTUS will help insulate them from the demographic tide that's currently running against them.
If Clinton wins, I predict the Democrats will take back the Senate as well, and they will probably be in no mood to stand for an attempted filibuster of Clinton's picks either, especially after McConnell's shenanigans with Garland (whom McConnell just might try to get confirmed in the lame duck session anyway, as insulation against a younger and more liberal Clinton pick, at which point it'll be interesting to see if Garland withdraws).
If Clinton wins and the Republicans hold the Senate, SCOTUS will likely limp along with eight ideologically divided justices, meaning that lower court rulings subject to a split decision will stand, which means in turn that different parts of the country could be subject to different interpretations of the law.
Which, again, is probably preferable for McConnell et al than having a solidly liberal SCOTUS rule against Republican priorities nationwide.
posted by Gelatin at 10:23 AM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
If Trump wins, the Senate will likely remain in Republican hands, and he will no doubt run thru the wish lists provided him by conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society to nominate conservative ideologues. If the Democrats try to filibuster, the Republicans will no doubt eliminate that tactic in a New York minute. Republicans perceive, probably correctly, that placing movement conservatives on SCOTUS will help insulate them from the demographic tide that's currently running against them.
If Clinton wins, I predict the Democrats will take back the Senate as well, and they will probably be in no mood to stand for an attempted filibuster of Clinton's picks either, especially after McConnell's shenanigans with Garland (whom McConnell just might try to get confirmed in the lame duck session anyway, as insulation against a younger and more liberal Clinton pick, at which point it'll be interesting to see if Garland withdraws).
If Clinton wins and the Republicans hold the Senate, SCOTUS will likely limp along with eight ideologically divided justices, meaning that lower court rulings subject to a split decision will stand, which means in turn that different parts of the country could be subject to different interpretations of the law.
Which, again, is probably preferable for McConnell et al than having a solidly liberal SCOTUS rule against Republican priorities nationwide.
posted by Gelatin at 10:23 AM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm curious if there will ever be another 9 person court again and what that means to the system of checks and balances when we end up with a four or five Justice court.
As long as there are 40 GOP True Believers in the Senate, I'm expecting:
2017-2018: We can't confirm a Supreme Court nominee when there are so many questions about Hillary Clinton's win over our extremely credible and not at all ridiculous candidate.
2019: It's been so long since we did this, you'll have to give us time to get the machinery running again.
2020: Whoops, we took too long and now it's an election year!
2021-infinity: Fuck you.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:23 AM on June 27, 2016 [4 favorites]
As long as there are 40 GOP True Believers in the Senate, I'm expecting:
2017-2018: We can't confirm a Supreme Court nominee when there are so many questions about Hillary Clinton's win over our extremely credible and not at all ridiculous candidate.
2019: It's been so long since we did this, you'll have to give us time to get the machinery running again.
2020: Whoops, we took too long and now it's an election year!
2021-infinity: Fuck you.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:23 AM on June 27, 2016 [4 favorites]
As long as they could convince voters that the other party was literally killing babies, the Evangelicals and Republicans basically got a blank check to do whatever else they wanted.
Which I *never* understood, since G-d *actually* told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, so obviously, per Genesis 22, G-d doesn't care about "trimesters" or "personhood" either.
posted by mikelieman at 10:23 AM on June 27, 2016 [5 favorites]
Which I *never* understood, since G-d *actually* told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, so obviously, per Genesis 22, G-d doesn't care about "trimesters" or "personhood" either.
posted by mikelieman at 10:23 AM on June 27, 2016 [5 favorites]
Is the general Planned Parenthood donation place the best place or is there any sort of organizing specifically to raise money to reopen the previously shut clinics?
I love Planned Parenthood (and worked for them for 6 years). But the majority of abortions in this country, especially abortions done after 12 weeks, are done by independent abortion clinics. These are often just medical clinics run by people who care about insuring access to abortion. These people are FUCKING SAINTS who are putting their lives on the line, and don't have the same sort of pubic support and recognition as Planned Parenthood. Donations to Planned Parenthood go to Planned Parenthood. Not to these independent clinics.
I still work in repro rights, and have the honor of knowing some amazing clinic owners, including Amy Hagstrom-Miller, owner of Whole Woman's Health, the lead plaintiff in this case. She had to take extraordinary financial measures to self-fund her legal fight to get this case to the supreme court, at least in the beginning. Like taking a second mortgage and spending her kids college money.
So please remember your local clinics, and support them. To answer your question, you might consider a donation to the Abortion Care Network, which is an association of independent clinics. From their website:
"Your tax-deductible gift will support community-based abortion providers and their patients around the county. We rely on the support of individuals, like you, to help our members keep their clinics open and provide their patients with exceptional abortion care."
posted by kimdog at 10:24 AM on June 27, 2016 [66 favorites]
I love Planned Parenthood (and worked for them for 6 years). But the majority of abortions in this country, especially abortions done after 12 weeks, are done by independent abortion clinics. These are often just medical clinics run by people who care about insuring access to abortion. These people are FUCKING SAINTS who are putting their lives on the line, and don't have the same sort of pubic support and recognition as Planned Parenthood. Donations to Planned Parenthood go to Planned Parenthood. Not to these independent clinics.
I still work in repro rights, and have the honor of knowing some amazing clinic owners, including Amy Hagstrom-Miller, owner of Whole Woman's Health, the lead plaintiff in this case. She had to take extraordinary financial measures to self-fund her legal fight to get this case to the supreme court, at least in the beginning. Like taking a second mortgage and spending her kids college money.
So please remember your local clinics, and support them. To answer your question, you might consider a donation to the Abortion Care Network, which is an association of independent clinics. From their website:
"Your tax-deductible gift will support community-based abortion providers and their patients around the county. We rely on the support of individuals, like you, to help our members keep their clinics open and provide their patients with exceptional abortion care."
posted by kimdog at 10:24 AM on June 27, 2016 [66 favorites]
Which I *never* understood, since G-d *actually* told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, so obviously, per Genesis 22
It's always struck me that the secret test of character for Abraham was not that he refused God's demand, but that he was willing to comply until the angel bade him stay his hand at the last possible moment.
I should also point out that Isaac had already been born (indeed, was Abraham's son and heir -- God was asking him to sacrifice a lot), and there's much reason to doubt that the many among so-called "pro-life" crowd cares very much what happens to those babies after they're born, especially if they're poor and/or the wrong color.
posted by Gelatin at 10:28 AM on June 27, 2016
It's always struck me that the secret test of character for Abraham was not that he refused God's demand, but that he was willing to comply until the angel bade him stay his hand at the last possible moment.
I should also point out that Isaac had already been born (indeed, was Abraham's son and heir -- God was asking him to sacrifice a lot), and there's much reason to doubt that the many among so-called "pro-life" crowd cares very much what happens to those babies after they're born, especially if they're poor and/or the wrong color.
posted by Gelatin at 10:28 AM on June 27, 2016
At this point I really just want to support small clinic workers in red states. Bulletproof vests and some cake and soothing spa visit coupons, maybe a really big wad of cash. A box of kittens, idk. It's honestly impossible to think of something, some sort of gift or recognition or repayment, anything of great enough value to acknowledge the work they're doing.
posted by poffin boffin at 10:34 AM on June 27, 2016 [26 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 10:34 AM on June 27, 2016 [26 favorites]
Summary of the Full Frontal episode that goes into the history of the anti-abortion movement.
There may have been some anti-abortion activism before Roe v. Wade but until the late 1970's its was Catholics. It wasn't until 1980 that the Baptists even were totally against it.
posted by LizBoBiz at 10:35 AM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
There may have been some anti-abortion activism before Roe v. Wade but until the late 1970's its was Catholics. It wasn't until 1980 that the Baptists even were totally against it.
posted by LizBoBiz at 10:35 AM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
Why are we discussing Bork? He was an ideological extremist and and Republican insider. I mean, the guy actually spoke out in favor of a poll tax.
The Senate was right to vote him down. He's certainly no comparison to Merrick Garland, who is a judicial moderate and a centrist.
posted by maxsparber at 10:36 AM on June 27, 2016 [6 favorites]
The Senate was right to vote him down. He's certainly no comparison to Merrick Garland, who is a judicial moderate and a centrist.
posted by maxsparber at 10:36 AM on June 27, 2016 [6 favorites]
I *never* understood, since G-d *actually* told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, so obviously, per Genesis 22, G-d doesn't care about "trimesters" or "personhood" either.
In fairness, God was clearly punking Abraham.
posted by maxsparber at 10:36 AM on June 27, 2016 [4 favorites]
In fairness, God was clearly punking Abraham.
posted by maxsparber at 10:36 AM on June 27, 2016 [4 favorites]
If anyone wants to send some money towards independent abortion providers in Ohio, Founder's Women's Health Network in Columbus is wonderful.
posted by ChuraChura at 10:46 AM on June 27, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by ChuraChura at 10:46 AM on June 27, 2016 [5 favorites]
In fairness, God was clearly punking Abraham.
I feel like that is a crucial part of the story that was inadvertently omitted.
"Hah, let's see how he handles that one!...
DUDE! WAIT! DUDE! What the fuck are you doing?! Are you fucking crazy?! You're gonna kill your kid just because you think someone asked you to?
Don't ever do that again!"
posted by CaseyB at 10:50 AM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
I feel like that is a crucial part of the story that was inadvertently omitted.
"Hah, let's see how he handles that one!...
DUDE! WAIT! DUDE! What the fuck are you doing?! Are you fucking crazy?! You're gonna kill your kid just because you think someone asked you to?
Don't ever do that again!"
posted by CaseyB at 10:50 AM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
God as an asshole prankster would explain a lot. "Let me plant a few billion of these zirconium crystals with uranium and lead in them... let them try to figure out that the earth is really 6000 years old now! Suckers!"
posted by clawsoon at 11:00 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by clawsoon at 11:00 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
At this point I really just want to support small clinic workers in red states. Bulletproof vests and some cake and soothing spa visit coupons, maybe a really big wad of cash. A box of kittens, idk. It's honestly impossible to think of something, some sort of gift or recognition or repayment, anything of great enough value to acknowledge the work they're doing.
Full disclosure, I'm a consultant for this organization, but what you are describing is one of the key activities of Lady Parts Justice and Lady Parts Justice League. (LPJ is 501c4/political & LPJL is 501c3/educational & advocacy) Here's a Cosmo article about LPJ's clinic support trip to Alabama and Mississippi last year. This year we've supported clinics in Kentucky and California, and are planning trips to Cleveland, OH (during the RNC!), Ft. Worth, TX, and three cities in North Carolina later this year to give clinics some care and comfort.
posted by kimdog at 11:01 AM on June 27, 2016 [47 favorites]
Full disclosure, I'm a consultant for this organization, but what you are describing is one of the key activities of Lady Parts Justice and Lady Parts Justice League. (LPJ is 501c4/political & LPJL is 501c3/educational & advocacy) Here's a Cosmo article about LPJ's clinic support trip to Alabama and Mississippi last year. This year we've supported clinics in Kentucky and California, and are planning trips to Cleveland, OH (during the RNC!), Ft. Worth, TX, and three cities in North Carolina later this year to give clinics some care and comfort.
posted by kimdog at 11:01 AM on June 27, 2016 [47 favorites]
DUDE! WAIT! DUDE! What the fuck are you doing?! Are you fucking crazy?!
Well, it's a little off the beaten path, but this was the subject I studied in college.
There is a widespread interpretation in Judaism that neither God nor Abraham believed for a second that Isaac would ever be sacrificed -- God says to "offer" Issac as a sacrifice, which is language with just enough wiggle room so that both of them knew that all that had to be done was to make the offer and God would step in and stop him at the last second, and that the whole point, in a world where child sacrifices were common, was that this God doesn't actually require them.
Of course, it's also possible that both were just like, well, this will never happen, somebody will surely step in and keep it from happening, and then, at the last minute, God was, like, whoah, whoah, I really didn't think you were going to let it get this far, you maniac, whoo, ha ha!
And Abraham was, like, holy crap, thought I was actually going to have to do that for a second, holy cow, hoo boy, ha ha.
posted by maxsparber at 11:02 AM on June 27, 2016 [13 favorites]
Well, it's a little off the beaten path, but this was the subject I studied in college.
There is a widespread interpretation in Judaism that neither God nor Abraham believed for a second that Isaac would ever be sacrificed -- God says to "offer" Issac as a sacrifice, which is language with just enough wiggle room so that both of them knew that all that had to be done was to make the offer and God would step in and stop him at the last second, and that the whole point, in a world where child sacrifices were common, was that this God doesn't actually require them.
Of course, it's also possible that both were just like, well, this will never happen, somebody will surely step in and keep it from happening, and then, at the last minute, God was, like, whoah, whoah, I really didn't think you were going to let it get this far, you maniac, whoo, ha ha!
And Abraham was, like, holy crap, thought I was actually going to have to do that for a second, holy cow, hoo boy, ha ha.
posted by maxsparber at 11:02 AM on June 27, 2016 [13 favorites]
kimdog! Can you please post a link to info about Fort Worth if it's up? I don't see anything on the events page. We had a clinic in Fort Worth shut down, will LPJL be there to support that re-opening?
(feel free to memail me too but I'm sure some other posters would want this info).
posted by emjaybee at 11:06 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
(feel free to memail me too but I'm sure some other posters would want this info).
posted by emjaybee at 11:06 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
There is a widespread interpretation in Judaism that neither God nor Abraham believed for a second that Isaac would ever be sacrificed -- God says to "offer" Issac as a sacrifice, which is language with just enough wiggle room so that both of them knew that all that had to be done was to make the offer and God would step in and stop him at the last second, and that the whole point, in a world where child sacrifices were common, was that this God doesn't actually require them.
Old Testament as weird kinky playacting. This jibes with the Judaism I grew up with.
posted by rorgy at 11:06 AM on June 27, 2016 [8 favorites]
Old Testament as weird kinky playacting. This jibes with the Judaism I grew up with.
posted by rorgy at 11:06 AM on June 27, 2016 [8 favorites]
There is a widespread interpretation in Judaism that neither God nor Abraham believed for a second that Isaac would ever be sacrificed
What were Isaac's thoughts on the matter?
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:07 AM on June 27, 2016 [11 favorites]
What were Isaac's thoughts on the matter?
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:07 AM on June 27, 2016 [11 favorites]
And I hope Wendy Davis takes time today to dance a jig in her pink running shoes while flipping off the Governor and the entire Texas Legislature.
She's on CNN right now. She's not dancing, but she is very happy.
posted by homunculus at 11:09 AM on June 27, 2016 [4 favorites]
She's on CNN right now. She's not dancing, but she is very happy.
posted by homunculus at 11:09 AM on June 27, 2016 [4 favorites]
MIGHTY HORUS, SAVE ME
posted by delfin at 11:09 AM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by delfin at 11:09 AM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
What were Isaac's thoughts on the matter?
Super chill.
posted by maxsparber at 11:09 AM on June 27, 2016 [4 favorites]
Super chill.
posted by maxsparber at 11:09 AM on June 27, 2016 [4 favorites]
What were Isaac's thoughts on the matter?
Who cares? He was just property to be married off to other property.
posted by Talez at 11:10 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
Who cares? He was just property to be married off to other property.
posted by Talez at 11:10 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
Mod note: Hey y'all, I love a good biblical exegisis improv sesh as much as the next person but maybe let's move on from that at this point.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:16 AM on June 27, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:16 AM on June 27, 2016 [11 favorites]
someone should go make a weird shit YHVH does in the OT FPP because this probably isn't the place for my hot takes and joke comments and oh god I have so many
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:17 AM on June 27, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:17 AM on June 27, 2016 [13 favorites]
Full disclosure, I'm a consultant for this organization, but what you are describing is one of the key activities of Lady Parts Justice and Lady Parts Justice League. (LPJ is 501c4/political & LPJL is 501c3/educational & advocacy) Here's a Cosmo article about LPJ's clinic support trip to Alabama and Mississippi last year. This year we've supported clinics in Kentucky and California, and are planning trips to Cleveland, OH (during the RNC!), Ft. Worth, TX, and three cities in North Carolina later this year to give clinics some care and comfort.
Not to be all "thank you for serving our country," but kimdog, thank you, sincerely, for actually serving our country.
posted by heyho at 11:30 AM on June 27, 2016 [43 favorites]
Not to be all "thank you for serving our country," but kimdog, thank you, sincerely, for actually serving our country.
posted by heyho at 11:30 AM on June 27, 2016 [43 favorites]
This has made an otherwise aggravating Monday fantastic.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg needs to live forever, imho.
posted by Mooski at 11:41 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ruth Bader Ginsburg needs to live forever, imho.
posted by Mooski at 11:41 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
If Clinton wins, I predict the Democrats will take back the Senate as well
I really don't know about that. The Democrats are trying their hardest to nominate "Oh hey, I used to be a Republican and actually I still am" Patrick Murphy in Florida, and if they lose to Reneging Rubio there, they need to sweep the other battleground states of Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire to get to 51, assuming they hold on to projected leads in Illinois and Wisconsin. They need 5 of 7 competitive races for 50 or 6 of 7 for 51. And there's still the chance Hilary pulls a Senator for VP. Warren has a Republican Governor to replace her.
Oh and in 2018 the Dems are defending 24 seats to the Republicans' 8. So if they win a bare majority, they'll need to act fast and decisively to confirm a SCOTUS pick (or dare we hope two?), because they won't have it for long.
posted by T.D. Strange at 11:45 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
I really don't know about that. The Democrats are trying their hardest to nominate "Oh hey, I used to be a Republican and actually I still am" Patrick Murphy in Florida, and if they lose to Reneging Rubio there, they need to sweep the other battleground states of Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire to get to 51, assuming they hold on to projected leads in Illinois and Wisconsin. They need 5 of 7 competitive races for 50 or 6 of 7 for 51. And there's still the chance Hilary pulls a Senator for VP. Warren has a Republican Governor to replace her.
Oh and in 2018 the Dems are defending 24 seats to the Republicans' 8. So if they win a bare majority, they'll need to act fast and decisively to confirm a SCOTUS pick (or dare we hope two?), because they won't have it for long.
posted by T.D. Strange at 11:45 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
Warren has a Republican Governor to replace her
For 145-160 days until a special election. If Warren resigns the day after the election, Baker's replacement is only in place until mid-April.
posted by Etrigan at 11:51 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
For 145-160 days until a special election. If Warren resigns the day after the election, Baker's replacement is only in place until mid-April.
posted by Etrigan at 11:51 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
Though if Clinton wins, her VP will be the tie-breaking vote, so the Democrats would only need 50 seats to take control of the Senate for those two years.
I agree about the need to get things done quickly, though. Events are too unpredictable to dawdle, and establishing a clear direction for SCOTUS will have to be a huge priority.
posted by Gelatin at 11:52 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
I agree about the need to get things done quickly, though. Events are too unpredictable to dawdle, and establishing a clear direction for SCOTUS will have to be a huge priority.
posted by Gelatin at 11:52 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also, Baker is a moderate and Massachusetts is very liberal and there's a good chance he'll be tarred and feathered if he makes a bad choice.
posted by Melismata at 11:53 AM on June 27, 2016
posted by Melismata at 11:53 AM on June 27, 2016
The Democrats are trying their hardest to nominate "Oh hey, I used to be a Republican and actually I still am" Patrick Murphy in Florida
Also a pretty blatant liar. Which probably shouldn't be a disqualifier for politics, but....
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 11:56 AM on June 27, 2016
Also a pretty blatant liar. Which probably shouldn't be a disqualifier for politics, but....
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 11:56 AM on June 27, 2016
emjaybee, we are still working out the dates on the Ft. Worth trip. I think it may be October. Also, we are still figuring out this model. As you might imagine, these clinics are battle fatigued, and wary of strangers. So the clinic support part of our program isn't generally open to the public, because everyone is super nervous about people they don't know (for good reason *coughdaviddaleidencough*). However, the other part of what we do is to have a progressive comedy show in the city we are visiting, and we have started to add activist workshops, too. The goal is to get people aware and motivated about the threats to reproductive rights in their own back yards, and to help create a local activist network... with feedback from the clinics about how the community might support them best. You can join our email lists for updates about events in your area!
posted by kimdog at 12:03 PM on June 27, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by kimdog at 12:03 PM on June 27, 2016 [7 favorites]
I wonder if it's possible that a bad election might break (or at least suppress) Republican obstructionists in favor of the old status quo of horse trading votes on the floor.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 12:16 PM on June 27, 2016
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 12:16 PM on June 27, 2016
I wonder if it's possible that a bad election might break (or at least suppress) Republican obstructionists in favor of the old status quo of horse trading votes on the floor.
The problem is that Republicans can enforce party discipline with the threat of a well-funded primary challenge from the right. As I noted in the current election thread, in 2012 Republicans wound up losing a Senate seat when moderate six-term Senator Dick Lugar was primaried by a tea party loon named Richard Mourdock. Mourdock may have been a bit much for even Indiana Republicans to get behind, but I'm sure the lesson wasn't lost on other potentially wavering congressional Republicans.
posted by Gelatin at 12:24 PM on June 27, 2016
The problem is that Republicans can enforce party discipline with the threat of a well-funded primary challenge from the right. As I noted in the current election thread, in 2012 Republicans wound up losing a Senate seat when moderate six-term Senator Dick Lugar was primaried by a tea party loon named Richard Mourdock. Mourdock may have been a bit much for even Indiana Republicans to get behind, but I'm sure the lesson wasn't lost on other potentially wavering congressional Republicans.
posted by Gelatin at 12:24 PM on June 27, 2016
The problem is that Republicans can enforce party discipline with the threat of a well-funded primary challenge from the right.
Ask John Boehner and Eric Cantor how well that turns out.
posted by Etrigan at 12:32 PM on June 27, 2016
Ask John Boehner and Eric Cantor how well that turns out.
posted by Etrigan at 12:32 PM on June 27, 2016
Serious question: is there anything keeping the Republicans from simply blocking all USSC nominations indefinitely? Because I can envision Republican elites being thrilled at the possibility of destroying the court through attrition and sparking some kind of constitutional crisis.
In my own experience, most hard-line conservatives seem to think that the court is unnecessary anyway.
posted by Tyrant King Porn Dragon at 12:34 PM on June 27, 2016
In my own experience, most hard-line conservatives seem to think that the court is unnecessary anyway.
posted by Tyrant King Porn Dragon at 12:34 PM on June 27, 2016
Etrigan, that's partially my point. Boehner resigned because the most conservative members of his caucus had more power than he did. There was precious little interest in forming any kind of rapproachment with Democrats.
posted by Gelatin at 12:36 PM on June 27, 2016
posted by Gelatin at 12:36 PM on June 27, 2016
Serious question: is there anything keeping the Republicans from simply blocking all USSC nominations indefinitely?
Technically, no. Practically, it provides a massive boost to Democratic GOTV efforts. If we see a six-member court in summer of 2018, the Senate would almost certainly tip blue.
posted by Etrigan at 12:37 PM on June 27, 2016
Technically, no. Practically, it provides a massive boost to Democratic GOTV efforts. If we see a six-member court in summer of 2018, the Senate would almost certainly tip blue.
posted by Etrigan at 12:37 PM on June 27, 2016
Etrigan, that's partially my point. Boehner resigned because the most conservative members of his caucus had more power than he did. There was precious little interest in forming any kind of rapproachment with Democrats.
So do you think Ryan will want to "enforce party discipline with the threat of a well-funded primary challenge from the right"?
posted by Etrigan at 12:42 PM on June 27, 2016
So do you think Ryan will want to "enforce party discipline with the threat of a well-funded primary challenge from the right"?
posted by Etrigan at 12:42 PM on June 27, 2016
Serious question: is there anything keeping the Republicans from simply blocking all USSC nominations indefinitely?
No. Not while they have the majority. A Democratic majority could break a Republican filibuster by getting rid of the filibuster entirely, but as long as they control the Senate, nothing can force them to vote on a SCOTUS pick.
If we see a six-member court in summer of 2018, the Senate would almost certainly tip blue.
Again, the Democrats are defending 24 seats to 8 in 2018, and just on a quick scan, 13 of those 24 will be toss ups. There's zero reason for Democratic optimism about a Senate hold or gaining seats.
posted by T.D. Strange at 12:43 PM on June 27, 2016 [4 favorites]
No. Not while they have the majority. A Democratic majority could break a Republican filibuster by getting rid of the filibuster entirely, but as long as they control the Senate, nothing can force them to vote on a SCOTUS pick.
If we see a six-member court in summer of 2018, the Senate would almost certainly tip blue.
Again, the Democrats are defending 24 seats to 8 in 2018, and just on a quick scan, 13 of those 24 will be toss ups. There's zero reason for Democratic optimism about a Senate hold or gaining seats.
posted by T.D. Strange at 12:43 PM on June 27, 2016 [4 favorites]
For 145-160 days until a special election. If Warren resigns the day after the election, Baker's replacement is only in place until mid-April.
The last time this happened, Massachusetts said "Well, the Democrat is kinda boring so we'd better send Mitch McFuckingConnell another lackey to help destroy everything Teddy Kennedy worked for." I would not bet much on their having markedly better judgment in 2016.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:48 PM on June 27, 2016 [10 favorites]
The last time this happened, Massachusetts said "Well, the Democrat is kinda boring so we'd better send Mitch McFuckingConnell another lackey to help destroy everything Teddy Kennedy worked for." I would not bet much on their having markedly better judgment in 2016.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:48 PM on June 27, 2016 [10 favorites]
Ryan isn't the one doing the enforcing. Republican legislators know full well where their funding comes from, and know full well that there are costs to being seen as too accommodating to the hated Democrats and doing anything other than vote in lockstep with the most conservative wing. I'm sorry if I'm not expressing myself well, but I never said the party discipline comes from its nominal leadership, nor do I see how pointing out that Republicans vote in lockstep and fear primary challenges for compromising is at all controversial.
posted by Gelatin at 12:51 PM on June 27, 2016
posted by Gelatin at 12:51 PM on June 27, 2016
So do you think Ryan will want to "enforce party discipline with the threat of a well-funded primary challenge from the right"?
Doesn't matter. Prior Republican leaders threatened moderate Republicans that if they didn't fall into line, the party would let loose a lion that eats people who don't vote hard-right 110% of the time. They didn't, so the party did. The leadership never said anything about putting the lion back in the cage. It's just running around snapping at anybody who says "maybe we should vote on a nominee" or "it's possible climate change exists."
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 12:58 PM on June 27, 2016 [6 favorites]
Doesn't matter. Prior Republican leaders threatened moderate Republicans that if they didn't fall into line, the party would let loose a lion that eats people who don't vote hard-right 110% of the time. They didn't, so the party did. The leadership never said anything about putting the lion back in the cage. It's just running around snapping at anybody who says "maybe we should vote on a nominee" or "it's possible climate change exists."
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 12:58 PM on June 27, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'd also point out that part of the old status quo of horse trading votes on the floor was earmarks, or federal funding directed toward individual members' districts. Republicans got rid of the practice, which, by accident or design, greatly reduced the leverage the House leadership has over its members.
If voting for some kind of grand bargain with the Democrats means that a Republican will be primaried by the right, but not have a shiny new industrial park or community center to show for it, they obviously are not going to be much inclined to risk it. Boehner resigned rather than break the so-called Hastert rule of not calling votes on legislation that a majority of his caucus doesn't approve of, even if a majority of Congress might, and it isn't even a rule.
posted by Gelatin at 1:01 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
If voting for some kind of grand bargain with the Democrats means that a Republican will be primaried by the right, but not have a shiny new industrial park or community center to show for it, they obviously are not going to be much inclined to risk it. Boehner resigned rather than break the so-called Hastert rule of not calling votes on legislation that a majority of his caucus doesn't approve of, even if a majority of Congress might, and it isn't even a rule.
posted by Gelatin at 1:01 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
The leadership never said anything about putting the lion back in the cage.
Yeah, and that leadership is handing out scholarships to high school students instead of handing out committee assignments now. I suppose it's possible that Ryan hasn't learned that lesson.
posted by Etrigan at 1:04 PM on June 27, 2016
Yeah, and that leadership is handing out scholarships to high school students instead of handing out committee assignments now. I suppose it's possible that Ryan hasn't learned that lesson.
posted by Etrigan at 1:04 PM on June 27, 2016
If he cares primarily about keeping his position, the lesson for Ryan to learn from Boehner is that the GOP's unleashed far right wing is too powerful to defy. That Boehner and his predecessors shouldn't have unleashed them in the first place is true, but doesn't teach us anything about how to put them back in the cage.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:08 PM on June 27, 2016
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:08 PM on June 27, 2016
This phenomenon hardly new to the Boehner / Ryan era. Grover Norquist was never elected to national office, let alone a leadership position, but his demand that no Republican support tax increases ever carries so much weight that it's practically the Republican default position. Even after setbacks in 2012, "only" 39 of 41 Senate Republicans were signatories, and the vast majority of House Republicans.
posted by Gelatin at 1:12 PM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Gelatin at 1:12 PM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
So nice to wake up to some good political news, for once. I hope this leads to swift & effective efforts to re-open the closed clinics and support their doctors and staff (thanks for the Lady Parts Justice info above).
As for the constitutional discussion--Jill Lepore wrote an interesting NYer article last year about abortion and gay rights jurisprudence in which she explored the implications of Roe v. Wade (and Griswold, etc) being decided on the basis of the right to privacy rather than equal protection:
posted by karayel at 1:25 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
As for the constitutional discussion--Jill Lepore wrote an interesting NYer article last year about abortion and gay rights jurisprudence in which she explored the implications of Roe v. Wade (and Griswold, etc) being decided on the basis of the right to privacy rather than equal protection:
But both good and bad constitutional arguments are more like blown-in insulation: they fill every last nook of a very cramped space, and then they harden. Over time, arguments based on a right to privacy have tended to weaken and crack; arguments based on equality have grown only stronger.I'm no legal scholar (and am curious what people with relevant expertise think of her argument) but I do find the equality argument rhetorically and personally compelling, as a person with a uterus who sees the ability to control my reproductive choices as utterly fundamental to ensuring my life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and all that jazz.
posted by karayel at 1:25 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
We're the ones who put them back in the cage--or better yet, take them out of the exhibit entirely by voting them out of office. Can't have an out-of-control teabagger faction if they lose their elections.
Is it just me, or is the tongue-in-cheek illustration of the God/Abraham game of chicken a remarkable allegory for how both Trump and Brexit have come about? Everyone pushed it to the brink because *surely* it wouldn't really happen, we know that, right? Suddenly Isaac's dead on the altar.
posted by Autumnheart at 1:37 PM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
Is it just me, or is the tongue-in-cheek illustration of the God/Abraham game of chicken a remarkable allegory for how both Trump and Brexit have come about? Everyone pushed it to the brink because *surely* it wouldn't really happen, we know that, right? Suddenly Isaac's dead on the altar.
posted by Autumnheart at 1:37 PM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
Hey can we not turn this into another election thread?
posted by LizBoBiz at 1:49 PM on June 27, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by LizBoBiz at 1:49 PM on June 27, 2016 [9 favorites]
Ginsburg has criticized Roe a few times, including here shortly after Casey (Speaking in a Judicial Voice, 67 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1185 (1992) - jump to Part II, p. 1198 , PDF p.14), as well as in another earlier essay. The 1992 article/lecture has a bit of both the "society wasn't ready for it" argument that tonycpsu's link attempts to counter empirically, as well as the "equality would have been better grounds" argument that karayel's link alludes to.
Also, this NYT article about RBG and abortion rights from 1993 during her nomination process is kind of an interesting flashback (which nicely categorizes those two criticisms as "constitutional doctrine" and "judicial strategy.") See also (recent WaPo article).
posted by cdefgfeadgagfe at 1:49 PM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
Also, this NYT article about RBG and abortion rights from 1993 during her nomination process is kind of an interesting flashback (which nicely categorizes those two criticisms as "constitutional doctrine" and "judicial strategy.") See also (recent WaPo article).
posted by cdefgfeadgagfe at 1:49 PM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
As for the constitutional discussion--Jill Lepore wrote an interesting NYer article last year about abortion and gay rights jurisprudence in which she explored the implications of Roe v. Wade (and Griswold, etc) being decided on the basis of the right to privacy rather than equal protection:
But both good and bad constitutional arguments are more like blown-in insulation: they fill every last nook of a very cramped space, and then they harden. Over time, arguments based on a right to privacy have tended to weaken and crack; arguments based on equality have grown only stronger.
Also not a legal scholar, but I found this very interesting. It answered a very real question I've had. I've found it hard to argue for abortion rights on the grounds of equality, since men neither have nor need any equivalent right. But that's answered in a 1992 Supreme Court case: “The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.” That's the rhetorical piece I've been missing, functional equality.
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 1:58 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
But both good and bad constitutional arguments are more like blown-in insulation: they fill every last nook of a very cramped space, and then they harden. Over time, arguments based on a right to privacy have tended to weaken and crack; arguments based on equality have grown only stronger.
Also not a legal scholar, but I found this very interesting. It answered a very real question I've had. I've found it hard to argue for abortion rights on the grounds of equality, since men neither have nor need any equivalent right. But that's answered in a 1992 Supreme Court case: “The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.” That's the rhetorical piece I've been missing, functional equality.
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 1:58 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
So...With this decision, what's the Vegas line on whether the Texas legislature gets truly serious about attempting secession?
posted by Thorzdad at 2:05 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Thorzdad at 2:05 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm no legal scholar (and am curious what people with relevant expertise think of her argument) but I do find the equality argument rhetorically and personally compelling, as a person with a uterus who sees the ability to control my reproductive choices as utterly fundamental to ensuring my life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and all that jazz.
Equality arguments may or may not be more persuasive with the public, but even if they are, that doesn't mean that rights obtained via those arguments are more durable, or that the benefits of waiting for those arguments to eventually persuade the public outweigh the very real harm that's done to people waiting for relief in jurisdictions where public sentiment is strongly against reproductive freedom no matter what arguments are used to defend it. There are nine particular members of the public at any one time (well, eight now) who matter for the purposes of these discussions than any others.
Some compelling (IMHO) responses to the Lepore piece:
Scott Lemieux: Reproductive Freedom, the Courts, and the Limits of Doctrine
Equality arguments may or may not be more persuasive with the public, but even if they are, that doesn't mean that rights obtained via those arguments are more durable, or that the benefits of waiting for those arguments to eventually persuade the public outweigh the very real harm that's done to people waiting for relief in jurisdictions where public sentiment is strongly against reproductive freedom no matter what arguments are used to defend it. There are nine particular members of the public at any one time (well, eight now) who matter for the purposes of these discussions than any others.
Some compelling (IMHO) responses to the Lepore piece:
Scott Lemieux: Reproductive Freedom, the Courts, and the Limits of Doctrine
To swing voters like Lewis Powell and Anthony Kennedy, privacy is more likely to be a winning argument than gender equality. I find Lepore’s argument about Hobby Lobby particularly curious given Kennedy’s concurrence. Kennedy explicitly acknowledged — as Alito’s opinion instructively refused to — that Congress had a compelling interest in protecting women’s equality, and yet found that the religious freedom of employers trumped the equality rights of female employees anyway. I’m at a loss to understand how rooting a woman’s right to choose in the equal protection clause could have changed Kennedy’s vote. And, certainly, gender equity claims would have no appeal to Samuel "Concerned Alumni of Princeton" Alito or the U.S. v. Virginia dissenter Antonin Scalia.Mark Graber: Maybe Freddie Gray Should Have Made Equality Arguments
Maybe Freddie Gray and the residents of West Baltimore should have tried making equality arguments instead of whatever arguments they were making. If equality works so well for women, gays and lesbians, then imagine how well equality ought to work for persons of color, who were, after all, the primary concern of the persons responsible for the equal protection clause. But, of course, the residents of West Baltimore, Ferguson and similar abodes have been making equality arguments for decades and losing. [...]posted by tonycpsu at 2:13 PM on June 27, 2016 [8 favorites]
Equality has not faired well in the Supreme Court, at least from a progressive perspective, on numerous matters. The Supreme Court regularly rejects equality claims in campaign finance cases. The individual right of billionaires to buy elections trumps the equality rights of ordinary citizens to have elections turn more on public support than private funding. Ever since Rodriguez v. San Antonio School District (1973), the Supreme Court has not looked favorably on the equality claims of inner-city school children. The Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder (2013) preferred the equality claims of states to the equal rights of human beings. In fact, outside of reproduction, sexuality and marriage, liberals have not been doing very well in the Supreme Court for a very long time, no matter what they argue. One might think that the very conservative Supreme Court’s refusal to overrule Roe and recognize a right to homosexual sodomy in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) suggests the remarkable capacity of privacy arguments to appeal to at least moderate conservatives. Better yet, we might wonder why equality arguments are apparently more convincing when made by proponents of same-sex marriage than when made by the persons of color who reside in West Baltimore.
You don't get to be happy about this ruling and also refuse to vote Clinton in November without being a giant hypocrite.
Hey can we not turn this into another election thread?
SERIOUSLY. It's great news for women in Texas, regardless of whomever you decide to vote for president.
Looks like Kennedy is trying to protect his legacy by showing that he can be on the right side of history (at least about some things).
It seems like this 8-judge court may backfire on the Republicans. Kennedy loved being the deciding vote as many political issues were obviously otherwise split 4-4. Now he's only the deciding vote IF he sides with the good guys. If he goes with the dirty three, he's no longer the deciding vote (even though he still is, of course)--he's a sibling kisser. Nobody likes a sibling kisser. (I'm not saying he wouldn't have decided the same way if Scalia was still around, but I dunno.)
posted by mrgrimm at 2:16 PM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
Hey can we not turn this into another election thread?
SERIOUSLY. It's great news for women in Texas, regardless of whomever you decide to vote for president.
Looks like Kennedy is trying to protect his legacy by showing that he can be on the right side of history (at least about some things).
It seems like this 8-judge court may backfire on the Republicans. Kennedy loved being the deciding vote as many political issues were obviously otherwise split 4-4. Now he's only the deciding vote IF he sides with the good guys. If he goes with the dirty three, he's no longer the deciding vote (even though he still is, of course)--he's a sibling kisser. Nobody likes a sibling kisser. (I'm not saying he wouldn't have decided the same way if Scalia was still around, but I dunno.)
posted by mrgrimm at 2:16 PM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
Also, as the obvious swing vote in cases like this, in a 4-4 split it becomes his fault that the court couldn't do its job and reach a majority opinion.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 2:35 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 2:35 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
SERIOUSLY. It's great news for women in Texas, regardless of whomever you decide to vote for president.
It sure is great news, but it came about for real historical reasons that bear attention even if people are sick of elections. One party consistently and vituperatively works to limit access to abortion. One does not. A national election is underway whereby results like the decision can be influenced. No need to belabor it, but it's weird to act like this isn't an issue of current moment for our national election, or like #notallrepublicans.
posted by OmieWise at 3:10 PM on June 27, 2016 [16 favorites]
It sure is great news, but it came about for real historical reasons that bear attention even if people are sick of elections. One party consistently and vituperatively works to limit access to abortion. One does not. A national election is underway whereby results like the decision can be influenced. No need to belabor it, but it's weird to act like this isn't an issue of current moment for our national election, or like #notallrepublicans.
posted by OmieWise at 3:10 PM on June 27, 2016 [16 favorites]
The supreme court is the reason why we all need to decide to vote for Clinton.
posted by freakazoid at 3:33 PM on June 27, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by freakazoid at 3:33 PM on June 27, 2016 [6 favorites]
Watching the PBS News Hour coverage, a lady on the losing side was speaking about the importance of the presidential election... talk about the ends justifying the means. To "protect life" they need to really make sure to vote for the guy who wants to give nuclear weapons to a theocracy that beheads people for witchcraft.
posted by XMLicious at 4:21 PM on June 27, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by XMLicious at 4:21 PM on June 27, 2016 [8 favorites]
Even though the clinics that closed have to reapply to open, I'm so pleased with the SC ruling. FU Gregg Abbott!
posted by haunted by Leonard Cohen at 4:41 PM on June 27, 2016
posted by haunted by Leonard Cohen at 4:41 PM on June 27, 2016
Now I know how UK people feel about theoretical arguments in the Brexit threads. As a Texas woman, this is a law I've been fighting against for years. My local Planned Parenthood is closed (though it never performed a single abortion) and there is no alternative for women's health care for poor women within 150 miles. I've seen the rise of women doing home abortions with pills from Mexico. And the organizations of women to drive other women the hundreds of miles to an abortion provider for their needed care.
I don't know what's going to happen here now. I'm sure some clinics will reopen, or start performing abortions again, but I doubt my local clinic will be back anytime soon. The building houses another business now.
posted by threeturtles at 4:57 PM on June 27, 2016 [15 favorites]
I don't know what's going to happen here now. I'm sure some clinics will reopen, or start performing abortions again, but I doubt my local clinic will be back anytime soon. The building houses another business now.
posted by threeturtles at 4:57 PM on June 27, 2016 [15 favorites]
I've seen the rise of women doing home abortions with pills from Mexico. And the organizations of women to drive other women the hundreds of miles to an abortion provider for their needed care.
Don't worry. There's plenty of prosecutors in Republican states ready to convict you or possibly your guardian if something happens and they find any trace of misoprostol or mifepristone in your system.
posted by Talez at 5:08 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
Don't worry. There's plenty of prosecutors in Republican states ready to convict you or possibly your guardian if something happens and they find any trace of misoprostol or mifepristone in your system.
posted by Talez at 5:08 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
It is unhelpful and insulting to frame moral arguments such that they only "matter" if they are directly relevant to every person, because literally everyone deserves access to health care.
It's not a moral argument, it's a legal one, and the law surrounding equal protection is (for better or worse), framed around government discrimination along certain lines, one of which is sex, which the courts (and not yet the Supreme Court) are only beginning to see as non-binary and not conflated with gender.
Your (very much valid) complaint is with the law and the courts, not, I think, the commenter.
posted by jedicus at 6:19 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's not a moral argument, it's a legal one, and the law surrounding equal protection is (for better or worse), framed around government discrimination along certain lines, one of which is sex, which the courts (and not yet the Supreme Court) are only beginning to see as non-binary and not conflated with gender.
Your (very much valid) complaint is with the law and the courts, not, I think, the commenter.
posted by jedicus at 6:19 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
And, sometimes, it makes sense to talk about reproduction as a women's issue, because the laws restricting it are motivated by misogyny.
And sometimes people say "women" as shorthand for people who get pregnant, and "men" as shorthand for people who can impregnate, which is reductive and incorrect, but I think understandable. And also I literally just admitted to flaws in my reasoning.
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 6:45 PM on June 27, 2016
And sometimes people say "women" as shorthand for people who get pregnant, and "men" as shorthand for people who can impregnate, which is reductive and incorrect, but I think understandable. And also I literally just admitted to flaws in my reasoning.
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 6:45 PM on June 27, 2016
Nthing the recommendation to watch Trapped. I just watched about two-thirds of it on the iOS PBS app. A few takeaways:
- In Texas clinics are required to have facilities that are equal to those required for open-heart surgery. This includes an onsite pharmacy (since meds are rarely required one clinic ends up tossing about $1100 of expired drugs every month).
- The same regs require abortion clinic doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles away. I don't have a clear picture of what this means, but one doctor said that even in the cases where he's not blocked by "pro-life" administrators and can get these privileges, since abortion is such an incredibly safe procedure, he doesn't have enough admittances to keep those privileges.
- The Texas HB2 laws have reduced the number of clinics in Texas from 44 to 6.
- one state's regulations (Alabama?) require patients to make four separate visits to a clinic - that may be hundreds of miles away - to complete their abortion.
- The owners and employees of these clinics are incredibly dedicated, have sacrificed personal lives, family time and so much money to keep their facilities running while complying with regulations designed to prevent their work. Some doctors bounce from state to state constantly to serve as many patients as possible.
posted by bendy at 11:28 PM on June 27, 2016 [7 favorites]
- In Texas clinics are required to have facilities that are equal to those required for open-heart surgery. This includes an onsite pharmacy (since meds are rarely required one clinic ends up tossing about $1100 of expired drugs every month).
- The same regs require abortion clinic doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles away. I don't have a clear picture of what this means, but one doctor said that even in the cases where he's not blocked by "pro-life" administrators and can get these privileges, since abortion is such an incredibly safe procedure, he doesn't have enough admittances to keep those privileges.
- The Texas HB2 laws have reduced the number of clinics in Texas from 44 to 6.
- one state's regulations (Alabama?) require patients to make four separate visits to a clinic - that may be hundreds of miles away - to complete their abortion.
- The owners and employees of these clinics are incredibly dedicated, have sacrificed personal lives, family time and so much money to keep their facilities running while complying with regulations designed to prevent their work. Some doctors bounce from state to state constantly to serve as many patients as possible.
posted by bendy at 11:28 PM on June 27, 2016 [7 favorites]
On a lighter note, one of the clinic owners had rainbow-colored bumper stickers printed that say, "Maybe the fetus I abort would have grown up to be a gay abortion provider"
posted by bendy at 11:30 PM on June 27, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by bendy at 11:30 PM on June 27, 2016 [13 favorites]
We're the ones who put them back in the cage--or better yet, take them out of the exhibit entirely by voting them out of office.
Great sentiment but, "Even if Democrats win every race where they have a candidate, they cannot win back control of the chamber. That's because there are too many races where Republicans have an unopposed candidate." That's just the House, the Senate is a bit better. But we can't kick these people out of office if the Democratic party gives up on the state, which is what it's done since before 2000, IMO.
posted by LizBoBiz at 6:19 AM on June 28, 2016 [5 favorites]
Great sentiment but, "Even if Democrats win every race where they have a candidate, they cannot win back control of the chamber. That's because there are too many races where Republicans have an unopposed candidate." That's just the House, the Senate is a bit better. But we can't kick these people out of office if the Democratic party gives up on the state, which is what it's done since before 2000, IMO.
posted by LizBoBiz at 6:19 AM on June 28, 2016 [5 favorites]
Sadly, but not surprisingly, even-the-liberal NPR's coverage this morning was terrible. Their "Reaction To Supreme Court Ruling Striking Down Abortion Restrictions In Texas" segment consisted of reaction only from a mouthpiece for an anti-abortion group, unless you count a brief snippet of audio from a pro-choice demonstration outside the SCOTUS.
And despite the fact that Ruth Bader Ginsberg and, separately, Richard Posner pointed out the obvious fact that these TRAP regulations are more about restricting access to abortion than women's' health, interviewer David Greene feebly allowed the Susan B. Anthony List spox to repeat her message that the regulations were really, honestly, about women's health.
posted by Gelatin at 6:21 AM on June 28, 2016 [6 favorites]
And despite the fact that Ruth Bader Ginsberg and, separately, Richard Posner pointed out the obvious fact that these TRAP regulations are more about restricting access to abortion than women's' health, interviewer David Greene feebly allowed the Susan B. Anthony List spox to repeat her message that the regulations were really, honestly, about women's health.
posted by Gelatin at 6:21 AM on June 28, 2016 [6 favorites]
More good news!
Molly Beck: U.S. Supreme Court rejects Wisconsin's appeal of abortion restrictions ruling
Molly Beck: U.S. Supreme Court rejects Wisconsin's appeal of abortion restrictions ruling
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected an appeal from Wisconsin of a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the state's law placing restrictions on abortion providers.posted by zombieflanders at 7:46 AM on June 28, 2016 [9 favorites]
The justices' decision to refuse to hear appeals from Wisconsin and Mississippi comes a day after the nation's highest court struck down a Texas law with similar restrictions, requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges.
Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel in a statement said the decision was "not surprising" given the court's Monday ruling on the Texas law. Schimel said the earlier ruling from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals striking down Wisconsin's restrictions stands.
It has been so long since there was even the slightest glimmer of good news on the reproductive freedom front that it feels really amazing to have anything at all to celebrate.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:43 AM on June 28, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:43 AM on June 28, 2016 [16 favorites]
Why Kennedy Chose Abortion Rights If Kennedy thought liberals were being untrue to Casey during its first decade, it was now being undermined by conservatives. Republican legislators were in fact using Casey to eliminate the rights Casey sought to protect, and it’s not surprising that Kennedy refused to go along.
Plenty of objections can be launched at Casey from both the left and right, and rightfully so. But it’s clear that Kennedy takes the compromises in this decision very seriously. It’s not surprising that state legislatures took his previous opinion as a green light to attack abortion rights, but it’s also not surprising that the pendulum is now swinging back.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:25 AM on June 28, 2016 [4 favorites]
Plenty of objections can be launched at Casey from both the left and right, and rightfully so. But it’s clear that Kennedy takes the compromises in this decision very seriously. It’s not surprising that state legislatures took his previous opinion as a green light to attack abortion rights, but it’s also not surprising that the pendulum is now swinging back.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:25 AM on June 28, 2016 [4 favorites]
And the hits keep coming: BREAKING: U.S. Supreme Court refuses to allow implementation of Mississippi law that could lead to closure of state's only abortion clinic
posted by zombieflanders at 9:36 AM on June 28, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 9:36 AM on June 28, 2016 [17 favorites]
The Atlantic has been doing some great work on reproductive justice recently. Here is a thread of women telling their stories about abortions and miscarriages. The takeaway: people are different, their circumstances are different, and women should be able to make these decisions for themselves.
posted by suelac at 9:37 AM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by suelac at 9:37 AM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
Two Ohio female legislators have introduced a bill to eliminate the transfer agreement requirement (which has repeatedly been a source of contention for Cincinnati's last abortion clinic, which cannot get transfer agreements with public hospitals, and surprise-surprise -- the remaining hospitals are all religiously-affiliated).
posted by mostly vowels at 6:45 PM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by mostly vowels at 6:45 PM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
Kylee Wierks: Planned Parenthood CEO says court’s decision to block abortion law is like ‘Independence Day’ for women
posted by zombieflanders at 4:53 PM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zombieflanders at 4:53 PM on June 30, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm also happy because, as a person who is pregnant by choice, I cannot fathom forcing another human being to go through this against their will.
Parenting is like this, too. It's relentless, difficult, and not as much in your control as you imagine going into it for the first time. Even if you wanted it and love it. I've often thought about this since we had our first baby 15 years ago. My mother didn't want children (my brother and I were both born pre-Roe v. Wade after birth control failures), and I hold her accountable for her failures as a parent even as I have come to sympathize with her. The hard parts of parenting are more than offset by the joys and satisfactions of it—but if you don't experience joy and satisfaction in parenting?
I think, also, that it is a hell of burden to be an unwanted child, even in a family like the one I grew up in, which was stable and well-resourced.
Heading back up to read the rest of the thread now.
posted by not that girl at 1:27 PM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Parenting is like this, too. It's relentless, difficult, and not as much in your control as you imagine going into it for the first time. Even if you wanted it and love it. I've often thought about this since we had our first baby 15 years ago. My mother didn't want children (my brother and I were both born pre-Roe v. Wade after birth control failures), and I hold her accountable for her failures as a parent even as I have come to sympathize with her. The hard parts of parenting are more than offset by the joys and satisfactions of it—but if you don't experience joy and satisfaction in parenting?
I think, also, that it is a hell of burden to be an unwanted child, even in a family like the one I grew up in, which was stable and well-resourced.
Heading back up to read the rest of the thread now.
posted by not that girl at 1:27 PM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Merritt Kennedy: New Abortion Rules Blocked In Florida, Indiana Hours Before Taking Effect
In Florida, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle issued a stay on portions of an abortion law late Thursday. As NPR's Greg Allen tells our Newscast unit, the law would have prevented Planned Parenthood and other clinics that perform abortions from receiving any public money, even for routine health screenings. Greg explains:posted by zombieflanders at 6:18 AM on July 2, 2016 [2 favorites]"One provision would have banned any state money from going to clinics that perform abortions, even if it's for nonabortion care — things like HIV tests and cancer screening. Hinkle said that's aimed at discouraging clinics from performing abortions, which the Supreme Court has ruled is unconstitutional."The court also blocked a provision that would have required state employees in Florida to inspect the medical records of 50 percent of clinic patients. Planned Parenthood argued that the extensive inspection was a burden to clinics and a privacy violation. Hinkle agreed.
As Hinkle writes in the preliminary injunction, "No court has embraced the defendants' position. And there is no logic to it. That a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion does not mean a legislature can impose otherwise-unconstitutional conditions on public funding."
Hinkle "left in place a part of the law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital because Planned Parenthood didn't challenge it," as Greg reports. That restriction is similar to portions of the Texas law that the Supreme Court struck down this week.
The Real Cost of That Planned Parenthood Investigation: Today in money pits.
posted by homunculus at 10:43 AM on July 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 10:43 AM on July 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
« Older Is Polite Philosophical Discussion Possible? | The Full English Brexit Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Etrigan at 7:59 AM on June 27, 2016 [40 favorites]