Below is what Steve wrote on his blog (“Uncommon Sense”) related to the recent Supreme Court decision on abortion. I’m sharing it because I admire his rather cool, calm, and collected approach to the action. Although I also have much to say about this INSANE decision, I’m going to let him speak for me until I cool down.
The GOP advanced their Freedom Agenda today, when their hand-picked Supreme Court Justices overturned Roe v. Wade which established abortion as a valid option for pregnant women everywhere in the country.
By voiding Roe, the GOP’s minions have established their small government, freedom loving vision upon the country. The government is expected to stay out of the private lives of citizens . . . , uh, well, except when a woman gets pregnant and the state steps in and exercises control over that woman’s uterus.
No other organ is thus “protected” by the state. The state (federal or local) cannot require you to accept an organ transplant, nor require you to donate any of your organs to another (even blood). The state cannot require you to protect your heart and lungs by not smoking. But uteruses, well, they’re special, you see.
And while the SCOTUS justices may have been correct that the constitution right to privacy may not be the shield Roe needed, there is this small matter of . . . the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which provides that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” So women are secure in their persons, except when the anti-abortion states step in and exercise control over their uteruses. And determining that a woman is pregnant, how is that not an illegal search? How does that make any sense at all? And what about “equal protection” of the law? The Fourteenth Amendment states that “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” but that apparently doesn’t apply to the United States collectively. So, in the United States, a women will get an abortion in one state and be arrested and tried for murder, but another woman, just on the other side of the state line, will get an abortion, paid for by her insurance company. This will happen because the U.S. itself doesn’t provide equal protection under the law.
Clearly the current crop of SCOTUS ne’er-do-wells were just looking for legal-schmegal language cover for what they wanted to do for their religiously inspired agendas.
The Republicans orchestrated this. The only solution is to vote them out, vote them all out.
LET ME REPEAT: The Republicans orchestrated this. The only solution is to vote them out, vote them all out.
*************************************
Image by Engin Akyurt from Pixabay
Nan's Notebook 
Hello Nan. If you look at the ruling one of the things cited is that this is not a long held right in the country. it did not exist until about 50 years ago so it shouldn’t matter, right? But what about the Heller case that in 2008 established the right of individual gun ownership? That was when Scalia just created a right out of nothing overturning a couple hundred years of precedent. But by using that reasoning the SCOTUS just put everything they / the religions they represent don’t want on the chopping block. What more do they need, it was not really a right because it was only there for … 10 years, 50 years, 100 years …? we all know where this goes next, Thomas said it. Wink wink, no one need look at those new rights like birth control, having a blowjob or same gender sex, and that stupid same sex marriage thing, wink wink! I have to go I am so angry and getting worse, the more i hear about the language of the ruling, it makes it clear that this was a totally religiously feelings driven ruling with no legal basis to hang it on. Best wishes. Hugs
LikeLiked by 7 people
It’s my understanding that abortion was not always illegal before Roe. It was made generally illegal around the 1920s when the American Medical Association — reportedly — drummed midwives out of business to require a Dr. for reproductive care. Even evangelical religion was not entirely opposed, Billy Graham, for instance. I’m getting this from: https://youtu.be/25JyC5Whhvc
LikeLiked by 5 people
You’re quite right. Most religions didn’t have much to say about abortion at all. A lot of them actually supported it, at least in a limited way. From Politico (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133/) – “In 1971, delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis, Missouri, passed a resolution encouraging “Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.”
If you go out and do some research you’ll find that most religious had no strict prohibition against abortion. A lot of them originally felt that “life” didn’t begin until the fetus was able to survive outside of the woman’s body. Even the catholic church had some odd ideas. it seems to have always been against abortion, but at the same time back in the middle of the 20th century it also had odd restrictions where it refused to give a christian burial or sacraments for miscarriages. Rather odd, I thought, if they believed life actually began at conception.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Thank you for the follow up info & insights.
The big religious anti-abortion political weapon was wielded by Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority that knocked Jimmy Carter out for Reagan. Carter, an evangelist (in practice, but not a member of the political voting block with the capital E), believed too much in democracy for the power-maddened religious Right. History lesson for the younger among us. Power comes in many masks.
Now an atheist, I was at the time … 1980 … a fundamentalist evangelical Democrat. When asked during a Bible study by one of my radical friends what if an aborted fetus showed up at my door asking for an explanation, I said I’d get my head examined. We all laughed. We loved each other. We strongly disagreed on some things (like the screwy belief in the inerrancy of the KING JAMES bible), but not to the death of our unity as “the body of Christ.”. It was a faith in love above the love of a Faith. Nowadays in that church I guess I’d be kicked off the church board and out of teaching adult Sunday School for supporting freedom of abortion as much as freedom of religion.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I just left the DCCC Facebook page where I left them a short message. More than “Fuck You”, but not by much.
I pointed out that they were already using this crisis to solicit funds to protect their seats. (Asses.) They are just as bad as Republicans if all they can manage is to stay in office.
I heard a woman from Virginia being interviewed by one of the networks. She said, “This is not politics. This is religion.” And she is right. Step by step, the Christian Nationalists Republicans are deconstructing our constitution and replacing it with Christian dogma. We feared the worst, and it is coming. This is the one hurdle they needed to clear to turn us into a theocracy. Women’s rights are right up there with the rights of People Of Color as the main agenda for the GOP and the Church; Not their preservation but their destruction.
It isn’t over yet, but if we do not prevail in the upcoming election, it will be. I have LGBRQ+ and POC sharing my bloodline. Whether we can recognize it or not, this is a serious blow to all our freedoms, and the Christians, slave owners, and Republicans will build on this decision. Those people testifying before the 1/6 Committee can not be treated as some kind of hero. It is because we have such people in our society that we have come to this point.
We the people are on our own. The DNC smothers the efforts of progressive Legislators and sees to it that political contributions go to the candidates they support without regard to ‘the voice of the people.’
There is no God coming to our rescue. We see plainly what God is about. Our elected representatives seem to be, like God, either unable or unwilling to bring justice to the people.
LikeLiked by 6 people
So this is what ‘the good ‘ol days’ is like. Haven’t we already been here, done this?
LikeLiked by 10 people
Yep. Women are again wards of the state. Vice squads will soon be reinstituted, no doubt. Our gay and lesbian, black and brown, family and friends, are now under the gavel of injustice again. How long did it take Russia to shut down the internet? Our politicians have made frequent trips, along with Christian leaders, to Russia, Turkey, and Hungary, bringing their playbooks up to date with other authoritarians.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Any authoritarianism is anti-liberal so I don’t pretend this is only a problem of the right, although to be clear I think the Republican party as a whole is clearly an existential threat to US democracy. Anything, any framing, from any political position that promotes us-v-them group-based identities I think takes away from the core spirit of e pluribus unum and is therefore deeply anti-American regardless of the supposed virtue and compassion these notions use as justification for their anti-liberal stances.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Too real to deny, but most people do.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I have commented before that I think the GOP should be rebuilt if we can defeat it in the next election. What I have seen recently from the full spectrum of politics, I have changed my mind. I still have the same reasons for the need for multiple political parties, but I have serious reasons for thinking there should be a socially progressive party, such as the constitution calls for. I’m no longer sure that the Democratic party can survive. They are not a progressive party.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Not to plug my blog, but you’ll find interesting what George Washington wrote about the evils of political parties, in his farewell letter to the nation: https://thebalsamean.wordpress.com/2021/07/02/george-the-prophet/ … the way he puts it, parties are the worst thing we could do short of monarchy. He warned of things that could have been torn from the news today. In part of it, you could imagine him reflecting on a nightmare he had about Trump. He may not have been woke to women’s rights, but he knew political suicide when he foresaw it.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell are all in the target hairs of these ISIS lunatics.
Contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.
Not a good look, America. Not a good look at all.
LikeLiked by 6 people
So how do you undo this? First, you need a majority in both Houses, but in the Senate you need a majority of over 60 senators in order to defeat the filibuster. To do this you need to get out every voter in America, not just the Dems and Indies, but the Repugs too. And the Dems and Indies have to show the Repug voters how little power they really have, which is none! They will have their pockets, yes. but they do not have the acceptance of the People of America! Missouri is the Show Me state. So show them, and show Americans everywhere, you do not want the good old days that never were anyway. Show them the future belongs to future thinkers!
LikeLiked by 6 people
A sad and perhaps twisted thought: could SCOTUS have just done more for getting out the Liberal vote in 22 & 24 than anything else can? I can see plenty of people happily going to the polls as single-issue voters on abortion, including ones who never voted before. Honestly, I saw no hope for the Dems in 22 or 24, but now I’m not so hopeless, but sad about why.
LikeLiked by 4 people
We are hoping. But no matter how you get people to get out and vote, and I have been saying for over a month to make abortion and gun violence the two main issues in this election, the more people who vote the more the electees will have to listen to the people, as they should have been doing all along.
THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION EVER HELD IN THE HISTORY OF THE USA. Make sure you not only do not lose it, but that you destroy the Republican Party in winning it.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Yup. And yet here I thought 2016 was the most important election in history. They just keep getting more historical, and the impacts more devastating. Trump and McConnell proudly killed Roe.
This election is the most important now, because it may be our last chance to stop the advance of autocracy. After this, reversing the race to autocracy probably won’t happen without violence, because it will be defending against violent overthrow as the final blow to democracy as we know it (i.e., anocracy). Ask the Capitol Police.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I wasn’t thinking of the possibility of violence, I was just thinking that if the people don’t get out and vote in huge numbers, they would turn into real sheeple, and go quietly into democratic oblivion. Violence is the realm of the MAGAts. I do not see the majority of Americans resorting to it. I could be wrong!
LikeLiked by 5 people
You don’t see it? Maybe you missed it first time around…
LikeLiked by 2 people
Not the kind of violence The Balsamean was discussing, I don’t think. But I guess you missed the news programs where Trump admitted to sending counter-protestors to start fires, break windows, and create violence in Seattle. He wanted to be able to send in the National Guard, but then backed off on that. I am not saying the protests were all peaceful, but most of the real protestors were. Whether the inciters and rabblerousers were sent in or not, most of the BLM protests were peaceful. Trump is not innocent. We already know that from the Jan. 6th Hearings. The Seattle protest was just a test run. There were probably others.
LikeLiked by 3 people
@rawgod I meant democracy might have to defend against violent overthrow by MAGATs. (That’s my MAGATrumpoids acronym.) I wish they were reading these posts and discussions.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Talking to them does not help them. They do not think with their hearts. If they resort to violence, some people will probably defend themselves. Hopefully, living in Canada, it will not come to violence where I live (despite how close we are told it came during the Trucker’s Border Stand!) I am sworn to non-violence.
I have conversations with MAGAts all the time. They truly believe they can convince me, and others through me, they are Pro-Life among other things, and they abruptly end the conversations when I tell them how Anti-Life they really are. Violence is their stock-in-trade. Words are mine.
LikeLiked by 5 people
@rawgod: “Talking to them does not help them.” Yeah, sad but true. Reasoning, by heart or head, is not big these days. I have a loose theory that Trumpoidism and the like could be a genetic psychiatric epidemic caused by chemicals in the food chain and air since the 1940s. (Silly? Maybe. But at least not Q Anonical!) But heartless and irrational authoritarianism has always been popular among humans, too. Democracy is intended to change that, and is fragile and limited. Sigh.
LikeLiked by 4 people
“Hopefully, living in Canada,…” Like Ukraine, is Canada even a country? Kidding. I love both Ukraine and Canada. Since the French & Indian war, the US tried to take Canada 2 or 3 times, I think. Bad idea.
LikeLiked by 2 people
We call it the War of 1812. It is a much less controversial name, with no colonial insinuations. Not that that was ever considered at the time, it just worked out that way.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Don’t get me started on the revisionism and inadequacy in history education, War of 1812 being a great example.
LikeLiked by 1 person
War of 1812 IS NOT a revision. The US does not get to name it. Canada more or less won the war, having turned back the American invasion. In Canada, it has aleays been called the War of 1812. The disgusting American name for it is just deflecting the fact you attacked us! And lost!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ll catch you elsewhere on this. We’re not in disagreement on the topic, just crossed wires.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The French & Indian War I had in mind was before the American Revolution, where George Washington cut his teeth, I hear.
LikeLiked by 1 person
PLEASE don’t deviate from the post topic. I’m a bit of a stickler on this …
LikeLiked by 1 person
As you should be. I apologize.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Then Americans have a totally different take on things. When was it fought, and where? Anything before the Revolutionary War was not a war, but a slaughter!
LikeLiked by 1 person
There’s hope that Americans decide to punish Republicans for what they’ve done, but I seriously doubt that the average American cares enough about that when inflation and gas prices are both high. Sadly, the future I see is one where the average voter is simply too apathetic towards the creeping fascism and authoritarianism that is coming from exactly one party in the US.
I hope that I’m wrong, but then I remember that almost 47% of American voters wanted the former President again in the last election, even after all the bullshit. That’s the sad state of affairs that has to be reckoned with, and it’s hard to be optimistic. As somebody who lives within a few hours of the US border, I’m terrified of what would spill over in my country.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Great points, HN (and I’m sure you’re thrilled that I think so!). Yes, inflation and gas prices, the Economy, is always the “fault” of the current president. Money still talks. The anti-incumbent mid-term vote may be hotter than usual this year. Maybe the anti-SCOTUS vote will help counteract it.
Voters aren’t known for being broadly rational, like those who voted for both Obama and Trump. Or for being informed, like those who the Republican Party mastered over a period of many years on the strength of trumped-up hot-button issues like guns, abortion and religion (i.e., The Ignorant Vote) before Trump rode in on its tsunami wave.
No matter how we slice it, the electorate still reflects the culture, split roughly in half, outcomes swinging wildly by narrow margins. And I suspect that’s the way those in power at the top want it to be, when I let my misanthropic, suspicious, skeptical pessimism shine best. My optimism thinks that my pessimism is realism. Oy. Please laugh.
LikeLiked by 5 people
We see with the recent spat of SCOTUS rulings why Republicans gaining so much institutional power matters to all of us. How can we stop this creep? First, by understanding the problem… namely, understanding how Republicans gain electoral success. It ain’t by their policies! So how?
Harald says, “… the creeping fascism and authoritarianism that is coming from exactly one party in the US.”
Right there nicely spelled out is the central reason why Republicans will find great electoral success in the fall and Democrats can kiss their political power in the House goodbye: because the vast majority of Democrats and centrist voters are the ones who continue to fuel the Republicans’ rise to power by assuming what ‘progressive’ Democrats are doing is NOT fascist and authoritarian when it is even more so. People see what happens when leftists criticize this very thing: they are cast into being labeled as extreme right wing supporters, ‘phobes, bigots, and haters while everyone goes along with the character assassination and then pretends this struggle session purging isn’t happening. That’s how a party of the left drives so many natural public allies on these bigger issues into the waiting arms of the accepting right.
Until the Democrats specifically clean house of the ‘progressives’ and disavow their ideological extremism and intolerance from representing the mainstream left, Republicans will continue to make hay on this. Without that fuel so many Democrats faithfully provide, Republicans basically got nuthin’. That’s how the Republicans will win. And win. And win.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ah here comes the shifting of the blame. The problem isn’t the people who want to burn the country to the ground and who actively work to instill fascism, authoritarian court that override decades of precedent, give preference to Christianity. You made me do this” is the often hear cry of the wife beater, looking to excuse their sociopathic behavior.
To even pretend that somehow what the “progressive” portion of the Democrat party are doing is even remotely comparable to what the Republicans are doing is delusional at best. There’s really no equivalence.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Like you, I see the Republican party as the greatest threat to US democracy. And they are dismantling government and handing power back to the states. So this is the threat.
They do this by gaining electoral success – skewed as it is by many of the states to make this as easy as possible. All of this deserves criticism and countermeasures.
My position is that even with the skewing, even with the obvious threat, even with the majority of citizens against these measures, the still win elections BECAUSE just enough voters from the vast center of the spectrum switch. It’s not that many: about 2% of voters. My point is that THESE voters do so because even the odious Republicans are considered a better alternative than the Democrats. Sway them back to the Democrat side as a better alternative and voters can stop the Republican destruction of the liberal democratic nation.
What has swayed THESE voters is the ‘progressive’ policies that THEY see as even more fascist and authoritarian than what the Republic party endorses. And they have a legitimate case. That’s the problem. That’s why I say the solution rests with this ammunition the Democrats hand over free of charge to the Republicans and the central plank Republicans (and the fossil fuel industry, let’s not forget) then use to gain electoral success. Stop feeding them this fuel, this ammunition, these anti-liberal policies and practices widely endorsed by Democratic authorities to gain some extremist ‘progressive’ votes, and I think the majority of these elections will go to the Democrats. Supporting these woke policies and practices by the rank and file Democrats in positions of authority (just following orders, donchaknow) will ensure repeated Republican victories.
So it’s the response to the victories I am attacking with the necessary tactic for democratic preservation: Democrats need to stop supporting ‘progressive’ extremists in all institutions (especially media) if they ever wish to regain political power before the nation is restored to pre civil war politics and state rule, which is the common theme upheld by every SCOTUS decision since the 3 Republican appointed justices took the bench.
LikeLike
I’m at a loss to know what to say. The sheep who are celebrating this now, ought to remember the GOP wolves do not care what they think. Republicans won’t be happy until cis, heterosexual white men are the only ones to have any power.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Ben – You mean they don’t already?
LikeLiked by 5 people
Men get bonus power proportional to their body size. See, size really does matter! White men get bonus points for having invented guns before the other colors of people did.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I think it may have been the Chinese… some kind of firing stick, anyway…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just read this comment by CA Governor Gavin Newsom … and I say AWOMEN!
“Never would this happen if men were the ones having babies – ever – and you know that, and I know that. Every damn person knows that. And that’s the elephant in the room,” Newsom said. “Because women are treated as second-class citizens in this country. Women are treated as less than. Women are not as free as men. That’s pretty damn sick.”
LikeLiked by 6 people
No, silly. It’s spelled, “AwoMEN” in this country.
Yes, indeedy. The main reason they won’t outlaw contraception is that it would mean men can’t get vasectomies.
On behalf of my bearded brethren, I apologize for demoting women farther down the chain. Start tallying up the reparations! I mean it. Somebody should start keeping a record of all the actual harm done and dollar costs to individual women and their families. There are orgs that can do that. Planned Parenthood?
To all the women and families who will suffer and lose in so many ways, I extend a literally tearful, deeply heart-breaking sympathy with shame and sorrow for my country’s offenses. Don’t give up. We’ll get your rights back.
I am sorry.
LikeLiked by 4 people
I feel totally at a loss, numb and just amazed at how corrupt, hypocritical and greedy people are. I simply don’t know how to undo all this and what is yet to come. This has been in the works for awhile. Maybe we, as a country, have to hit rock bottom, before there is any turnaround and I doubt it will be in my lifetime.
And while they’re undoing these rights, they are adding more and more guns, less concern for the environment and climate change, food safety and the list goes on. Maybe Mother Nature will take care of the whole mess on her own.
LikeLiked by 7 people
On hitting rock bottom … my grandfather used to say that when there are enough poor people, there will be a revolution.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Biden’s speech was good. No gaffs, no slurred words, good content. But I wonder about something. Any lawyers in the house? He reassures women that they can cross state lines to exercise their reproductive and privacy rights where they are not oppressed (my wording, since I don’t see anybody having the right to “allow” or “disallow” a fundamental human right; they either oppress/deny or don’t … one has a right whether someone oppresses it or not, e.g.: women always had the right to vote, we just didn’t let them exercise it … men didn’t GIVE THEM the right to vote … they stopped oppressing it … my nitpicking Constitutional construction).
Back to Uncle Joe. Under the new regime, would an abortion-criminalizing state be entirely unable to prosecute a resident who crosses the state line for an abortion? (Next it will be contraception, or equal rights for fetuses of all ages, represented by government-appointed law guardians.) I wonder, for example, if I beat my wife black and blue in NJ, then we go home to NY and she blows me in, couldn’t NY prosecute me? Happened in another state, but so what? It happened. Regardless of whether it was illegal in NJ, the question is whether NY has jurisdiction. When Mom comes home not pregnant, what does she do when the Preggo Police bang down the door on a no-knock yelling, “Where’s that baby! What did you do with that baby!”
This also brings to mind, how the heck do you actually bring a criminal case against a woman for suddenly becoming not pregnant? If you can’t prove she got an abortion but someone testifies that she did (think Texas bounties), and they have more money than her to fight it … ?
Will she have to prove it was an accidental miscarriage? If she does have a miscarriage, should she save the evidence and file it with the county clerk just in case she gets sued or prosecuted for killing a fetus?
I know, it sounds ridiculous, but, again, think Texas bounties out on abortionists. I don’t think they criminalize women in the Texas program, but some states are saying they will, or certainly could if the Christian Nationalists hold all three branches in a state.
Feel free to say I’m out on a limb. I feel like it, too. But what is a limb anymore these days?
LikeLiked by 4 people
PS: no wife to beat.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sorry for all the blather here. Yeah, I’m freaked out about SCOTUS, if you hadn’t noticed. I see the dominoes …
LikeLiked by 3 people
The United States is sliding into authoritarianism, and there’s exactly one party that’s responsible for that slide. Americans who still care need to fight like hell, lest the great experiment simply become another failed state. I understand being freaked out – it’s a very normal response to realizing that your country is being torn apart from the inside.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Thanks for the arm around my shoulder. Nice to be normal sometimes!
LikeLiked by 4 people
Trust me, Bal … you are NOT the only one “freaked out”!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Everyone focuses on the republicans, and your ire should indeed be directed towards them. But don’t forget that the democrats and those who firmly believe in a woman’s right to control her own body, are also at fault here. Why? Because we always knew Roe V Wade was built upon a house of cards. It was an opinion given by a bunch of judges, not actual law, and as such it could be overturned at any time. Yes, SCOTUS has been reluctant to overturn previous rulings, but it has done it in the past. We all know that the court’s decisions can be manipulated.
So why didn’t the dems and women’s rights movement actually do something about it during the last 50 years? There were times when the dems held both houses of congress and the presidency during which they could have tried to pass legislation to make the rights of women enshrined in law, and not dependent on nothing but a legal opinion. They didn’t. I may be wrong but I can’t even remember a time when they even tried to do so.
Now I admit I am a cynical old man but I think the reason they didn’t is because the dems and liberals liked it that way, they liked Roe v Wade being fragile because they were playing political games just as the republicans were. They could use the fragility of Roe v Wade for their own benefit to try to get the more centrist and liberal people out there to vote them into office in order to protect RvW. “Elect us or the conservatives will pack the court and overturn it!”
LikeLiked by 3 people
“There were times when the [Dems] held both houses of congress and the presidency during which they could have tried to pass legislation to make the rights of women enshrined in law, and not dependent on nothing but a legal opinion. They didn’t.”
Do you honestly believe that such a law would have survived this hyper partisan and political Supreme Court? I certainly don’t. I’m reasonably convinced that they would have found some flimsy excuse to strike down that law, just like they found a flimsy excuse to strike down Roe, and still sent the issue to the states to be decided. I also believe that they’re so hyper partisan that if a federal law banning abortion across America was passed that they’d allow it stand.
Make no mistake, the problem is that the courts have become corrupted and stacked with unqualified judges who give unreserved deference to Christian theocracy. The problem was created by the Republican party that wants to give rise to Christian nationalism and theocracy. Americans need to work hard to undo the horrific damage that has already been done (unfortunately that’s probably going to take decades, even in the best case scenario) and reverse the course that has been set, lest many other non-enumerated rights fall as well.
The courts need to be expanded to undo that stacking that they’ve already done. We need people to vote against this slide into authoritarianism. The Democratic party is the only bulwark that you’ve got against fascism.
LikeLiked by 4 people
“The Democratic party is the only bulwark that you’ve got against fascism.”
Or stated another way, the Democratic Party is the only viable democratic party.
I never registered in any party until 2016 because my state has a closed primary and it seemed more important than before to be in the primary. Now I think I should register Republican so I can vote in the primary against the most insane candidate on the ballot. (The primary system is screwy all over.)
LikeLiked by 5 people
HN: “The problem was created by the Republican party that wants to give rise to Christian nationalism and theocracy.”
I have tended to believe that they don’t even really care about religion, but say they do, just using it as a political tool, as they do with guns and abortion. Of course, there are real religionists among them, too. (Even atheism can have religiosity.)
I also wonder if an abortion-positive law could be thrown out by SCOTUS on some “constitutional” grounds, especially with the Thomas Doctrine saying 19th Century social norms (which includes religious belief whether he admits it or not) should have a fat finger on the scale of justice. But in my very limited Constitutional judicial scholarship, I believe somebody would have to invent a claim of Constitutional violation in the application of the law to get it to the SCOTUS bench. That could make it hard to abort the abortion law. It would also depend on whether Congress is smart and willing enough to write a strong law, not one easily liable to court challenge, like Obamacare.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Herald … you wrote: Americans need to work hard to undo the horrific damage that has already been done ,,,
I agree. However, I fear the modus operandi is to let someone else do it. As I’ve stated elsewhere, the average voter simply has too many other things going on in their lives. Certainly they (Democrats) may not like what’s happening, but few have the time or energy (or interest) to actively pursue change.
That’s one thing about tRump that can’t be denied … he pushed and pushed and pushed until even the sleepy Repukes woke up and began adding their voices to his lies.
I genuinely fear the future is not going to turn out as many of us would prefer.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The question that should be ask of anyone who feels they do not have the time or energy to pursue change: If you can’t find the time to protect your own country from fascism and authoritarianism, what are you actually prepared to fight for? At what point are your rights sufficiently under threat that you’ll do something?
How does that poem end?”Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.” Seems quite applicable here.
LikeLiked by 3 people
From the broad perspective, of course I agree with you. However, I’m talking about the individuals who make up the voting public. There are just too many of them (and the voting statistics prove this) that simply don’t vote. My contention is that one of the reasons behind this is “life” takes precedence. The other (probably even more relevant) reason is because (too) many think their vote doesn’t count.
So then the question becomes … how to WE get these non-voters to the polls?
LikeLiked by 2 people
20 point drop for Biden by black and latino voters.
LikeLike
This drop is reflected when voters DO come out. Careful what you wish for!
LikeLike
Herald: “If you can’t find the time to protect your own country from fascism and authoritarianism, what are you actually prepared to fight for?”
I agree in principle, but I doubt more than a quarter of the population can define fascism and authoritarianism, or spell them. They can, however, vote the liberal party line if you get their butts to the polls.
We still have a majority of people who know (or can be easily shown, without having to overcome Right wing delusional belief systems; just work on the Left, independents, undeclared and non-voters) that Trump is a criminal and is still mob boss of his Party, that his presidency enabled the Roe reversal, that his party is protector of mass shooting as a deranged hobby, and that he is the leader of the 1/6 insurrection. If I were running for office, no matter what I actually stood for, I’d make them my loudest campaign rant topics. Maybe my only ones.
Seriously, folks, is voter turnout crucial to saving what shreds of democracy we have left? Should helping get that turnout be one of our personal top priorities from this day forth, among our families, friends, coworkers, and everywhere? We need to make super-keys to unlock the super-barriers. Is turnout a real key that we could/should all radically devote ourselves to promoting? Make it a core mission?
I vow to do that, to a radical extent. I have to do something big, or be damned by conscience.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Nan: “the average voter simply has too many other things going on in their lives.”
A good reason for the Autocracy Party to do everything it can to make voting less convenient. Decrease turnout, decrease Left power. The technology is available to do it securely, privately and as unhackable as can be: ONLINE VOTING OPTION. I understand the fears about hacking. BUT IT CAN BE DONE SECURELY. Call, write and scream at your representatives for online voting legislation. Maybe Manchin and Sinema could be convinced it will support their incumbency and let Harris break the tie and pass online voting legislation. I can dream, can’t I?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I always assumed Dems didn’t do something about codifying Roe for fear of conservative voter (of either party) reaction; i.e., defending their incumbency from serious challenge. For example, lots of Catholic Democrats out there, and Independent anti-abortion voters. Just an unsupported assumption/guess.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Hello grouchyfarmer. I don’t know about the other times the Democrats held control of the presidency and both the Senate and House, but during the Obama administration they simply did not have enough Democrats that were pro-choice. Believe it or not, and it is hard to understand, but there are elected Democrats that think forcing women to give birth against their will is OK. In fact Nancy Pelosi just championed and put the power of her office behind such a Democrat in Texas over a pro-choice progressive challenger, even though the pro-forced birth one she backed had his home raided by the FBI. Obama had campaigned on the idea of making Roe the law of the land, but he just did not have the votes to do it. As Herald Newman said, this court is pushing a religious right wing ideological goal and they would have struck down the laws that permitted abortion because the goal was to end a woman’s right over her body. Even Kavanaugh had to lie and say it was about a second life because he refused to accept the science of when consciousness and viability begins. And in truth that possible life seems far more important to those six SC justices than the living breathing alive woman who they see only as a second class incubator for a man’s offspring. Hugs
LikeLiked by 2 people
Looking at all the previous comments, I am going to state some opinions of my own:
1. The Republican Party, for the most part, does not give a shit about religion. But they do realize how much religion plays a part in how people vote. Also, they have no shame when it comes to using people. All the Republican Party really cares about is power! Though possibly some individuals do not. As a whole, the Party even caters to the wealthy by allowing them to run roughshod over the unwealthy. They cater to the NRA too. They will lie on their stomachs and grovel just to get the backing of large blocks of voters, and the money to out-campaign the DNC. Power is their only true concern, and now that they had a taste of true power through Trump they are completely addicted to it. Take it from a retired Addictions Counsellor. I know when someone has an addictions disease. And like any true addict, they have no idea of their addiction, and they will not even consider the possibility as long as the American publIc enable them. Stop enabling them!
2. The Democrats are not innocent, even as the Grumpy Old Man suggests. Not just women’s rights, but even the fights against racism, genderism, poverty, etc. The Democratic Party are appealing to those voting blocks, because in sheer numbers they think they have the majority. And they do, if ever they could get enough voters to the voting booths. But they have no idea how to do that. I THINK the Dems are not yet addicted to power like the Repugs, but they are getting there. While there are still a number of honest politicians out there, they are learning bad lessons from the GOP. Fake it till you make it! In a lot of ways they are faking their concern “for the everyday American.” Not just Women’s Rights but a lot of other rights and issues could have been codified many times over, but the political will from a united party IS NOT THERE! From an outside viewpoint, I believe Obama tried, but everything he tried was watered down by insincere politicians who are afraid to upset the Republican voters. They think they can still appeal to the humanity in Republican voters. By now they should have learned they can hardly appeal to anyone. They are dishonest, just not as openly as the Repugs have decided to be. Thus a lot of probable Dem voters don’t bother to vote.
3, But having said all that, this coming election it is important to get as many voters as possible to the polls. The American people NEED TO SPEAK! I do not know what they will say, but that chance has to be taken. If you can get a minimum 80% of the eligible voters in America to vote, there will be no room for equivocating. Forget surveys, and opinion polls. Get the word right from the voters’ mouths. Evolution? Or devolution? Progession? Or regression? People? Or greed? What say Americans? It is time for Americans to show their true colours!
Enough for now. I will add more later if requested.
LikeLiked by 5 people
WHAT HE SAID! As if every word came from my own little head. GREAT summary of the situation. (After all, it’s as if it came from me. LOL.) The solution is definitely voter turnout. When overall/total turnout is high, the Left wins. Heard that from various sources, Bernie Sanders being one of them. The US population is majority liberal (read that somewhere authoritative a long time ago), but apathetic. Turnout, turnout, turnout. In Australia, voting is mandatory.
LikeLiked by 2 people
If I lived in Australia, I would have permanent residence in prison. As long as democracy is conducted as it is today, i will never vote.
However, IF I were American, I would have to vote in 2022. But it would not be a vote for someone, it would be a vote against MAGAtism! And for me, voting against someone or something is just about the stupidest possible reason to vote — under normal circumstances…
LikeLike
If I lived in Australia, I would have permanent residence in prison.
Unlikely. The penalty for not voting is likely to be a small fine, rather than time in jail. And I think you can aviod even that, if you just show up and turn in a spoiled ballot.
LikeLiked by 1 person
When I first started voting, in the early 70s, I spoiled my balloys. Then they stopped counting them. I would refuse to psy a fine, no matter how small. I would demand jail time as a condition of my protest.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In Australia, they won’t count a spoiled ballot. But as long as you get your name checked off on the voter rolls, you won’t run into any problems due to that invalid vote.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And, yeah, more requested so I can swipe it.
LikeLike
Lol. Feel free to use it, but I will give it to you on your website. Nan doesn’t like me usurping her blog.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry, man, but I ended up getting so involved in other things I lost that train of thought, and it hasn’t come back to me yet.
LikeLike
@rawgod: “I lost that train of thought, and it hasn’t come back to me yet.”
Oh, no. This is a very bad sign. You may have too many trains! Electrify! Automate! Delegate! Vacate!
LikeLike
Vacate sounds good. Not the world, yet. Just my mind for now…
LikeLike
Hello Rawgod. Truth in what you say. On many issues the goal of the Democratic party was to use them to fundraise. In fact the minute the SCOTUS ruling was issued Pelosi’s office sent out a fundraising letter. Some have suggested that because both parties have many of the same corporate donors the Democrats are paid to lose to the Republicans so corporations can keep raiding the country and moving all the countries assets to their own pockets. Hugs
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wouldn’t put it past some of the people in Congress to be doing this, but I truly cannot see the whole Democratic Party being culpable. (That does not mean it cannot or is not happening, just that if they ever got caught collaborating, their membership would not be as forgiving as the Republican membership is with their representatives’ when they screw up. Screw-ups seem to be a Badge of Honour for them.) Politically speaking, they would be cutting their throats.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Rawgod. True the Democratic party punishes their law breakers; the Republican party elects theirs. Hugs
LikeLiked by 2 people
Excellent, Scottie!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
PLEASE NOTE: The following comment was written by J. Andrew Smith, but was included on the post related to Texas. He has given me permission to copy and repost it here … where it is much more relevant. 😊
LikeLiked by 3 people
Hello Nan. Wow I did not see that last paragraph coming. Hit like a ton of bricks. Like the comment, I cannot argue with the ending. Hugs
LikeLiked by 2 people
By codifying abortion as a legal concern rather than medical, as a ‘right’ rather than healthcare, the door is open to changing the law for concerns other than medical care. And that’s what’s happened (one reaps what one sows).
In Canada, abortion ‘rights’ is not a law but falls under medicine’s best practices for women’s reproductive healthcare. It’s a professional concern in medicine and so subject to professional, not political, oversight.
Going along with the assumption that morality and not medicine is the issue for medical and patient care concerns is setting one’s feet on the path of fighting a battle on the ground of the ‘enemy’s’ choosing, in this case the grounds chosen by the religious who presume all human concerns and activities are its purview. Under the banner of ‘morality’ for the ‘faithful’, nothing is exempt from this kind of religious interference and oversight. Grant an inch, they’l not stop at a mile.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tildeb’s comment is bang-on for me and reinforces one of the reasons I am glad to live in Canada. As our son said last night, perhaps now the laws will change in the States to reflect the medical urgency of the issue. Unfortunately, it will take a few high-profile stories before that happens, and women will pay the price. (Remember what happened in Ireland?)
LikeLiked by 1 person
and women will pay the price
Sums it all up in six words.
LikeLike
There was a good article in the Atlantic by Helen Lewis (How to win the abortion argument, which may be available to some readers) recounting how Ireland defeated the anti-choice legislation using exactly the powerful and tragic story of Savita Halappanavar you mention, Carmen. She died from sepsis when medical care was denied to her on the basis of this law that supposedly was ‘protecting’ the fetal heartbeat of a doomed fetus. Who cares about Mom? That medical practitioners could and did deny necessary medical aid to the mom doomed both to death. This story revealed the hypocrisy of the ‘moral’ argument and was key in swaying Catholic voters to defeat it.
A friend of mine actually flew back to Ireland specifically to cast her vote on this issue… the same legislation that had driven her from it’s shores 30 years earlier. Ireland’s loss of this young woman then was Canada’s gain now (a very successful business owner) and I hope the same benefit accrues to Canada from this latest US legal and immoral fiasco handed down from SCOTUS and imposed on people who can, when all else fails, vote with their feet.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I well remember the marches and furor created by that tragedy. It was that which rejected the Catholic stranglehold on the country. We shall see what transpires in the States . .. as I’ve said, you can be sure of one thing: women will pay the ultimate price. 😦
And there are the upcoming Midterms. . .
LikeLiked by 1 person
Women always do. And for such moral reasons…
LikeLike