By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

It is pretty clear what needs to be done if Democrats keep the Senate or regain it in the near-future: 

  1. Abolish the filibuster 

  2. Challenge the powers the Supreme Court took upon itself in Marbury vs. Madison, after passing a series of laws protecting the rights of Americans. 

Both of these institutions benefit the right-wing in the long term and are the major oligarchic institutions of the American political system. 



Around the Network
Pemalite said:

Put yourself in their shoes... Let's say -you- got raped and fell pregnant... And this is the current development stage of your embryo:



You are basically saying you forgo your right to ownership over your own body and will give it to this collection of cells that hasn't fully formed.

Doesn't mean they get rights over someone elses body.

And what happens when they are born and not wanted?

I find it really really baffling that pro-life advocates are happy to protect, protest and support an unborn fetus... But that is where the support stops.
Because once that fetus is born, they don't care if it ends up in jail, homeless, dead, abused or whatever else.

A child is a lifelong commitment... So if you are against abortion, I hope you are setting aside a % of your wage to support unwanted homeless kids.

And at the end of the day... And with all due respect, you are a male. You do -not- get the right to dictate what women should and must do with their bodies... No man should.

This pretty much sums up the attitude of pro-life activists in the United States

“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.”

- Pastor David Barnhart



SanAndreasX said:
Machiavellian said:

Yes but they do not need to come out to the polls for any decision going to the SC.  Those Justice are not going anywhere for a while so they may feel content that they finally have a majority that cannot be voted out.

They will still come in droves to the polls. Republicans generally do better in midterms anyway, and the right has spent the year ginning up anti-LGBT sentiment 

That is exactly what I want to see.  Conservatives have been pushing this narrative for overturning Roe vs Wade for a long time but now that they have gotten their candy, trying to drum them up is going to be a little more difficult.  While on the other hand does this push America as a whole towards the Dem platform for religions freedom as more people may feel Christianity and religion in general is threatening their freedoms.  In the next couple elections we will see how this all plays out.  While I believe both parties believe they know what motivates the electorate at least their base, its those independents who can switch sides in a moment is where the real battle is going to be determined.



The biggest issue with the overturn of abortion is that it's only going to affect the poor. The company I work for medical plan actually support abortion and it also support travel to get an abortion. So basically, where this will really impact the US is people who already cannot afford to have a baby and cannot get the funds to get an abortion, will have to have that child. When you really look at it, it's probably going to affect children more than adults with jobs, like teens of very poor parents. The results is that we go back before Roe vs Wade where illegal abortions will happen again and its going to be a lucrative business in red states.

So to counter the travel situation, red states are looking to add that anyone can sue a woman or business that perform the abortion but how much weight is that going to carry against an organization that is outside of the state and probably already does not do business there.

The funny part is that red states talk about they will give more support for these mothers to have these children once Roe vs Wade is overturned but nothing was stopping them from doing that at during Roe vs Wade. Meaning they never cared once the child is born, the monetary position it placed on the woman or family or what it takes once that child comes into the world because if they really cared, they would already have these support in place and I really doubt they will actually do anything because it was more for political posturing then actually caring.



Machiavellian said:

The biggest issue with the overturn of abortion is that it's only going to affect the poor. 

It will disproportionately affect the poor, but not only affect them. Doctors are going to be much slower in addressing critical health-conditions for pregnant women, such as hemorrhaging, because of the new law -- increasing death-rates of pregnant women -- regardless of their income-level. Compare that to the state of California which halved its maternal death-rate by enforcing a state-wide recipe/algorithm for when to address hemorrhaging. That is just one example of an unintended consequence. Plus few women want to tell their employers they're getting an abortion, even if the corporate policy is pro-choice. 



Around the Network
sc94597 said:
Machiavellian said:

The biggest issue with the overturn of abortion is that it's only going to affect the poor. 

It will disproportionately affect the poor, but not only affect them. Doctors are going to be much slower in addressing critical health-conditions for pregnant women, such as hemorrhaging, because of the new law -- increasing death-rates of pregnant women -- regardless of their income-level. Compare that to the state of California which halved its maternal death-rate by enforcing a state-wide recipe/algorithm for when to address hemorrhaging. That is just one example of an unintended consequence. Plus few women want to tell their employers they're getting an abortion, even if the corporate policy is pro-choice. 

You do not have to tell your employer you are pregnant, that is an insurance claim, but I do understand where you are going with the rest of what you state.  Not sure how long it will take to see the impact of this decision.



The Est Democrats have played their role in the eventual Roe v Wade being overturned through decades of refusal to codify into law this bill when they had the chance 



Rab said:

The Est Democrats have played their role in the eventual Roe v Wade being overturned through decades of refusal to codify into law this bill when they had the chance 

I don't know much about pre-2000 politics, but there really has not been a good opportunity to codify Roe since at least 2000. The "best" opportunity was the Obama supermajority which was very short lived. During this time, the administration made Obamacare it's focus, however this gave us a solid glimpse into what the landscape regarding Abortion looked like in the Democratic party, when pro-life Dems forced compromises regarding abortion and were seemingly willing to torpedo any bill which didn't provide for state's rights regarding abortion.

That is to say, Democrats simply didn't have the votes. They don't have the votes now and they didn't have the votes then.



Rab said:

The Est Democrats have played their role in the eventual Roe v Wade being overturned through decades of refusal to codify into law this bill when they had the chance 

All that would have honestly done is speed this outcome up. Instead of having a "right to privacy" defined by case law that stood as long as judges were willing to respect precedent and standing, anti-abortion activists would have had a clear legislative target to be ripped to shreds by a right-leaning Supreme Court.



The irony with Roe v Wade being overturned is that the outrage against the Reps is real, this may actually lead to a somewhat favourable outcome for the Dems midterm