-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
So basically any OB/GYN would either retire or leave the country cause their malpractice and other legal costs would be insane. Good luck not having maternal mortality skyrocket back to the Dark Ages at that point. Even wanted pregnancies could be too risky for many women.
Republicans really are stupid anti-science assholes, so I bet they'd be all for that endgame of a federal ban.
Republicans really are stupid anti-science assholes, so I bet they'd be all for that endgame of a federal ban.
You might not get that mass action in like Alabama but I think you will get it in the west coast states and some NE states, New York and NJ at least obviously. It would be an untenable conflict imho, going down in multiple states simultaneously. Just total chaos. And what happens when Newsom or Inslee comes out and says these arrests are not lawful? Cowing a congressperson and cowing a governor are not the same. I don't think I'm being excessively optimistic here. Just doesn't seem practical at all.
A GOP-controlled federal government can use the power of the purse and threaten to cut off federal funding to states for healthcare programs such as Medicaid. If the hypothetical ban passes as a federal law, it would be unlike the case of Trump wanting to punish sanctuary cities for immigration enforcement where courts would not side with Trump because no existing law was violated by cities. Courts would side with the federal government if the GOP wrote and passed a law against abortion and explicitly tied for example Medicaid funding to it.
To be clear I don't think this will happen and I'm hoping it won't but I'm outlining the worst case scenarios.
This is the shit that will hurt me for the rest of my life. I'm pretty sure that the Dems said to Bush that he had to nominate a Black justice to replace Marshall because they assumed at worst they would get a moderate conservative. They couldn't have possibly known that Thomas would get picked. Like, he shouldn't even logically exist.
I definitely wouldn't extrapolate Kavanaugh throwing cold water on the idea of a state trying to prevent people going to another state for the purpose of abortion to him not being totally okay with a Federal ban on it. They have clearly said the constitution says nothing about abortion, and as such abortion bans aren't unconstitutional.
He would absolutely support a Federal ban that was passed by congress and signed into law by the President.
And I definitely don't trust that to work the other way if Federal law mandates abortion be legal, even though this decision doesn't shut the door on that.
Kavanaugh also threw cold water on touching Roe, there is no reason to think they'll protect out of state abortion travel.
The problem with that line is that he says it's an implied right in a decision that throws away an implied right. There is nothing in the constitution that protects interstate travel. Actually, writing this post, I realize there is precedent with enforcing other state laws like with slavery. If a slave traveled to a free state, they were not suddenly free and would have to go to court and would be returned. Granted, that had legislation backing it, but the point is trust no promises from them because they can twist things however they want.
Don't forget he was Reagan's pick for the EEOC and he worked on Civil Rights before then. Just take a moment to think about how fucking useless and counterproductive he must have been in those positions.
They had to dig pretty deep. The big criticism of him before Anita Hill came forward was how unqualified he was.
Forgive me as a non US citizen but how does it legally stand that all these justices during their hearings said they wouldn't touch Roe and then went utterly back on that? were they not under oath? surely there's some recourse that can't be dismissed with 'oh we need a majority to remove them and Republican's won't' surely?
no other recourse, need to impeach to remove them, and yes , need a majority, like 2/3rds I think?
They did not say anything meaningful, just platitudes about how important precedent is and how they can't comment on any hypothetical cases that might come before the court.
OP
OP
California voters will decide in November whether the state Constitution should explicitly protect a person's right to an abortion, and Gov. Gavin Newsom announced new efforts to solidify "California's status as a reproductive safe haven for women."
On Monday, the Democratic-controlled Legislature gave final approval to the abortion measure, which puts the issue before the state's voters in the latest countermeasure aimed at the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
Just hours later, Newsom issued an executive order that said California will not share medical records with antiabortion states or extradite doctors who provide care to patients seeking the procedure here.
California constitutional amendment securing abortion, contraceptive rights goes to voters
State lawmakers approved a measure Monday that will ask California voters in November whether to enshrine abortion and contraceptives rights in the state Constitution.
www.latimes.com
Last edited:
What kind of over:under are we looking at for all this bullshit directly relating to the January 6th hearings?
AG Garland has already said that states cannot arrest people for going out of state to get an abortion, helping someone go out of state to get an abortion, and they cannot ban Federally approved abortion medication.
Kavanaugh rightly recognizes the issues that arise from a state trying to stop people travelling out of that state to another to do something legal in that other state. Nothing about that indicates he's against a Federal abortion ban.
Regarding the former, I just don't see how that would be possible. Would they apply it gambling as well?
This is the next legal battleground. Bloomberg law had a piece on this yesterday.
I wonder if they can somehow use the state legalization of marijuana while the fed gov bans it as a way to say "we can ban something the fed gov allows"
I don't think so.
What the Fed can prevent is *marijuana* crossing state lines. They have jurisdiction over interstate items like this and drugs being mailed via USPS.
Hilariously, it's illegal to transport marijuana from Oregon to Washington state, despite it being legal to purchase and consume it in both states. Not that I think anyone is being punished for doing that.
Now, conversely, it *might* be a basis for a state to *allow* something the Federal government limits, in the face of a future Federal abortion ban.
Nah. The whole "they lied under oath" thing is simply not true. They used weasel wording and vague platitudes that were not legally binding. They aren't that stupid.
Did Conservative Justices Lie About Roe v. Wade?
Left-wing critics caused "#LyingGOP" to trend on social media in May 2022. But did they miss something important?
www.snopes.com
Now the major pharmacy chains are starting to ration the morning after pill because they are afraid they will run out of supply from justifiably terrified women buying up stock.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...b-emergency-contraceptive-limits-cvs-riteaid/
How wonderful! /s
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...b-emergency-contraceptive-limits-cvs-riteaid/
How wonderful! /s
I don't think so because of how our legal system works. Plus they will want SCOTUS to rule on this hoping to inderectly undermine contraceptives (Plan B) as well.
But it's pretty crazy how HW also picked Souter who turned out to be a liberal-minded Justice.
Conservatives in any branch of government, lying their asses off? You don't say.Nah. The whole "they lied under oath" thing is simply not true. They used weasel wording and vague platitudes that were not legally binding. They aren't that stupid.
Did Conservative Justices Lie About Roe v. Wade?
Left-wing critics caused "#LyingGOP" to trend on social media in May 2022. But did they miss something important?
When Casey came down in ('92) 7/9 Justices were appointed by Republican Presidents. Since then the GOP refined their vetting methodology looking for true ideologues to avoid the Stevens or Souter appointments.
this cannot be overstated. The Federalist Society took those lessons and said, "this will never happen again".
Prospective justices since then get hit with purity tests before even being considered by them, and you don't get considered if the Federalist Society does not approve of you.
Souter was a bit of an unknown, but so was Thomas. So it's crazy how they ended up being at complete opposite ends of the spectrum.
It's disturbing to know Thomas has been around long enough to be in the minority from back when Casey was decided, all the way to today when he could vote the same way to overturn it with enough justices like him this time. Ugh.
Last edited:
Yep. Someone like O'Connor doesn't even make the shortlist today. Although to be fair to her she was a swing vote and would be appalled by many of the recent rulings and certainly the two most recent big decisions.
Surprised she is still alive. I thought she died peacefully after announcing she suffers from dementia back in 2018. I doubt she in a mental state to answer but her views on abortion and the separation between church and state are well documented.
A federal abortion ban is like the tip of the iceberg of what these fuckers will do if they get a trifecta again.
All of a sudden all the impossible things that couldn't be done in the Senate will happen with just 51 votes.
Yep, a scary thought, but all I can hope for at that point is liberal-minded people start taking voting more seriously. If Republicans start enacting horrible shit at the Federal level, then maybe Democrats (or any other political party) may gain more voters.
Exactly why all the calls to abolish the filibuster scare me, as much as I relate to the frustration behind such calls. There's a good chance that shoe is about to be on the other foot and we'll be glad we can at least slow their progress.
Why would it scare you? The GOP are aiming to abolish it whether or not the Dems do it first.
As the edit says, the GOP has a nonzero chance of having a slim majority soon and they don't have any Sinemas or Manchins in their ranks preventing them from using it to the fullest. It would also be a legislation land rush, the timing of which will likely benefit them more as the Senate favors GOP control due to how senators are elected.
Gotcha! I misread what you meant, friend.
It is definitely scary.
A lot of religious shit is about control and power over women and children.
Pentagon says Supreme Court's Roe ruling won't affect abortions on military facilities
The military will continue providing abortions in cases of rape or incest or when a mother’s life is at risk, a top Pentagon official said.
www.nbcnews.com
Quite the opposite. I think the reason we're headed for a flip is because for many, many years, the Democrats consistently underperformed with the power they had.
And hesitation over taking actions because of a belief the GOP will take advantage of the precedent we may establish is just... unconvincing.
We kind of just lived through this. When Scalia croaked and the GOP blocked Garland, the Democrats promised they will rue the day for establishing the precedent to not fill a vacancy the year of an election!
Then RBG died less than 50 days before the election and that spiteful odious turtle went ohthatwasdifferent.gif.
Republicans don't give a flying shit about precedent or how honorably the Democrats acted on different occasions. They will do anything they can to push their apocalyptic agenda.
And I think the Democrats' job is not only stop them from succeeding, but also accomplishing the Dem agenda as they campaigned on it is both imperative to and inseparable from preventing Republican victories electorally.
Pentagon says Supreme Court's Roe ruling won't affect abortions on military facilities
The military will continue providing abortions in cases of rape or incest or when a mother’s life is at risk, a top Pentagon official said.
This was a given.
Military folks still can't get them off base in states that ban abortion.
