It short circuited the political process and substituted it with legal doctrine, which lends itself to absolutist, logically consistent moral positions as opposed to the messy and incoherent compromises that come out of politics.
And yet what we're seeing post Roe, are absolutist, logically consistent moral positions in places like Idaho, where 1 party rule has resulted in a political platform that allows no exceptions whatsoever, even for the life of the mother.
This however is a pretty recent phenomenon, I think, as a result of rushing to the extremes. I suspect this position will be moderated soon, though with current toxic political climate, it may take a bit for things to cool off so that such things would not be seen as "ceding ground to them".
In early 2000s, the racial tensions in the US were less toxic. Then of course it kinda went sideways. Also, I think gay acceptance is gaining grounds. Some things are improving, though not too many, unfortunately.
We've already seen what happens when Republicans encounter the uncomfortable reality of the laws they are passing, in the case of the 10-year old Ohio girl. First they claimed it didn't happen, then they attacked the doctor, then they deflected to the issue of immigration claiming that was the real problem. This is all true to form.
Ectopic pregnancies are not a problem for Republicans because they are not the ones dying from those pregnancies. They don't care about the electoral ramifications because they maintain impenetrable strongholds in the states where these laws are being passed. It's not that they are passing the laws and will find out the consequences; they know the consequences (they're not dumb) and feel safe passing the laws regardless.
I'm not a Republican, but I think you can make strong points without the inflammatory rhetoric. In fact, I think your rhetoric weakens your argument--Republican women obviously aren't biologically different from Democratic or independent women, they can all suffer from ectopic pregnancy, and Republican women would have the most to lose considering they're presumably more likely to live in states where these laws are passed. Moreover, to the point of this thread, the proper solution is legislative (at the national level) rather than judicial--pass reasonable abortion legislation at the national level.
By "Republicans" of course I mean "Republicans in power who are writing and passing these laws". They largely affluent and largely male dominated. Insofar as women in power are passing these laws, those who will need an abortion will be unaffected by the laws they themselves pass, because they will be able to afford to travel to a jurisdiction where abortion is legal. I predict approximately 0 people who have passed these laws will abide by them if their life is on the line.
I see no indication Republican women radically differ from Republican men substantially on this issue, at least in the polls I've seen. And if there were, there are enough prominent Republican women that would be able to speak up on the issue.
So I think your simplistic take of "patriarchal Republicans oppress women again" is probably a couple of generations late.
Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin is 59 years old. I don't think she will be affected by a ban on abortion. If she does somehow need an abortion, I'm sure she'll get one in Canada or Washington. As for the poorest women in her state, they will not be able to afford such a luxury, and therefore have to live with the consequences of McGeachin's position while McGeachin herself will not. That's my point.
You are desperately grasping at straws. There are many conservative young women. Of course a prominent politician would be on the older side - where would you see a 20-year old governor (or lt. governor)? It takes time to climb the ladder. You point is wrong - McGeachin has this position not because it doesn't affect her personally, at least not primarily so, but because a lot of people in her state - yes, including a lot of women, check any serious poll and you'd see women and men differ very little at that question - support this position, and the is the politician that aligns with those people. You may completely disagree with them, and that's fine, that's what the democracy is for - but don't make it about sexism, or age, or anything like that, because it isn't about that at all.
Claiming that laws specifically targeting women's bodies are not about sexism at all is what looks like grasping at straws to me. I think maybe your mistake is believing that someone can't be sexist against their own sex.
Women are specifically targeted by these laws, they will face punishment due to these laws, and they will in fact die because of these laws. Their economic prospects will drop. Single women and their children will fall into poverty at faster rates. We know all these things will happen because the opposite happened when Roe was decided. This isn't a mystery to anyone.
> McGeachin has this position not because it doesn't affect her personally ... but because a lot of people in her state ... support this position
I'll remind anyone reading this that the Idaho GOP just voted to exclude support for a life-of-the-mother exception to their party's official platform. I highly doubt the majority of women agree with that, even in Idaho. That is a very extreme position. We'll have to wait on the polling to come out on that because it just happened this weekend.
But sure, let's just say for the sake of argument they do actually hold that position.
What I'm saying is that every woman who supports this position and needs a lifesaving abortion will either leave Idaho to get an abortion, or die in Idaho because they couldn't afford to leave. McGeachin and everyone she loves and cares about will be in the former group, I guarantee you that.
> Claiming that laws specifically targeting women's bodies are not about sexism at all is what looks like grasping at straws to me.
Nope. You need to understand the difference between "law affecting women because the matter in question is women" and "law affecting women because somebody wants to hurt women specifically". The abortion regulation can not be not about women (weird exceptions excluded) - it doesn't mean it is based only on the desire to subjugate and oppress women, this is just a stupid take that reduces everything to a bumper sticker.
> and they will in fact die because of these laws.
Nope, they won't. Idaho GOP position is not the law and I don't think it's likely it will become the law. The actual law is different and does not preclude pregnancy termination if it is necessary for saving woman's life. Women may die because they would make a decision due to these laws - e.g. to seek an illegal and unsafe abortion instead of, e.g., carrying to term and giving the child for adoption - but there would be always conscious choice and action involved. Again, you are confusing regulation that concerns women - because, obviously, any abortion regulation would - and one that is designed to hurt women, which it is not.
> I highly doubt the majority of women agree with that, even in Idaho.
I do not know about the majority, but I am sure some do. In any case, again, the reason why they take this position is not because they hate women, and until you realize that, you won't understand anything about their positions. Maybe you don't want to, but I am here to tell you your position is wrong. Maybe you don't care to know the truth - that's also your choice.
No, I think that the simplistic take still has the sting of truth about it.
As https://news.vanderbilt.edu/2018/09/14/age-race-and-gender-s... says, demographics of party support are that the Republican base is dominated by older men, while the Democratic base is dominated by younger women. Therefore Republicans really are going to have an institutional bias against issues that affect young women.
This can be seen by Republican opposition to abortion, childcare issues, and vaccinating against HPV (which causes cancer in women).
Republicans also opposed Medicare and Social Security expansion, so by that logic they hate older people too.
"Institutional bias" is a meaningless phrase that does not explain anything. Conservative positions and their sources are well known and do not need any magic invisible (or visible only to the left, magically) properties to explain. It is not a huge surprise why conservative Christians don't like abortion - they have been talking for decades why, and one needs no magic "bias" to understand that argument, even if you disagree with it. Introducing this just makes the whole political discussion weird - people tell you "we think so and so because of this and that" and you tell them "no, in fact you don't think this, you are just not completely sane and affected by 'bias', which you can not see but I can, so let me explain what you truly think and why!". That doesn't sound like something that can lead to anything sensical.
It is true that older people tend to be more conservative, statistically - but it is just silly to reduce all the gamut of political opinions and ideologies to that one thing.
What you are arguing is that, "The fact that their rhetoric doesn't agree with the take means that the take has no validity."
This form of argument is always available, and always meaningless. For example Russian rhetoric is that they are fighting Nazis, and not that they are attempting genocide. That doesn't change that they are attempting genocide.
In the case of Republicans, we have a group of mostly older white men. Most of whom agree with a set of cultural values around family, marriage and so on. For example in polls, Republicans are over 1.5 times more likely than Democrats to say that women should stay home and not work. It is no surprise that Republicans are far less likely to support programs to give women access to child care for the purpose of working. Republicans are generally opposed to abortion. Republicans are far less willing to accept that unmarried women should enjoy sexual freedom, cohabit without marriage, and so on.
Republicans will cite a variety of sources for these positions, such as the Bible. But what it adds up to is that Republicans broadly support traditional patriarchal positions about the role of women, while opposing social changes and policies that most women would like, and feel gives them more freedom to live their lives as they will.
It is not horribly unreasonable to describe this as, "patriarchal Republicans oppress women again." No matter how much that does not fit the stories that Republicans tell about themselves.
What I am arguing is that using some magic invisible entities like "institutional bias" makes possible to prove anything you want - and by that, proves nothing at all. Instead of trying to seek the real causes of event, you just say "oh, it's those white males and their institutional bias, nothing to think about here". That's a lazy and nonsensical take.
> In the case of Republicans, we have a group of mostly older white men
Here you are purposely confusing between "majority of them" and "all of them, or at least all worth considering". It's like saying "Americans are mostly white". Demographically, it's true, 73% of Americans are white, but continuing the conversation while ignoring the other 26% would be pretty much not talking about America. Also, 50.5% of Americans are female - the majority. Would it make sense to talk about America as "the country of white women" and ignore all others?
> Republicans are over 1.5 times more likely than Democrats to say that women should stay home and not work
"Should" does a lot of work here. Does it mean "banned by the law from working"? Does it mean "if man marries a woman, he should earn enough to let woman not work if she doesn't want to"? Does it mean "one-earner families are better environment for children than two-earner families"? Does it mean "I would never marry a woman who wants to work"? Does it mean "this is the ideal role-model situation, which we will strive for, though in real life we often fall short of it"? Can mean any of those and hundred other things. What it doesn't mean though is "Republicans hate women, including women, who have internalized self-hate".
> But what it adds up to is that Republicans broadly support traditional patriarchal positions about the role of women, while opposing social changes and policies that most women would like, and feel gives them more freedom to live their lives as they will.
Are you sure most women think working some mind-numbingly mundane job for 8 hours every day is more freedom for them than staying at home with their children (or even without them, just doing whatever they like)? Surely, if the women is a CEO she would like to keep the job likely. Most working women aren't CEOs though. Are you sure some of them wouldn't feel more free if they didn't have to work?
Anyway, this argument is like 100 years late - nobody prohibits any women from working, and no Republicans that I heard of proposed any legislation that would ban women from working. However, if you think that not taking money from other people to pay for some woman's childcare needs is equal to "patriarchal position" - that's nonsense of the first degree. Nobody owes anybody else - men or women - to pay for their childcare needs. It has nothing to do with "patriarchal" - it's just that I do not have to give money to care for your child, because it's my money and not my child. Take your own money - or, if you have a decent job, your employer's money - and care for your child, nobody bans you from that. Trying to guilt people into giving you money to care for your children and calling them "patriarchal" if they refuse is just an abuse of terms. Presenting them as if they don't give up their own money with no benefit for them to benefit some stranger women as them hating women is plain disingenuous.
You asked about Congressional power to legislate, not whether 14A grants an abortion right. These are different questions. For example, it seems Congress could plausibly pass a general abortion ban with exceptions for medically necessary abortion under 14A. Moreover, if Congress wants to give itself additional power more explicitly, it could pass an Amendment to give itself authority to legislate on abortion (of course, this requires bipartisan cooperation).
To be clear, you're talking about section 1 of the 14th amendment which reads:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
First, I thought we were talking about legislation allowing abortion at the federal level. That said, if this court is consistent (not guaranteed), then I still don't agree. This was ratified by states with laws allowing abortion. Therefore an originalist interpretation should not accept that person here refers to the unborn.
But I can see THIS court accepting that section 5 gives Congress the power to pass legislation, defining "person" is a proper legislative act, and therefore the Congressional interpretation of a disputed word should be accepted.
So sure. Congress can try ban abortion nationally, and might succeed. But I doubt that they can legalize it nationally and have that decision hold.
(Separately the amendment process is more complicated. The failure of the Equal Rights Amendment demonstrates that Congress alone cannot create an amendment, even if the public generally supports it.)
> are not a problem for Republicans because they are not the ones dying from those pregnancies
Wait, membership in Republican party guarantees you not having ectopic pregnancy? How does that work? That goes way beyond my knowledge of biology and human anatomy, I'd like to know more about it.
> they maintain impenetrable strongholds in the states where these laws are being passed
I think it was just mentioned above no laws are being passed that concern ectopic pregnancies. Is that not correct?
The no exceptions whatsoever bans are the model for the national ban that will come ones Republicans have the power to do it. If they believe all abortion is murder, what amount of murder would you expect them to tolerate?
> it's what you would expect from a group of largely white, upper class, me
If you try to see everything through identarian lens, no wonder your picture comes out skewed.
> No matter when a life begins, the posters here on HN feel they will largely be unaffected
So, you think we should shut up about it, because it's not for us to discuss such things. But you, yourself, do not. Because it's different for you, of course. You brought us the revelation of us being (statistically, because this is the only thing that matters) of wrong race and gender, and thus you are the exception from the rules.
> vast political project that is underway, a project that cares not for philosophical arguments, because it really cares about control and obedience.
Oh, you mean like we're being censored on every social network, deplatformed, fired from jobs for saying a wrong word at a wrong time, locked down, forced to surrender control of our movements, what we put into our bodies, what we wear, who we do business with, how we speak, how we teach our children? Constantly surveilled and monitored, and continuously gaslighted by our own government? Yeah, I feel you, I don't like that too. Not sure why you mentioned it out of the blue, but that's bad, I agree. But I have an idea. Maybe a bit less of power centralization would allow us to fight this control and obedience project? I mean, if the guys in control of it didn't have the power to tell the whole nation what to do - maybe they could demand less obedience and exercise less control? A wild thought, I know.
> I've read through most comments, and it's what you would expect from a group of largely white, upper class, men - a philosophical debate that HN seems focused on the definition of life and drawing tortured analogies because seemingly no one here can actually relate to what it's like to need an abortion to save their own life.
This is a site geared towards philosophical discussion. What were you expecting exactly? I would add that your claim regarding the people here being "unaffected" is disingenuous and presumptive. That no one here is on a moral crusade on your behalf, does not mean no one cares about the issue. We wouldn't be talking about it otherwise.
> barely even touches on the real experiences of women and minorities who will be the ones whose lives are most affected as a result of the new laws being passed.
Firstly, the absolute and relative populations of biological females on this forum are low. How exactly do you expect people to comprehend the "lived experiences" of a demographic that one is unlikely to run into on this forum?
Secondly, women and minorities are not ideological monoliths. Polls indicate that there are about as many women against abortion as there are for them across all ethnicities, levels of wealth, creeds, and religions. The lived experiences of a female South Korean Presbyterian or female Ugandan Anglican are going to fall closer to that of the stereotypical Christian male Republican than they do to the stereotype of the disenfranchised single mother-to-be.
> The second and third order effects of the recent court decision will change many aspects of our lives and our society, and it seems that has not actually caught up with many people here yet.
If you had taken the time to read a number of the comments, many have touched on the same point by way of the very philosophical discussion you disdain. Of course, this ruling has long-term effects. However, your approach to it ignores the hows and then whys and isn't conducive to discussion.
This comment is dangerous and harmful. It only mouths a nostrum that flatters white coastal elite sensibilities--that any discussion of abortion has to be about how sexist and racist(?) opponents of it are. It presupposes that minorities are incapable of considering moral or philosophical arguments. And, perhaps worst of all, it's damaging to the cause of protecting access to abortion: insulting people only serves to validate yourself to the in-group you're signaling to, as opposed to convincing people of abortion being an important right. In a time where elections have to be won if we want to protect abortion rights, you've got to learn to make arguments stronger than "you're a white man."
Dangerous and harmful? Sorry for my wrongthink I guess. I'm not saying any discussion has to be about racism and sexism, I'm saying that this discussion filled with thought experiments and tortured analogies barely even considers the prospect that there's something more at play here. As if there is no power dynamic whatsoever. This debate is as political (probably more so) as it is philosophical. Your post seems to presuppose that there aren't sexism and racism dynamics at play, which seems equally "dangerous and harmful" to me if we're going to go down that road.
As for in-group signaling, there's a lot of that going on here, including in your very comment (white coastal elite sensibilities). Talk about making a strong argument -- maybe saying a comment is "dangerous and elitist" isn't putting your best foot forward.
Roe v. Wade didn't fall because more people were convinced it should fall. A minority of the country elected a President that appointed the current Justices. A Senate representing a minority of the country used hardball power-plays to install those justices on the bench. Those Justices lied (according to two Senators that voted for them) and obfuscated to make sure they would be confirmed, some of whom passed by the slimmest of margins and certainly wouldn't have gotten on the bench if they had been candid about their intentions. Abortion rights are falling because people in power used their power to get what they wanted, regardless of anyone's opinion.
For me, this whole issue has taught me that the best way to get what you want isn't to convince people and build a coalition (who have largely made up their minds anyway), but to use power in cynical ways to reach your desired outcome, the consequences be damned.
Given the structure of the Senate and the composition of the states, implementing policies by simple will to power is a strategy only available to Republicans. And if you think convincing more people, person by person, isn't a viable strategy for Democrats, we're in for a bad time for the foreseeable future.
> I've read through most comments, and it's what you would expect from a group of largely white, upper class, men
I'll hazard some unsolicited advice: besides being boring and morally reprehensible, tropes only diminish your credibility.
> I've read through most comments, and it's what you would expect from a group of largely white, upper class, men - a philosophical debate that barely even touches on the real experiences of women and minorities who will be the ones whose lives are most affected as a result of the new laws being passed.
There has been virtually no appetite to discuss the women who have had negative abortion experiences over the last 50 years (or at least not in my lifetime) under Roe v. Wade whether minority or otherwise. Cherry-picking experiences isn't a good formulation for constructive public debate.
> No matter when a life begins, the posters here on HN feel they will largely be unaffected, so the debate remains in the clouds.
On the contrary, it's such a serious topic that it deserves a dispassioned treatment. This is genuinely the first time I've seen an abortion debate that doesn't immediately devolve into "you want to murder babies" and "you want to oppress women". It's good to challenge our emotions with reason.
> The post-Roe era will be blanket and extreme abortion bans wherever the GOP has full control. They are telegraphing this and many posters here are seemingly willfully blind to what they have in store. So far they have said they desire to pass the most extreme bans possible regarding abortion at a national level, and when they are done with that they are coming after contraception, gay marriage, and even sexual acts they find distasteful. I don't know why anyone here is dismissing the possibility as far-fetched.
It's pretty hard to believe Republicans in general are coming for things like gay marriage when 55% of Republicans approve of it per a 2022 Gallup poll (I would imagine conservatives approve of contraception even more). I think perhaps the left-wing media may be exaggerating right now, as partisan media are want to do.
I think it's a good idea to establish legislative protections for these things, particularly by building a broad, bipartisan coalition (maybe take lessons from the gay rights movement, considering its remarkable success in reversing even Republican opinion). If Republicans want to pander to their extreme wings, then take their moderates (reverse the 2016-2022 trend).
And yet there is a reason the discussion here barely touches on women. We know how the demographics of HN skew, and that creates a huge bias in the discussion here. We shouldn't naval gaze through this debate, and instead recognize that of the hundreds of comments here going in circles about stealing kidneys, hypothetically poisoning people, and hypothetical lives born or dying, there are real people who are actually in harms way right now due to laws being passed.
> There has been virtually no appetite to discuss the women who have had negative abortion experiences over the last 50 years
There's definitely an appetite, but is there space? It's certainly not created here.
> it's such a serious topic that it deserves a dispassioned treatment.
Maybe it deserves a dispassionate treatment (I'm certainly not going to provide that), but certainly not a myopic one. The high-minded philosophical arguments here miss the forest for the trees in my opinion.
> It's pretty hard to believe Republicans in general are coming for things like gay marriage when 55% of Republicans approve of it per a 2022 Gallup poll
Republicans "in general" aren't who I'm talking about; I'm talking about politicians. If you haven't noticed, gerrymandering has created a situation where Republicans can choose their voters, so they remain in power no matter how extreme their positions. Maybe also flying under your radar is a complete disdain among many Republicans for the concept of elections and democracy as a concept. Perhaps you haven't noticed that the Supreme Court will soon decide on a case that determines whether state legislatures are able to have complete control, without judicial review, of their election results?
Frankly, it doesn't matter what Republicans writ large want. The extremists have taken control of the party, and they are stacking the deck to make sure they never have to lose an election again. Last time they lost an election they literally plotted and attempted to execute a coup. Now they are trying to make what they did in 2020 legal. What do you think happens next? Genuine question there.
> We know how the demographics of HN skew, and that creates a huge bias in the discussion here.
I hazard to guess there is a huge skew in your social circles and media consumption.
When was the last time you had an earnest discussion with a swing voter who leans pro-life? Note that I'm not talking about someone torn between voting Democrat or voting Green: I'm talking about someone who voted for Obama, then Trump, then was undecided on 2020. I'll hazard to guess you simply haven't: I have.
Simply yelling at them for being white men is ineffective, particularly when they're nonwhite and female. And they're absolutely capable of handling philosophical arguments, and it's deeply condescending to define nonwhites and women as nonagents who would never to think about the philosophical underpinnings of a political position.
And you would be wrong, because that describes basically my entire family. I watch a lot of Fox News, I watch a lot of MSNBC. I read the WSJ, I read the WAPO. My friends are both conservative Christians and self proclaimed Marxists. I dated a super pro-life Catholic for a decade. What more do you want from me?
Insofar as my actual approach is persuading using the experience of actual people rather than philosophical arguments, yes I've had success with that. It probably won't work with the people here, but the people here are very peculiar. What you see here on HN is not my attempt to persuade internet people. Does that ever work?
You can quibble about why so many on the right and the center are insulated from the harm, but that demonstrates that people don't want to discuss the intended harmful outcome of these state laws that will go national via SCOTUS or when a Republican takes power again.
It's totally reasonable to be disgusted at how convinced people can be that the conservative project won't come at us with a dangerous national abortion ban with no exceptions and then come for contraception, who you can marry, what your kids learn, how you pray and whose property rights are worth as little as their right to marry and have sex.
> It's totally reasonable to be disgusted at how convinced people can be that the conservative project won't come at us with a dangerous national abortion ban with no exceptions and then come for contraception, who you can marry, what your kids learn, how you pray and whose property rights are worth as little as their right to marry and have sex.
I don't think it's reasonable at all, because I think you're dealing in a particularly exaggerated caricature of Republicans (you're parroting all of the talking points from the most detached left-wing "media outlets"). Notably, 55% of Republicans support gay marriage in 2022 per Gallup--the idea that they're "coming for gay marriage" is ridiculous. Moreover, "what your kids learn" is something everyone is concerned about and have been concerned about for the last 50 years (recall it used to be the left that pushed back against indoctrination of children in schools). This is just baseless moral panic / hyperventilation, and its only function is to spread hate and division.
State laws passed by elected Republicans are not media. These bans existed in law not too long ago in this country not just in media. We just saw the Texas law and the intended SCOTUS decision fulfill the 2016 GOP campaign promise.
There is no reason to believe the desired outcome goes no further than the Dobbs decision. And it would be easy for elected Rs and R candidates to fight division by saying they won't come for contraception, who you can marry, what your kids learn, how you pray and whose property rights are worth as little as their right to marry and have sex.
Yes I want to create division between people who evaluate the movement on its desired outcomes and see the harm and people who think the US is exceptional and wouldn't use the law in immoral ways.
And I didn't say they're "coming for gay marriage", I referenced mixed marriage as "who you can marry." But it won't stop at gay marriage either, the right to be openly gay or trans is what they're coming for and people should know that.
> There is no reason to believe the desired outcome goes no further than the Dobbs decision.
Republicans definitely have an agenda, but there's not broad support among them for eliminating gay marriage (55% of Republicans support gay marriage per Gallup 2022) or mixed marriage (only 12% of Republicans believe interracial marriage is a social ill per Pew 2017). The view that Republicans are coming for interracial marriage, gay marriage, etc is just more of the same baseless hysteria that has characterized left-wing media for the last decade (and I'm not a conservative or otherwise right-wing, so please spare me the "the right wing media is also bad/worse!" stuff because I already agree).
I just don’t understand how you can say it is baseless left wing hysteria when powerful and influential Republicans are literally saying they want to do exactly that. That is the basis. If republicans weren’t saying they want to come after gay marriage, no one would be worried. But they are.
Baseless would be saying that Democrats want to come after gay marriage. Obviously there is no basis for that statement. But when powerful Republicans literally say exactly that they want to end gay marriage, it forms the basis for concerns that they will follow through.
Just last month the Texas Republican Party had a convention and declared “homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle choice”, which sets the debate about homosexuality back decades. What about the Texas Republican Party platform is left wing media hysteria? What about the position that homosexuality is “abnormal” signals to you that Republicans aren’t coming after gay rights? We’re not talking about a single justice or senator here; we are talking about a state party platform, in a state controlled entirely by that party.
Well, groups are made up of large numbers of people, so we can’t understand the direction of those groups by looking at the opinions of those groups by looking at a relative handful of people (or rather, we can via polling, but that’s not what you’re describing).
Anyway, “abnormal lifestyle choice” isn’t a “decades” setback. Homosexuality has only been mainstream for a little more than a decade, and even then about half of Republicans have opposed it.
Honestly, people who are so concerned should focus on making the Democrats electable again, because we’ve tried enormous amounts of left-wing spin from every epistemological institution and all manner of divisiveness and that hasn’t worked particularly well so far.
We can understand the directions of groups by looking at their elected leaders. Take the US House for instance: just today those representing the GOP in the US House voted overwhelmingly against a bill protecting same-sex marriage at the federal level. Today!
I mean, a party platform is exactly a document declaring the direction of a group of people. They get together and vote on it. Why can't we take that to be a pretty clear expression of their values and beliefs?
How much clearer can this get? The Supreme court gutted the constitutional foundation of Obergefell. One of the Justices is begging for a challenge to the decision. A US Senator concurs. The former VP agrees. State parties agree and make it an official plank of their party's platform. And now House Republicans have shown where they stand. What more proof do you need?
I guess another way to ask this question would be, what would you need to see before you would agree that the Republican party is coming after gay marriage next? How much more explicit do they need to be about it?
And yes, the language used by the Texas GOP does take the debate back decades. Homosexuality is not a “choice”, and definitely not merely a “lifestyle”. I thought that debate had been settled, but I guess gay conversion therapy is back on the menu. And as a matter of fact, homosexuals are normal, and have been an integral part of human societies as long as they have existed, including American society since before it was founded. That Americans had not accepted them as such doesn’t change that homosexuality is normal.
> the idea that they're "coming for gay marriage" is ridiculous.
It would be less ridiculous if a conservative Supreme Court Justice and a Republican US Senator hadn't just expressed their intention to do just that. No one would be worried about the prospect if the party wasn't explicitly telegraphing the desire to come after these rights. Pretending that these concerns are ridiculous is to pretend that what Supreme Court Justices and US Senators say has no weight. In fact, they have power and they've proven they are not afraid to use it.
> so they remain in power no matter how extreme their positions
If you watched actual Republican primaries, as opposed to reading about scary Republicans on Twitter, you'd see this is wildly inaccurate - there is substantial variety among Republican positions, and there are things which different Republican voters (gasp! Republicans voter can differ!) are willing and not willing to tolerate. Which kinda would be expected from a party uniting tens of millions of people, if you think about it a bit...
> Maybe also flying under your radar is a complete disdain among many Republicans for the concept of elections and democracy as a concept.
This is also wildly false - if anything, Republicans are very upset right now exactly because they feel the concept of elections is under attack. Whether it is true or not, it's exactly the opposite of what would happen if they disdained the concept of elections.
> and they are stacking the deck to make sure they never have to lose an election again
This canard is dusted off on every election, and it is as false today as it was first time when it was invented. Nobody is ensuring "they never have to lose an election again", however sweet that may sound to a partisan ear, and it's not possible for Republicans even more given that Democrats almost exclusively control large population centers. Yes, there are places where Republicans routinely win (as there are places where Democrats routinely win) - it's not a nefarious conspiracy, it's a demographic fact. But this will never become everywhere, elections in the US in general has always been competitive, and remain so.
> Last time they lost an election they literally plotted and attempted to execute a coup.
No they did not. They had a protest. Which led to nothing except Democrats trying to milk it for the last drops of that sweet partisan outrage juice for the last year and a half. That's all there was.
> Now they are trying to make what they did in 2020 legal.
What they did in 2020 - namely protesting - already is legal. What some of them did - like fighting with the police, stealing things and vandalizing things - is not legal, and nobody is trying to make it legal.
> What do you think happens next? Genuine question there.
Next there will be 2022 elections where Democrats suffer some serious drubbing due to Presidential party routinely suffering drubbing in the midterms, compounded by dismal performance of the current President and generally unfavorable surrounding conditions. Some Democrats (not the smartest ones) will scream the democracy is dead in the US and fascism has been finally installed, and this is the last elections ever. Then there would be 2024 elections as usual, with the usual appropriate screaming and running around from parties involved. I have no idea who would win, but I am sure it'd be as close as ever, and whatever party wins, the other party would claim the election has been stolen and the democracy in the US has ended and fascism has been installed. The democracy will continue as it did for the last 250 years.
Indictments do not prove anything - indictment is just an opinion of people at DOJ, controlled by the party that wants to punish those people. All while ignoring much more harmful and violent protests both in DC and all over the country, all while they are being described as "mostly peaceful". There was no "coup attempt", and the protest didn't even get nearly as violent as many protests were in 2020. People going into government buildings happened many times before - including occupying them for many days, disrupting the proceedings, and even setting government buildings on fire. It's not a good thing, to be sure, but by the standards of what we've seen in the last decade, even the last couple of years, this protest was pretty tame. Only the partisan needs of the Democrats make them to inflate it into something it never has been.
It's pretty clear you haven't even paid attention to the developments of the past 18 months, and made up your mind in the week following Jan 6 as to what the event was. Comparing Jan 6 to BLM reveals you don't really know anything why those people went to DC on that day, and what was going on behind the scenes between Nov 3 and that day. You don't have to take my word for it; top-ranking Republicans including White House officials have already testified under oath as to the facts. They don't support your "protest" theory.
Will you change your mind when the convictions for seditious conspiracy start coming down, or will that just be the result of biased juries and judges?
The siege on the Capitol was 2021. That's when people were fighting with police but people convinced themselves that protestors in 2020 weren't beaten, gassed nor arrested by the busload.
> That's when people were fighting with police but people convinced themselves that protestors in 2020 weren't beaten, gassed nor arrested by the busload.
Who are "people" that don't believe (m/any) protestors were beaten, tear-gassed, or arrested in 2020? I'm sure there are some nuts out there, but I don't think many people on any side of the issue would seriously argue that out of the millions of people who were protesting all over the country (amid bona fide riots) that there were no instances of excessive use of force by police toward protestors. This seems like nut-picking.
Women make up the majority of voters in states passing restrictive abortion laws. 53% of voters in 2020 in Oklahoma were women, and they voted for Donald Trump 62-37. In Mississippi (the state that enacted the law that was upheld in Dobbs) women outnumbered men 55-45, and voted 56-43 for Trump. Conservative women are the backbone of the anti-abortion movement, just as liberal women are the backbone of the pro-choice movement. And numerically, those two groups are evenly matched, with most women falling in the mushy middle: https://news.gallup.com/poll/388988/political-ideology-stead...
As to minorities, they are much more likely to view abortion as a morally complex issue than white liberals. The 25% or so of the Democratic Party that identifies as pro life is predominantly Black and Hispanic. In Georgia, for example, Black people and white people have identical views on abortion—half of Black people oppose it, despite voting democrat: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-stu...
It’s incredibly frustrating when minorities are used as tokens and proxies to advance views that are predominantly held by white liberals. It’s goddamn disrespectful to their political autonomy.
> barely even touches on the real experiences of women and minorities who will be the ones whose lives are most affected as a result of the new laws being passed.
I qualified "women and minorities". There are many women and minorities who will not be affected at all by a ban on abortion. Specifically, the wealthiest ones can afford to have high-minded philosophical opinions about what life is, because if/when they ever encounter the real need for an abortion, they can just get one! And we know they will because that's what history and experience shows us happens in places where abortions are banned; abortions are not eliminated, they are just displaced and made more dangerous.
But that doesn't change the fact that the people who will be most affected by these bans, the people whose lives are on the line, are in fact women and minorities. And it doesn't change the fact that real experiences of actual people are completely missing from the discussion here. I mean, if you want to take your position, where is the discussion from the pro-life crowd about people who weren't aborted and appreciate that? Or the people who decided against an abortion and what changed their mind? That would be a good discussion to have too and would reify the whole philosophical debate. But that's absent as well!
And I'm sorry it so frustrates you that you believe minorities are used at proxies to advance views that are predominately held by white liberals and find it so disrespectful, but a lot of people also feel that you championing the government to control our bodies is indeed very disrespectful, so there's enough disrespect to go around.
> And it doesn't change the fact that real experiences of actual people are completely missing from the discussion here. I mean, if you want to take your position, where is the discussion from the pro-life crowd about people who weren't aborted and appreciate that? Or the people who decided against an abortion and what changed their mind? That would be a good discussion to have too and would reify the whole philosophical debate. But that's absent as well!
And rightly so, because there's not much that's going to be accomplished by arguing from cherry-picked anecdotes. Moreover, the perspectives of women who have deep trauma and regret for their abortions have been firmly pushed out of the public debate for my entire life (indeed, for as long as I've been alive, the "debate" has only been pro-choice people arguing against straw men).
> And I'm sorry it so frustrates you that you believe minorities are used at proxies to advance views that are predominately held by white liberals and find it so disrespectful, but a lot of people also feel that you championing the government to control our bodies is indeed very disrespectful, so there's enough disrespect to go around.
Honestly, if you can't participate without inflaming the discussion in each of your comments, maybe just take a beat before commenting?
> Specifically, the wealthiest ones can afford to have high-minded philosophical opinions about what life is, because if/when they ever encounter the real need for an abortion, they can just get one!
Excerpt it’s overwhelmingly the wealthy minorities—the ones assimilated into highly educated majority white spaces—that agree with white liberals on this. It’s the working class ones and first generation immigrants that view abortion with more skepticism. Among Hispanics, just 29% of the ones who speak Spanish at home believe abortion should be legal, and 41% of first generation immigrants.
> a lot of people also feel that you championing the government to control our bodies is indeed very disrespectful, so there's enough disrespect to go around.
Those people can make their arguments based on individual liberty on their own dime. Why bring minorities into it?
If I’m being cynical, the reason is that the highly educated white people who have categorical beliefs about personal autonomy—and also usually reject religion—realize they aren’t a sympathetic political grouping. So they use women and minorities as a cover.
And that’s wrong! You’re trading on other people’s identities to advance libertarian views that most of them reject. You’re treating them as subjects in an application of your own philosophy of personal autonomy, instead of independent members of the body politic that have their own positions on these issues—positions that don’t reflect libertarian philosophies about personal liberty.
> And it is this feeling of disconnect from the real consequences of the post-Roe era that is causing most here to completely miss the vast political project that is underway, a project that cares not for philosophical arguments, because it really cares about control and obedience.
God this whole comment is a breath of fresh air. Thank you.
Well in its original form Roe laid out, without any legislative input, a full on trimester system in which abortion was definitely legal until the third trimester, thus making regulations like the ones you mention impossible. This was somewhat relaxed with PP v Casey, but I don't think the kinds of regulations you mention would even be legal then. Thus, by making the compromise position untenable, it naturally brought out extremists on both ends.
