What the HELL is in the water down here?!

My state has lost it's ever loving fucking mind! First, the "religious protection" bullshit that was just an excuse to ban the LGBT community and anyone they deemed "ungodly", and now this bullshit! I CANNOT wait until Governor Bumblefuckstickerson is out! For the past three years he's been doing his damndest to make us look like Saudi Arabia....Christian version. I'm relieved that it's being blocked....but fucking still!

Fucking banjos!

_______________________________________________________________

"It is better not to look like what you are; it is better to look like a bourgeois woman because then all the doors are open for you and then you can just go and make hell." - Marjane Satrapi

Batten down the hatches, here we go again: Justice Kennedy is retiring this summer and Chump will be given the chance to appoint another wingnut to the Supreme Court.

I fully expect abortion to become illegal sometime during Chump's dictatorship because the forced birthers will bring a court case to SCOTUS that will pass muster with the SCOTUS anti-choice team.

They don't give a shit about the health and welfare of women This is all about power and control of women's bodies. This is about curtailing women's rights to work, live and reproduce as they see fit, because there is a whole subsection of mainly loser white men who can't stand that women have choices in life about quality of education, careers, where to live, who they associate with, and whether or not they want to have children or even get married. If they could, they would relegate us to the kitchen, the nursery and the bedroom.

It's 2018, and i can't believe I still have to protest this shit.

Agreed, Fucking infuriating.

Justice Kennedy's retirement has been rumored for a long time but nothing is official. Assuming the worst-case scenario for abortion-rights proponents, what would it take to curtail current laws? Kennedy would have to retire and... a case to challenge Roe v. Wade would have to be brought to the SCOTUS and..... the SCOTUS would have to accept a hearing on such a case (which doesn't happen 99+% of the time) and... they would have to rule to overturn their 1973 ruling.

If all the dominoes fell exactly this way, the states would determine policies in regards to abortion. Many states have "trigger laws" in effect, keeping abortion legal in the event of the Roe decision being overturned. So it would be legal in some areas, more heavily regulated in some areas, maybe even illegal in some areas. In a worst case scenario someone who sought out an abortion may have to travel to a nearby state to have the procedure performed. Inconvenient, yes, but not impossible.

One real benefit about states' rights is that you have a much better chance to reform your state laws than you do federal laws. This is why I favor states' rights and a limited government. And if you are really, really unhappy with your state, you have the option to move to another state that you find more amenable. As a person who has moved out of state I can tell you it isn't convenient, but many have gone this route and are quite happy. There are a few deep-blue states (ie., states that are on the fast-track to total bankruptcy and ruin...) that are hemorrhaging residents who are tired of their Godzilla-like government, sanctuary cities, draconian gun laws, and exorbitantly high taxes, and moving to places that are financially friendlier. Couldn't the same concept could hold true for political liberals who don't wish to live under the constraints of the Bible Belt?

A final option would be to propose and pass a Constitutional Amendment protecting abortion rights. This would be quite difficult in my estimation, and the "states rights" option on the matter is the path of least resistance and greatest compromise for all parties.

Quote
Peace
It's 2018, and i can't believe I still have to protest this shit.

I took it a few steps further and had my reproductive organs thrown in the medical waste bin.

+++++++++++++

Passive Aggressive
Master Of Anti-brat
Excuses!

Quote
craftyzits

Quote
Peace
It's 2018, and i can't believe I still have to protest this shit.

I took it a few steps further and had my reproductive organs thrown in the medical waste bin.

I did the same thing.

Quote
Peace

Quote
craftyzits

Quote
Peace
It's 2018, and i can't believe I still have to protest this shit.

I took it a few steps further and had my reproductive organs thrown in the medical waste bin.

I did the same thing.

Thirded, and twice for me (tubal and ablation)

Quote
StudioFiftyFour
In a worst case scenario someone who sought out an abortion may have to travel to a nearby state to have the procedure performed. Inconvenient, yes, but not impossible.

I think that depends very much on income. People who are living hand-to-mouth, on hourly wages, can't really afford to take a few days off work and travel long distance to obtain an abortion.

The same is true with moving to another state. Consider the case of someone who already has a couple of kids (most abortions are obtained by women who already have kids), does unskilled labor, and relies on family members for childcare. People like this tend to be mobile only out of desperation, since moving will generally put them in a worse situation than before.

I think that regardless of what you feel about poor women having reproductive freedom, it is overall socially advantageous if unwanted children aren't born. Not only are they going to be a further drain on social systems, unwanted children are also more likely to become criminals when they are older (pretty sure there was a study from Romania on this).

Quote
yurble

I think that depends very much on income. People who are living hand-to-mouth, on hourly wages, can't really afford to take a few days off work and travel long distance to obtain an abortion.

The same is true with moving to another state. Consider the case of someone who already has a couple of kids (most abortions are obtained by women who already have kids), does unskilled labor, and relies on family members for childcare. People like this tend to be mobile only out of desperation, since moving will generally put them in a worse situation than before.

I think that regardless of what you feel about poor women having reproductive freedom, it is overall socially advantageous if unwanted children aren't born. Not only are they going to be a further drain on social systems, unwanted children are also more likely to become criminals when they are older (pretty sure there was a study from Romania on this).

Life won't be easy for low income people, no matter what laws are passed. They certainly won't have the mobility that those with more resources will. I agree with you--moving is expensive! And I've done it state-to-state which is even more expensive.

But I don't think we should discard good ideas in search of perfect ideas which will never happen anyway. By the way, no matter what laws we pass on virtually any topic, poor people will always be at a disadvantage. You name the issue: Crime ridden neighborhoods... drug laws... domestic violence laws, etc. ("Poor people can't afford a better place to live... Poor people can't afford good legal representation when charged with a drug crime... Poor people can't afford to leave their abusers...").

Life is hard when you are poor, and it won't get any easier unless you earn more money. And if you are poor and having kids, it's going to be virtually impossible and unfair to the child as well.

The best outcome is a combination of states' rights when it comes to abortion, and federally subsidized no-cost birth control for all poor people. This would give the states the sovereignty that they want, it would give abortion advocates rights that were codified into law on a state-by-state basis, and it would give a lifeline to low income people who wanted to escape the cycle of poverty. In the long-term these ideas could save taxpayers money as well, which is in my estimation paramount for any set of social policies.

Quote
StudioFiftyFour
The best outcome is a combination of states' rights when it comes to abortion, and federally subsidized no-cost birth control for all poor people. This would give the states the sovereignty that they want, it would give abortion advocates rights that were codified into law on a state-by-state basis, and it would give a lifeline to low income people who wanted to escape the cycle of poverty. In the long-term these ideas could save taxpayers money as well, which is in my estimation paramount for any set of social policies.

That doesn't work for me because birth control isn't 100%, even in a situation where user errors is not a factor (e.g., implant, IUD or sterilization), and non-consensual sex may not allow a person the opportunity to use contraceptives. As a CF woman, I think being forced to bear a child as one of the most wretched things I can imagine, a form of pure torture, and it's not something I want anyone to have to undergo.

Quote
yurble

That doesn't work for me because birth control isn't 100%, even in a situation where user errors is not a factor (e.g., implant, IUD or sterilization), and non-consensual sex may not allow a person the opportunity to use contraceptives. As a CF woman, I think being forced to bear a child as one of the most wretched things I can imagine, a form of pure torture, and it's not something I want anyone to have to undergo.

That leaves you with two options...

1. Leave it as it is now, as a result of a SCOTUS decision, thereby always risking the possibility that the SCOTUS would take up a case challenging Roe and possibly reversing the current decision.
2. Pass an Amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing abortion rights throughout the land. You'll need 2/3 of the House and Senate to approve plus 3/4 of all state legislatures. (Before considering this possibility, name the 37 states that will be on board with unfettered abortion. Good luck!)

We've established that #1 is unappealing. #2 is highly unlikely. My option (states' rights on abortion, federalized and subsidized birth control legislation) is the best of the three. Unfortunately we must weigh the ideals of what we consider perfect versus a compromise that is palatable, realistic, and possible. If no action is taken you'll leave it in the hands of a SCOTUS. As the SCOTUS evolves and welcomes new members, there is a possibility that abortion rights will be significantly weakened in some states.

One thing that needs mentioning about this whole issue: many of the same pro-life zealots who oppose abortion under any circumstance also oppose any form of birth control, often on religious grounds. People criticize the Roman Catholic church for this stance, but the fundies in particular have the exact same stance and they still control most of the Deep South.

The idea of the feds simply dispensing free contraception as abortion faces restrictions in certain states is going to go over with the fundies like a lead balloon. Remember Rick Santorum (a Catholic) rehashing this issue a while back during campaigning? It could happen again.

Thank you kman, you just pointed out the very thing that was on the tip of my mind. They want control over women's bodies, but if you talk to a pro-lifer enough to get to the root of it, their solution is "why are you having sex if you don't want a baby?". Many of them have no qualms about going back to the bad old days where birth control was for married people and had to be obtained via shameful, complicated ordeals.

There are a few deep-blue states (ie., states that are on the fast-track to total bankruptcy and ruin...) that are hemorrhaging residents who are tired of their Godzilla-like government, sanctuary cities, draconian gun laws, and exorbitantly high taxes, and moving to places that are financially friendlier.


I am very interested in what "deep blue states" are in line for total bankruptcy.

California is running a surplus and the two I know of that are having to fire teachers and other necessary personnel are Republican Strangleholds Kansas and Oklahoma. Then of course my own blood red Kentucky which is over a billion dollars from funding their own teacher's pensions.

Which blue states are you talking about?

Quote
deanad

I am very interested in what "deep blue states" are in line for total bankruptcy.

California is running a surplus and the two I know of that are having to fire teachers and other necessary personnel are Republican Strangleholds Kansas and Oklahoma. Then of course my own blood red Kentucky which is over a billion dollars from funding their own teacher's pensions.

Which blue states are you talking about?

New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois, and California are all in deep, deep trouble.


New Jersey has serious problems with public debt, public pensions, and people moving out in droves. Illinois is another pension mess. California not only has a pension obligation shortage, it has incredible business outward migration, and an eroding middle class. Particularly in the big metro areas you've got super rich elites who can afford stuff... and a working class that has virtually no chance of ever owning real estate. On top of that they're challenging the federal government to essentially become a state that does not permit enforcement of immigration laws--laws which are explicitly protected for the federal government to enforce, via the US constitution. Their schools, hospitals, and infrastructure is being overrun by this problem.

I am suggesting that the governors of the states I mentioned (particularly New Jersey and California) take a look in the mirror and ask, "Why are residents and businesses fleeing our state?"

Could it quite possibly be the "free" pre-K and other unaffordable government "services" that benefit only a select portion of the population? Unfunded liabilities that go as far as the eye can see? Sky high taxes that are only affordable if your name is Rockefeller? Crumbling infrastructure and an eroding coastline? (NJ)

According to their governors, nope, it couldn't be any of those. What people and businesses really want are higher taxes, more regulation, and more government agencies with more employees and employee pensions that we can't afford.

And by the way, this is not an endorsement for the way that Kentucky or Kansas does business. I am in no way suggesting that they are a paradise. The red states are, in my estimation, friendlier to my personal preferences than a deep blue state could ever be. I am suggesting that when you are in financial disarray, "free" college and "free" preschool and open borders are a fucking terrible idea.

In summation we fall on the political spectrum is irrelevant. I find myself surrounded by more and more people who are completely oblivious to the problems that we're facing, and becoming increasingly delusional in their worldview. (FYI: This most recently this manifested itself in a conversation I had with a relative who suggested that we should look to David Hogg and "the kydz" for guidance on gun policy... a demographic that has been better known most recently for eating Tide Pods and condoms. How can we have a a serious conversation about firearm rights who has "the kydz" as the cornerstone of their worldview?)