Creeping Theocracy: Reproductive Rights in America

I’m torn between ‘Holy Fuck these people are terrifying’ and ‘thank God these people are telegraphing their bullshit now so that we stand a chance of voting them out of office’.
Sadly, despite that, somewhere between 40-50% of the country will still vote for them. You can hope for closer to the 40%, but it's still going to be 40% in the EC overrepresented states.
 

Auguste_Fivaz

Ars Praefectus
3,374
Subscriptor++
In a LA Times article from 1986, SCOTUS at the time was clearly divided on abortion:
Legalized abortion narrowly upheld

Los Angeles Times – June 12, 1986
WASHINGTON - A sharply divided Supreme Court, reaffirming its controversial 1973 decision legalizing abortion, Wednesday struck down a series of Pennsylvania regulations that the Justices said Improperly restricted and discouraged women seeking to end their pregnancies.
In a 5-4 ruling, the court held that the restrictions violated the constitutional right to privacy. The majority turned aside a plea by the Reagan administration to uphold the regulations and to use the case to overrule the 1973 decision, known as Roe vs. Wade.
"The states are not free, under the guise of protecting maternal health or potential life, to intimidate women into continuing pregnancies," Justice Harry A. Blackmun, author of the 1973 ruling, wrote for the court Wednesday.
Although the decision was a substantial setback to the administration and other antiabortion forces, there were indications that support for the 1973 decision within the court may be waning.
In dissent, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who had joined the majority in the landmark ruling 13 years ago, called the decision in the Pennsylvania case "astonishing" and for the first time suggested reconsideration of Roe vs. Wade.
Burger's change in position appeared quite likely to fuel speculation that, should there be such an opportunity, a pivotal appointment to the court by President Reagan could eventually lead to the politically volatile 1973 ruling being reversed or significantly modified.
Burger, explaining his shift, said that he had supported the 1973 decision in the apparently mistaken belief the court was not approving "abortion on demand." He said that Wednesday's decision "plainly undermines" that belief and that he had "regretfully concluded" that his concerns over that issue "have now been realized."
"Today the court astonishingly goes so far as to say that the state may not even require that a woman contemplating an abortion be provided with accurate medical information concerning the risks inherent in the medical procedure which she is about to undergo and the availability of state-funded alternatives," the chief justice said.
In another dissent, Justice Byron R. White, joined by Justice William H. Rehnquist, called the 1973 decision "fundamentally mis-, guided" and urged that it be overruled. White accused the majority of reacting "defensively" to criticism of Roe as lacking constitutional support. The court had ignored constitutional principles and "created something out of nothing," he said.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in another dissent also joined by Rehnquist, reiterated criticism she made three years ago by saying that the 1973 decision had proved "unworkable" as a means of regulating abortion. However, O'Connor did not say whether the ruling should be reconsidered or overruled.
The 1973 decision, reached by a 7-2 vote, extended the right to privacy to abortion for the first time, effectively invalidating many state laws that made the operation a criminal offense.
The court said that, in the first three months of pregnancy, the right to abortion was unqualified; in the second trimester, the state could regulate abortion to protect a woman's health; and, in the third, when the fetus was "viable" or able to survive outside the womb, states could prevent abortion when there was no threat to the life or health of the woman.
Since then, the number of abortions performed legally in the United States has grown to 1.5 million annually.
The justices, upholding a ruling by a federal appeals court in Philadelphia, struck down provisions in a Pennsylvania law that would have required that physicians obtain the "informed consent" of patients by telling them of the detrimental physical and psychological effects of abortion and by providing material about agencies available to help them if they decide instead to give birth.
 

fractl

Ars Tribunus Militum
2,294
Subscriptor
Louisiana has classified two abortion medications as controlled substances.

Louisiana's governor on Friday signed a bill making his state the first in the U.S. to classify two abortion-inducing medications as controlled substances, a category that healthcare regulators typically reserve for drugs prone to abuse or addiction.

The measure, thrusting Republican-led efforts to restrict abortion back to the political forefront in a presidential election year, was signed into law by Republican Governor Jeff Landry a day after the state legislature sent it to his desk.

The bill cleared Louisiana's Republican-majority House of Representatives and Senate by wide margins, even as efforts by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to expand access to abortion pills is facing a legal challenge before the Supreme Court.

The new law designates mifepristone and misoprostol, which the FDA approved more than two decades ago as safe and effective for terminating pregnancies, as Schedule IV drugs, typically pain-killers and mood-altering medications that merit greater oversight due to their potential for abuse or dependence.

I certainly hope there's a blue wave this Nov.

 
  • Angry
Reactions: Bardon

fitten

Ars Legatus Legionis
52,251
Subscriptor++
So just this week, the GOP blocked a bill in the Senate that would federally guarantee the right for people to use contraceptives. I'm sure they'll chant "State's Rights" but as we saw less than a month ago, the GOP governor of Virginia vetoed a similar bill on the state level there. They are telling us their agenda.
 

Shavano

Ars Legatus Legionis
59,253
Subscriptor
So just this week, the GOP blocked a bill in the Senate that would federally guarantee the right for people to use contraceptives. I'm sure they'll chant "State's Rights" but as we saw less than a month ago, the GOP governor of Virginia vetoed a similar bill on the state level there. They are telling us their agenda.
Cloture votes can be the gift that keeps on giving. Bring it back every time Democrats want to pound on the point.
 

Karnak

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
6,557
Subscriptor
I can live with 40% a lot better than 51%…
Remember, to get control of the House Democrats need to get 55 or 56% of the popular vote due to Gerrymandering and how representation is divided between the states. A 51% Democratic vote probably, not assuredly, gets Biden back in the White House, but it probably loses the Senate and definitely loses the House.
 

QtDevSvr

Ars Legatus Legionis
11,701
Subscriptor++
From the "fuck the NYT" department, I call your attention to the lede in the below screenshot, underlined in red:

Screenshot 2024-06-12 at 5.24.28 PM.jpg

The problem is that the "fetal personhood" movement, by the nature of it's subject, goes far beyond the mere equation of the fetus and embryo with "human life": it privileges those unborn entities with rights superior to the mother.

Nobody serious denies that a fetus or embryo is a form of "human life". By sliding back and forth between claims about "human life" and "personhood", the evangelicals are gaslighting the public. Above, we see the NYT laying pipe and installing lanterns for that effort.
 

SteveF

Ars Praefectus
4,556
Subscriptor
It's an entirely predictable consequence of moderates filtering out as the organization becomes more extreme and continues to decline. In my own extended family, only one of the millennial generation didn't defect to a more liberal non-denominational church, and most of them are Trump voters, so it's not like we're talking about people with a low threshold for nonsense.

I'm not sure I follow the point about the NYT though. The headline and associated blurb appear factual.
 

blindbear

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
6,427
Why wait? What church you attend, if any, is voluntary.

I mean the current church I am attending may exit SB denomination, not me leaving my current church. SB actually kick out number of big churches recently.

 

karolus

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
6,686
Subscriptor++
Why wait? What church you attend, if any, is voluntary.
Not a congregant myself, but know many who are. There are ties that go back generations for some, and strong community bonds. For certain people, it's easy to walk—but not for others. And not talking cult-like devotion. Many friendships and relationships could be upended by leaving.
 

Shavano

Ars Legatus Legionis
59,253
Subscriptor
Not a congregant myself, but know many who are. There are ties that go back generations for some, and strong community bonds. For certain people, it's easy to walk—but not for others. And not talking cult-like devotion. Many friendships and relationships could be upended by leaving.
Honestly, it's why a lot of people go to church at all. Many of those people around you in the pews may very well not believe the same things you do.
 

fractl

Ars Tribunus Militum
2,294
Subscriptor
The governor of Louisiana signed a law requiring the 10 Commandments be displayed in every classroom.

How much money will the state waste defending this unconstitutional law? Will the Supreme Court rule for or against it?

I'd suggest that Biden should withhold Federal education money from Louisiana but I have a tough time punishing kids over what religious assholes do.

Gift article:
 

Ananke

Ars Tribunus Militum
1,792
Subscriptor
From the article

“If you want to respect the rule of law,” he said, “you’ve got to start from the original law giver, which was Moses.”

Someone has clearly never heard of Hammurabi. Who (a) actually definitely existed and (b) lived 2-400 years before Moses (supposedly) did.

(Yes, I know, tilting at windmills and all that)
 

karolus

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
6,686
Subscriptor++
From the article



Someone has clearly never heard of Hammurabi. Who (a) actually definitely existed and (b) lived 2-400 years before Moses (supposedly) did.

(Yes, I know, tilting at windmills and all that)
It’s also been argued that the Ten Commandments were heavily influenced by the Code of Hammurabi. Imagine this little historical footnote will be omitted.
 

Wheels Of Confusion

Ars Legatus Legionis
66,177
Subscriptor
From the article



Someone has clearly never heard of Hammurabi. Who (a) actually definitely existed and (b) lived 2-400 years before Moses (supposedly) did.

(Yes, I know, tilting at windmills and all that)
Centuries older are the oldest surviving written set of laws, those of Ur-Nammu. And those are only the oldest that we've found so far.

Although it is known that earlier law-codes existed, such as the Code of Urukagina, this represents the earliest extant legal text. It is three centuries older than the Code of Hammurabi. The laws are arranged in casuistic form of IF (crime) THEN (punishment)—a pattern followed in nearly all later codes. It institutes fines of monetary compensation for bodily damage as opposed to the later lex talionis ('eye for an eye') principle of Babylonian law. However, murder, robbery, adultery and rape were capital offenses.
 

Wheels Of Confusion

Ars Legatus Legionis
66,177
Subscriptor
Forgot to expand on that, was phone-posting.

The very fact that this Christo-fascist wing of the right-wing in the US is ignorant enough to put forward Moses as "the original lawgiver" while signing laws forcing their ahistorical version of history on public schools is proof enough that they desperately need education more than the kids do and should be taking lessons from the tykes, not the other way around.
 

Megalodon

Ars Legatus Legionis
34,201
Subscriptor++
Forgot to expand on that, was phone-posting.

The very fact that this Christo-fascist wing of the right-wing in the US is ignorant enough to put forward Moses as "the original lawgiver" while signing laws forcing their ahistorical version of history on public schools is proof enough that they desperately need education more than the kids do and should be taking lessons from the tykes, not the other way around.

I think they are more properly recognized as a post-christian cult. It's not an errant version of something previous, it's the new and still quite malleable beliefs of something new.
 

Dr Nno

Ars Praefectus
4,439
Subscriptor++
I read somewhere on Bluesky that the Louisiana law was clearly unconstitutional. But it was done as a way to have it escalated easily up to the Supreme Court, to be ruled as constitutional anyway.


This law is of course unconstitutional under Stone v Graham but passed purposely to give the Fifth Circuit an opportunity to ignore it, triggering Supreme Court review and Stone’s overrule.
 

fitten

Ars Legatus Legionis
52,251
Subscriptor++
I read somewhere on Bluesky that the Louisiana law was clearly unconstitutional. But it was done as a way to have it escalated easily up to the Supreme Court, to be ruled as constitutional anyway.


That was my first thought. Our compromised SCOTUS certainly has a good chance of helping to usher in theocratic authoritarianism.
 

sword_9mm

Ars Legatus Legionis
22,802
Subscriptor
From the article



Someone has clearly never heard of Hammurabi. Who (a) actually definitely existed and (b) lived 2-400 years before Moses (supposedly) did.

(Yes, I know, tilting at windmills and all that)

Wait I thought the 10 rules for me not for thee were given straight by God. Moses was just the UPS delivery guy.

Did church lie?
 

CuriouslySane

Ars Praefectus
3,737
Subscriptor++