16

7 comments

It's good to raise awareness about this dystopian nightmare, but using the phrase "pregnant people" just grates.

The states are trying to regulate interstate commerce, which they are not allowed to do. Interstate commerce falls under Federal jurisdiction.
Also, there's the right to travel which falls under the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment.

When the SCROTUS decided Dobbs, and sent the abortion question back to the states, they're just stirring up the states' rights people, which is what happened in the Civil War when the South seceded from the Union.

The South wanted to keep slavery legal, but the excuse that is cited is states' rights under the Tenth Amendment.

It's violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when a woman has to drive hundreds or even thousands of miles to another state to access abortion care.

I know and I hope it doesn't come to that but I don't trust this SCOTUS not to completely upend all those precedents and undermine those amendments, or to disregard them. You know the ruling Bush v. Gore in 2000? SCOTUS intervened in the Florida recount of ballots, completely against state rights and the rule of law and there was no validity in that, but there was nothing that anyone could do. Whatever they rule, it is final.

Yes, I remember, and the Republican operatives who demanded that Florida stop counting the votes, were a bunch of trust fund babies known as the Brooks Brothers Riot.

Because they are throwing many decades of precedents out, even telegraphing their future desires via Clarence Thomas' concurrence talking about the line of cases under the right to privacy, that they want to reverse when they get the chance, it's no wonder that the public doesn't respect or trust them any more. Justice Sonia Sotomayor recently in one of her dissents talked about the "stench" the Court had from being partisan.

The ones financed by The Heritage Foundation and such espouse something called "originalism". Back in the 70s they called it "strict constructionism", but they didn't use it to demolish all constitutional protections for say, the right to privacy, or to roll back voting rights.

They want to go back to 1789, where the only people who could vote were white men who owned real estate. And Justice Alito in the Dobbs decision was quoting a couple of 16th century Englishmen who wrote the Witchcraft Acts, believed that witches existed, and wholeheartedly persecuted them, Sir Edward Coke and Sir Matthew Hale. He's citing men who were actual witch burners without any trace of irony there.

They really do think of us as livestock without any rights. They and Amy Coney Barrett Handmaiden. The group she was in really DID call the women "handmaidens", as used in "The Handmaid's Tale" so they had to change it after the TV show started and more people were thereby made aware of the novel. It's a secretive Catholic cult called People of Praise.

I had no idea she was part of a religious cult. :< These are dark times.

This site is hardcore bro-gressive Wokistan state media BTW. I am legitimately gobsmacked to see this headline that erases the existence of trans men, and also erases trans men themselves (YES, they are erased from a nonexistent existence... Look bigot, this is why #nodebate mmkay?)

Of course, the body of the article is the usual bullshit... but now I'm wondering whether there's a secretly TERFy (whether by hire or by just becoming disillusioned) headline writer/editor working for this outlet. And, if so, how infuriating their job must be on a fucking nonstop basis.