Get out the vote in November!
"support abortion a couple months after birth".
Are you high?
Yes, calling all democrats, come out and vote. Except, no Catholics, nobody who wants to get serious about addressing high fuel and energy prices, nobody who doesn’t support abortions up until the point birth or a couple months after that, etc. Get out the vote indeed, but only a fraction of what the vote was last time around. And to top it off, the recession and real estate crash is just getting started...
Still 1981, when I was somewhat more open-minded, lol. The issue wasn't yet so divisive, and I needed to write to my school audience:
"One drawback to exploring the right to life movement in depth was my discovery of their belief that a woman who becomes pregnant by being raped should carry the result of this violent crime to term. They argue that the trauma of rape should not be exacerbated by the additional trauma of abortion. This stance offends my sensibilities and respect for human dignity to an unspeakable degree and affects my evaluation of other pro-life arguments in a highly negative fashion."
RECALL THAT THIS WAS 1981 AND I WAS WRITING A SCHOOL PAPER!
I had an abortion less than a year after I wrote this. I was in a committed relationship and fell for the fool medical argument of "taking a break from hormones." So I went off the pill and used a diaphragm. More fool me indeed.
Fast, professional, early abortion by Dr. Joseph in town. Never thought twice about it. Would do it again. I was lucky to get my tubes tied at 30.
Dear, wonderful Peter Haslund, who in 1981 wrote to me re: my interest in being a legislative aide:
"Good! Unless, of course, you would want to be THE legislator! Don't set that possibility aside!"
(I'm female. I think my non-profit and activist work made as much of a difference; had as much effect, as being a legislator. Gregg Hart was on the same D.C. trip.)
This isn’t a Supreme Court issue. Roe v Wade was a temporary fix that became a crutch. There needs to be freedom of choice… but like guns it’s not up to the Supreme Court to determine when/how… it’s our elected officials. As virtually everyone agreed roe v wade was shaky and suspect…. RBG said as much many times. The Supreme Court was right to strike down the New York gun law and roe v wade. But at the same time… we absolutely must push forward freedom of choice legislation AND strict gun control.
Well say hey now that we are going back to an 1820's definition of the Constitution, what comes next from the New American Taliban?
My wife will no longer be able to vote?
My daughter can't own property or get a loan without a man to cosign?
Can I claim them as "depreciated property" on my taxes?
ERA never passed so it's just a court decision away from going away.
Same sex marriage - gone?
Interracial marriage gone?
Never codified, only passed by some libtard judge that the Nouveau Puritans must purge.
Can only vote if you own land?
Renters, you're out of luck.
I'm waiting for the next step which will impose a mandatory Morally Acceptable Religion where we all must swear fealty to the Orange Faced Poop Gibbon when he returns to this earthly realm in 2024.
I hear that reeducation camps are so much fun what with weaving lanyards to hold your AR15 and learning how to reproduce more white people.
Does anyone know if Canada accepts refugees?
You can try.
Chico, I love that argument. Do you live in a house with an overflowing toilet and a dangerous leaking gas line and just cross your arms and yell at your kids that you'll help them pack if they want to try and fix the house?
Probably. Anyway, this whole stripping rights thing is fun, whose rights should we take away next? Yours?
I will buy your plane ticket one way anytime you want to leave.
I once wrote, in 1981, AND BELIEVED:
"the US will not condone transforming one American ethical view into national legislation affecting all Americans. Even if this does happen, I think it will be a conservative absolutist phase that America must experience before recalling and returning to the values of free belief and choice that this pluralistic society cherishes."
I wrote then:
The US Commission on Civil Rights study of anti-abortion proposals concluded that and anti-abortion amendment would infringe upon First Amendment rights because the question of when life begins is a matter of religious controversy. Therefore, if abortion were outlawed through the amending process, all American women would be subjected to one religious view."
As a Jewish person, I still hold to this view, 41 years later.
Damn. Topic sentence from May 1981 paper prior to D.C. trip:
"There is a current conservative wave in American politics. The Republican party is in power and the silent majority has become the vociferous Moral Majority."
There was talk of a constitutional amendment to ban abortion.
I wore a t-shirt that I bought at Vices & Spices that said "Immoral Minority."
Just 1981 notes:
"Cranston bill to extend coverage of AFDC to pre natal SB 667.
If birth is more dangerous, find ways to make it safer."
[AFDC = Aid to Families with Dependent Children]
Guess they never did that. And we're still fighting the same old issues. And Republicans are still not supporting families or pregnant women.
Unattributed, prior to meeting wiht Rep. McCloskey:
Meeting w/ legislative director & aide, my notes:
"Lobbyists reinforce and activate rather than convert. Plus political purposes; last Hyde amendment won 5 pro-life converts. So by informing aides and legislators, they might see it as politically expedient."
Pete McCloskey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_McCloskey
"30 minutes late. Souonds like a helll of a hawk. 50% of budget is social programs. No incentive NOT to take advantage of benefit programs. Medical benefits only if you go into hospital."
As I said, the more things change the more they remain the same.
And notes from Jack Kemp! Remember him? Some will.
The more things change...
I did a field trip to D.C. in July 1981 with a research topic of abortion law. This was Dr. Peter Haslund's first field trip to D.C. after many to Sacramento. It was an incredibly wonderful experience for each participant. Robert Lagomarsino generously hosted us and many CA and other reps and senators were helpful. We all set up our own research projects and reached out to pertinent people and groups.
I am most appreciative of
I pulled it out just now. first page of handwritten notes:
"Health care agencies conveniently ignore implementing the services that Roe v Wade requires by logical extension.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights was barred from conducting further studies on abortion in 1978. Congressional opponents to abortion responded to their report by threatening to cut off appropriations."
Then the phone # to the NARAL office: 347-7774
A very deep dive into political nostalgia.
I visited and interviewed people at Nat'l Committee for Human Life Amendment, March for Life (Nellie Gray), and Nat'l Right to Life Committee (NRLC).
Also NARAL, PP Nat'l, and Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights. I noted "RCAR and NARAL are only national members lobbying organizations."
Next they will make it illegal to vote democratic....wait they are already doing this with the Big Lie...the Supreme Court will find that it was unconstitutional for democrats to win the election headed by Thomas and his wife followed by Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett , Gorsuch....republican party reptiles
Guns have more rights than women in America, 2022.
PLEASE stick to disengagement. :-)
What do babies and guns = baby factories for the military?
CHIP - good point about guns. As VOICE brought to our attention, Norway and France have a more mass shootings than the USA. Europeans are definitely living in constant fear of gun violence wherever they go. So glad our glorious guns are so rightful!
Woman have lost the fundamental right to make decisions about their own bodies - that's how ISIS rolls. I'm guessing there are no women in your ecosystem.
How can that be if American women have the right to own guns? In America, you can own guns. In most other countries, guns own you.
totally agree with you A-1656099227
But it is true
Saying it doesn't make it true.
What I like about this cartoon is the way it tackles 2 of the most recent (and controversial?) decisions coming out of the Supreme Court this week: gun ownership and abortions. The rulings directly contradict one another as they ruled abortion should be decided by the state yet carrying firearms cannot be decided by the state.
That's only if you follow the far-right evangelist court members who have meticulously crafted their originalist theory to take all personal rights out of the constitution. Next thing you know the republican and catholic elites will make it illegal to marry inetracially or use birth control. Time to start taxing the churches if they are working as political lobbyists or funding campaigns.
Because one is part of the constitution which is on the federal level, the other isn't with relegates it to the state level. It isn't contradictory.
I left the Catholic Church the Sunday some wacko gets up into the pulpit screaming about Planned Parenthood as full of the devil's workers. And then they proceeded to pass around some petition. so much for separation of church and state. That was 30 years ago. Today, I look at the smug shots of those Catholic school graduates on the Supreme Court and want to gag. Those were the a$$ kissing, narrow minded, goody two shoes who bullied everyone in the playground with their self-righteousness.
The Constitution doesn't say anything like "separation of church and state." It says "the government shall make no laws regarding the establishment of a religion." IOW no state sanctioned religion to the detriment of other religious beliefs. Much different meaning.
That's not what separation of church and state means, but I commend you for leaving a hateful church.
Here are links to the Supreme Court rulings in these two cases, fascinating to read:
And I'm a raging liberal who is bereft and values real information.
C'mon people!! Don't downvote links to information! There is no opinion here. Hell, I was a paralegal and find it difficult these days to read decisions. It's both my age, my status of retirement and my complete enervation due to terrible political decisions.
I don’t really understand the outrage about either decision. The constitution specifically recognizes the right to keep and bear arms. This was already addressed in the Heller and McDonald decisions, and yesterday’s ruling simply clarified how second amendment cases must be evaluated by lower courts. The gist of it is the second amendment says what it means and means what it says. California’s assault weapons ban, magazine ban, handgun roster, and many other laws are unconstitutional and will soon be relegated to history, and any new laws passed that run afoul of the second amendment will be immediately blocked by injunctions and similarly ruled unconstitutional before they can ever go into effect. Regarding the ruling on abortion, there is no mention of abortion in the constitution. The Supreme Court in the Roe and Casey cases acted more as a legislative body than a judicial body by creating law rather than interpreting it. Today’s ruling to leave the abortion issue to be dealt with through legislation seems entirely consistent with our constitution.
LOL, re-read it. The court specifically noted that the 2nd amendment is “not unrestricted”, so you’re wrong.
And your ridiculous auction house example fails to note that these weapons are classified specifically as historic curios or collectors items.
There are legal restrictions on what kinda of firearms you can buy and where you can carry them etc. Are you completely FoS or are you just someone who doesn’t read the “evidence” you provide.
Anyway, hooray, more unwanted kids but at least they will have the weapons at hand to murder each other more efficiently.
Alex, the heller decision, link below, clarified what the prefatory clause of the second amendment means in great detail, and that it does not in any way limit the operative clause.
Second, there really isn’t any restriction on what type of firearms and other weapons a person can buy. Below is a link to a popular firearms auction house showing an assortment of machine guns and other weapons that recently sold at auction. California and a handful of other states prohibits their residents from purchasing these types of weapons, but most states do not and these types of restrictions are unlikely to survive the constitutional test outlined in yesterday’s ruling.
Here's one from just the last hour - "Insurrection = inaccurate and partisan."
How many more you want?
Still waiting on the untrue statement...
VOR: You told me if I found one untrue statement among your stream of snake oil anti-vax disinformation on another thread, you would stop posting for the rest of the month. Why are you still here? Get a hobby...
Chip, you know very well that there are limits on the type of firearms that the public can own.
You folks love to leave out the whole "well regulated" piece.
VOR you need a civics class. "Which is why we have the legislature to make laws for issues not contained in the constitution. " The idea that something needs to be specifically mentioned in the constitution is a constitutional theory (originalist) adopted by this far right extremist court. Nazi Germany had originalist judges too.
1. The framers at the Convention in Philadelphia indicated that they did not want their specific intentions to control interpretation.
2. No written Constitution can anticipate all the means that government might in the future use to oppress people, so it is sometimes necessary for judges to fill in the gaps.
3. Intentions of framers are various, sometimes transient, and often impossible to determine. Text is often ambiguous and judicial precedents can be found to support either side. In such cases, why not produce the result that will best promote the public good? It's better than flipping a coin.
4. Non-originalism allows judges to head off the crises that could result from the inflexible interpretation of a provision in the Constitution that no longer serves its original purpose. (The amendment process is too difficult and cannot be relied upon to save us.)
5. Non-originalism allows the Constitution to evolve to match more enlightened understandings on matters such as the equal treatment of blacks, women, and other minorities.
6. Brown vs Board of Education (on originalist grounds, it was decided incorrectly).
7. Originalists lose sight of the forest because they pay too much attention to trees. The larger purpose--the animating spirit--of the Constitution was the protection of liberty, and we ought to focus on that.
8. Nazi Germany: Originalist German judges did not exercise the power they might have to prevent or slow down inhumane programs.
"I don’t really understand the outrage about either decision." I bet he has to ask his grandkids how to use email too.
Which is why we have the legislature to make laws for issues not contained in the constitution. GT, just more extremism from you as no one here is advocating for that. I guess just like how I can be a vaccinated anti-vaxxer I can be a pro-choice pro-lifer? The twist and turns you guys go through to justify your divisive rhetoric is truly amazing.
CHIP your interpretation and understanding of the constitution is very limited and challenged. There is nothing in the constitution about interracial marriage or contraception either. Amazing how many white males come out from under the rocks to celebrate forcing girls and women to carry their rapists babies to full term - even in the case of incest.
The Constitution never mentions women so it's perfectly reasonably to strip them of all their rights too. Right Chip?
Thus my comment on recommending law and civic classes Chip. Many here don't realize they're being intentionally gas-lit by the very people who have the power codify abortions rights via federal legislation. Democrats have the White House and majorities in the House and Senate, if they can't even reach consensus amongst themselves then they're intentionally keeping this issue open and using it to drive campaign donations and votes with empty promises that they will 'fight for your rights'.
"I don’t really understand the outrage about either decision." - Not surprising at all.
CB- was this created before or after today's regression into third world status? Either way, it is spot on and terribly sad.