T O P
AutoModerator

As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*


2_Spicy_2_Impeach

In Michigan, I’m seeing nonstop ads attacking Dixon and her stance on abortion. No exceptions, not even if it puts the mother’s life in danger. Batshit insane.


Clownsinmypantz

Not surprised, Republicans do not see women as people/lives.


nyc24chi

Rather, as vaginas with uteruses attached, then as permanent, live-in nannies (and likely still as vaginas).


thenewrepublic

“[Dobbs] is already having a game-changing impact on races all across the United States. People see who is fighting for their rights in this moment of crisis.”


CarmineFields

Everyone should be fighting a slide into tyranny, whether you approve of abortion or not. This will bite all of us in the ass sooner or later.


tinyirishgirl

We will never ever go back to being property. NEVER!


CarmineFields

I’ll fight it with everything I’ve got, sister!


N0T8g81n

Every state which has state constitutional amendment initiatives (AZ, MT, ND, SD, NE, OK, MO, AR, MI, OH) should put this to their voters, rather their voters should put it to themselves. If the voters enact a right to abortion, I have little doubt many of those state legislatures would do whatever they could to stymie those amendments. Still, it'd be useful to show that Republicans just don't care what majorities of voters want.


CarmineFields

> I have little doubt many of those state legislatures would do whatever they could to stymie those amendments. This is why republicans blaming democrats for not encoding abortion into law or as a constitutional amendment is nonsensical. A corrupt catholic-extremist SCOTUS has the power to overturn any law or to “interpret” any constitutional amendment. The justices don’t need to follow the spirit of the amendment. It doesn’t even need to make any fucking sense (see Scalia arguing that the 14th Amendment didn’t apply to women). They just need enough votes and they have enough votes. They will be coming for women’s/minority votes soon.


FaustVictorious

Roberts already summarily and shamelessly executed the Voting Rights Act that used to protect people from Jim Crow-type laws that the Cons use to rig elections. No way SCROTUS will quit churning out as much evil as they can until they are stopped.


CarmineFields

They just ruled that conclusive proof of innocence isn’t enough to get wrongfully convicted death row prisoners a new trial. They’ll just murder them anyway.


N0T8g81n

Given how SCOTUS dismissed Hollingsworth v. Perry, I could see 2 paths for Republicans to pursue: 1) find an amenable federal district judge who'd rule the amendment unconstitutional, then state authorities decline to pursue appeals, and the people who put the initiative on the ballot wouldn't have standing to appeal the district court decision themselves; 2) take it up to SCOTUS and hope that Alito et al find voter initiatives inconsistent with US history and traditions.


CarmineFields

> and hope that Alito et al find voter initiatives inconsistent with US history and traditions. They don’t have to hope too hard. Alito relies on witch-hunters from the 1600s to guide his rulings.


N0T8g81n

Who needs Yale Law when one can just read chicken entrails?


iHeartHockey31

They're going to aim at fetal personhoid. That's why they don't want any exceptions. They'll get the supreme court to give full rights to fetuses and claim abortion violates its constitutional rights. Exceptions to abortion bans leave a vague area where some fetuses would have more rights than others allowing kaws to be overturned. So if theres no exceptions, it makes a better case for fetuses having rights. If SCOTUS gives fetuses full constitutional rights, no laws allowing abortion will be constitutional.


N0T8g81n

Maybe, but the 1st sentence of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is *'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.'* [emphasis added] I'm not convinced the textualists on SCOTUS could get around that awkward word ***born***.


iHeartHockey31

They got around the regulated militia part of 2A.


N0T8g81n

Militias weren't all state organizations in the late 1700s, at least not closely monitored by state government officials. Also, many state constitutions enumerate rights to bear arms for self-defense. Then there's history and tradition, in which the entire 19th century stands as clear evidence the US tacitly recognized a personal right to keep and bear arms. Basically the original point to the 2nd Amendment was to prevent Congress/federal government from gathering up all privately owned firearms.


iHeartHockey31

Then in 2 years, they'll just gave another amendment initiative. Florida protected the right to abortion in their constitution, reaffirmed it with several ballot measures since snd tge GOP passed unconstitutional laws anyway violating it. https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/local/state/2022/06/08/can-florida-privacy-law-protect-abortion-rights-roe-v-wade/7536003001/


link-is-legend

States should not get to choose. The legality of abortion access needs to be federal. Take any job that can take you over state lines like travel nursing. Say a nurse takes an assignment in one of these anti choice states and is raped. She can’t get an abortion in said state but can in her home state? But places like Texas want to go for the death penalty for abortion? So with a nursing shortage we’re going to allow imprisonment of a woman for bodily autonomy? No. We can’t allow states to make any of these decisions.


N0T8g81n

> States should not get to choose. States get to choose with respect to the death penalty, the other major area of law involving permitting killing. I'll be clear: abortion is the killing of a fetus. For me, that's not murder, but mine is a subjective definition. Others can have quite different subjective definitions. That's the big problem with abortion. There are MANY people who believe the deliberate killing of a fetus is murder. This is why, IMO, it's untenable to decide abortion laws in the courts. Being clear again, Roe v Wade was jurisprudentially unsound even if it were a sensible decision. However, once decided, it was at least as unsound to reverse it by judicial fiat. However, that returns the issue to where it was in the early 1970s as a political matter. Could Congress enact abortion rights by statute? In theory, yes; in practice, not without at least 60 Democratic senators. And even if such a statute were passed, it could be repealed by a later Congress. This will NOT be settled at the federal level any time soon. Like it or not, accept it or not, this is a state by state issue for the foreseeable future. The best way to get things rolling towards a liberal abortion regime in as many states as possible would be to put the issue to voters as STATE constitutional amendment ballot initiatives soon. Then contribute to charities which take care of women traveling to those states for abortions. That is, rub prohibiting states' faces in the fact that they can't stop it, only make it more difficult, just not as difficult as they could make it in their own states. That is, in a few years it may be easier for a woman in, say, Louisiana to get an abortion in Colorado or Illinois than it was to get an abortion in Louisiana pre-Dobbs. As for states making it more difficult, they're going to discover that doing so will make them far less attractive to people who can choose to live anywhere in the US. Which will mean employers in those states will need to pay more than employers in more liberal states for the same job candidates, and (businesses being businesses) they'll put pressure on politicians to lighten up including giving them less in campaign contributions.


minininjatriforceman

I'm a Dude going to be welcoming a daughter into the world. Consider me pretty fucking motivated.