T O P
  • By - M00n

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.*


ortcutt

Good luck getting IVF when states declare that discarding frozen embyros is illegal.


ThreadbareHalo

Actually this is a rather interesting aspect to the argument. There’s an awful lot of conservative moms to be who would be horrified to learn their chance at getting ivf has now plummeted. I think this should be leaned on more. There’s a lot of conveniences hinged upon roe that didn’t exist when it was first passed.


DEEP_SEA_MAX

The donor class will just be able to go to neighboring states for IVF and abortions. These laws will only effect poor people. Like all fascists it's laws for thee, not for me.


Med4awl

Whoa, when the Republicans take both House and Senate in November there will be no neighboring states. Rich women will travel out of country. It's not going to stop with Roe v Wade. McConnell will blow up the filibuster and proceed to pass legislation that keeps Republicans in power for decades (or longer). I knew this was going to happen the morning I woke up and trump was elected. This is not going to stop with abortion. If the Senate is lost trump will be assured reelection in 2024 regardless of the vote count. We are at a point where Republicans are ignoring court rulings they don't like. Florida and Texas have dictatorships. Ohio's Supreme Court has three or four times ordered the Republicans to structure a fair redistricting map and they're telling the court to fuck off. IF DEMOCRATS DON'T GROW SOME BALLS AND START WINNING ELECTIONS WE WILL HAVE A DICTATORSHIP IN AMERICA.


nc863id

Republicans have proven willing to overturn their losses with violence. It's going to take more than winning elections to prevent a steep slide into a fascist dictatorship. Fascism has never been defeated by electoralism alone.


[deleted]

[удалено]


we_are_sex_bobomb

Yeah, logic doesn’t factor into this. Like if abortion is illegal then how do you distinguish between abortion and miscarriage? It would come down to intent, which means a woman with a miscarriage has to be able to prove it was an accident if she doesn’t want to go to jail. To be clear: The government - and specifically the mother fuckers who are repealing this ruling - will now be responsible for deciding whether a woman losing her baby was on purpose or not. It’s not hyperbole to say that this is *apocalyptic* in how stupid it is.


kandoras

They don't care about that. They've literally said as much: >[Republican state Senator and sponsor of the bill Clyde Chambliss, responded that, “The egg in the lab doesn’t apply. It’s not in a woman. She’s not pregnant.”](https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/alabama-abortion-law-says-terminating-a-fertilized-egg-is-legal-in-a-lab-setting/) Their problem with abortion isn't that they think it's murder, or that they want to help children. It's that it allows women more control over their own lives.


_Middlefinger_

This also literally says its all about the woman and not the foetus. They want to punish women for having sex.


kandoras

They've always been pretty clear that it's about the woman and not the fetus. Look at their response to Obamacare requiring health insurance companies to cover pregnancy, where before only 17% of privately bought insurance did so. Or their eternal complains about 'welfare queens' or trying to cut education, or getting upset when Michelle Obama said schools needed to have healthy lunches. If your only concern about a child is that it remains in the womb, when you don't care whether or not it's healthy in that womb, or fed after it's born, or gets an education - then it's pretty obvious that you only care about how it can be a burden on a woman.


Bleepblooping

If there was ever any doubt, notice their teenage daughter and their mistress’s abortion is alway “different”


toadofsteel

Obamacare is literally the single most pro-life piece of legislation passed in the last 50 years. Abortions dropped 20% between 2011 and 2017.


kandoras

And yet way too many conservative men saw women being able to get insurance to cover prenatal care as an attack on them personally. Meanwhile, I saw exactly *zero* women complain that they would be forced to help shoulder the cost of treating prostate cancer.


peter-doubt

No doctor would risk involvement under such threats.


notcaffeinefree

He literally writes that the 14th amendment only guarantees implicit rights that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition". It's a GIANT middle finger to rights inferred through the 14th Amendment. Anything not explicitly stated is at risk.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Individual-Nebula927

They are, because they were never for "small government." That was just another lie. They were always for "small government so you can't control me, but I can force you to follow my beliefs using the government."


jadrad

>Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. >For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.


Abominatrix

They are happy because ‘small government’ was only ever a euphemism for ‘hurt the right people.’ The people who thought they could catch conservatives being hypocrites about small government are the ones who didn’t actually get what was going on.


Warg247

Yep, the "leave it to the states" argument from them has only ever been "I will settle for localized oppression.... for now."


MC_Fap_Commander

>Anything not explicitly stated is at risk. Alito **overtly** says that if it didn't exist in 1787 Philadelphia, you have no reasonable expectation of it existing now.


ting_bu_dong

https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/thomas-jefferson-james-madison >The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of[1] the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation can be so transmitted I think very capable of proof.—I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living’:[2] that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by any individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society. If the society has formed no rules for the appropriation of it’s lands in severality, it will be taken by the first occupants. These will generally be the wife and children of the decedent. If they have formed rules of appropriation, those rules may give it to the wife and children, or to some one of them, or to the legatee of the deceased. So they may give it to his creditor. But the child, the legatee, or creditor takes it, not by any[3] natural right, but by a law of the society of which they are members, and to which they are subject. Then no man can, by natural right,[4] oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons who succeed him in that occupation, to the paiment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might, during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come, and then the lands would belong to the dead, and not to the living, which would be[5] the reverse of our principle. "The dead cannot bind the living." -- Jefferson "Hold my beer." -- Alito "I like beer." -- Kavenaugh


MillCrab

I know Jefferson has been shit on for years for being a slave holder, but things like this feel like they could have been written in a left leaning room today. How did he gel all these different things together in his life? How do we come to terms with the breadth of these ideas all at once, today, when he can longer answer to them?


Dont-be-a-smurf

Dude was a very weird guy, even for the times. Extremely educated. A polymath. Sort of awkward. Really loved the concept of classical liberal enlightenment thought but also still held slaves, including sex slaves. Some of his slave children would have even appeared very light skin (and some identified openly as white). Sally Hemings - his famous sex slave - was only 1/4th black. Even among all of that evil he condoned, he also wrote some of the most important and insightful documents of the time period and championed many revolutionary freedoms. When I think of “complicated historical figure” he is exactly who I think about.


Jeffersons_Mammoth

They really are the Christian Taliban


Doogolas33

Which is hilarious cause the people they pretend to worship would be quite abhorred by such a thing.


Corben11

I hope there’s a god just so he can spit in their face when they die. But they will go unpunished.


FriedDickMan

They will go unpunished if we just sit here and poo poo on the internet instead of organizing


peter-doubt

You have no right to radio frequencies. Let the jamming begin!


soyboyconspiracy

So bye bye interracial marriage? What the actual fuck man. How are these justices this Fucking brain dead.


[deleted]

The Loving case used the 14th amendment, same as Griswold, so it wouldn't be surprising. If they overturn Griswold, which I think is the endgame, everything is threatened unless we amend the Constitution, and that's not going to happen for a long, long time, if ever.


Perfect_Translator_2

So second amendment is now out?


Fedexed

We can safely assume only muskets should be legal now


sheba716

Yes, and those single shot pistols they used for duels.


[deleted]

It won't happen, but it would be funny to see some city pass a law like this and then defend it in court from an originalist legal stance.


The69BodyProblem

Own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, "Tally ho lads" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers intended.


demarchemellows

>deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition And an ultraconservative religious minority gets to decide what the nation's history is and what its traditions are.


whatproblems

right? define that wtf does that mean.


TheIndianUser

It means that if it wasn’t a widely accepted, or understood, right in 1787 when the constitution was being drafted, you have no reasonable expectation for it to be a right now. It’s laying the groundwork to overturn tons of equality rights.


LunaticLogician

We all know what it means. Especially the black, female, gay, etc. portion of the population.


bunnysuitman

This is the part that I’m struck by… More than the disgust at this obviously horrific outcome is just the stupid of it. The argument is stupid. It’s bad. It’s deeply and inherently flawed. It’s throwing citations at leaps of logic. There is not even a pretense of making a good argument it’s just making shit up. It reads like some of my students who understand citations as a thing but not as a concept. I know we all(rightfully) want to be angry at the obvious part of this, but that just makes it easy to play the both sides and any outcomes game. The entirety of this grotesque game relies on the rights demand to have their arguments treated as coherent and fact based. They’ll argue that demand because it has to be a demand, otherwise it’s nothing. This is a stupid argument that fails as a basic test of reasoning. It’s like saying masks don’t clean things. It’s stupid as well as evil and that isn’t getting enough coverage.


SapCPark

Also, the writing is almost childish in its glee. It does not read like what a Supreme Court Justice should write. It reads like an undergrad paper. This is an emotional decision, not a logical one


lonestar-rasbryjamco

I am sure we get to look forward to years of pearl clutching after this that Democrats no longer respect the court and see it as a political institution. Meanwhile my conservative Grandpa in 2016: "The reason I will vote for Trump is he will nominate conservative judges who will overrule the rights I don't like".


ClearDark19

I said this elsewhere, but it bears repeating: Anyone who thinks they aren't coming for Obergfell v. Hodges, Griswald v. Connecticut, Loving v. Virginia, or even Brown v. Board of Education next are still asleep in a cozy dream. This is the Shelling of Ft. Sumter moment for the Fascists. This is their Go-sign for full steam ahead trying to take America back to pre-1955, or even pre-1865. I would not be surprised if we see a Plessy v. Ferguson style ruling this decade. Giving the middle finger to the 14th Amendment means all basic citizen rights are off.


InternetJerk4U

He cites Obergfell v. Hodges specifically as one of the rulings giving us fake rights not rooted in history/tradition. This shit is crazy


hobovalentine

Amy Coney Barrett purposefully avoided answering any questions about Wade vs Roe for this very reason. Everyone knew she was opposed to it due to her strong conservative leaning.


M00n

But Susan Collins assured us it was settled law!


PoWerFullMoj0

Kavenaugh claimed the same thing.


ting_bu_dong

They are liars. Who knew? Oh. We did. We knew.


GoGoBitch

We should learn never to trust a single word out of a rapists mouth.


csucla

After my friend heard about this ruling, he told me that he regretted ever voting for her. "The entire Republican party is responsible, it's gonna be all down-ballot Democrat from here on out"


tornado962

Have they not been paying attention the last 6 years?


rekenner

6? 16? 60? who's counting, really.


notsureifdying

Unfortunately all Republicans are easily fooled. They'll find some way to get then to vote R again


tomas_shugar

They'll find some random tumblr post with 37 reblogs calling for the assassination of Supreme Court justices and claim that is the Democratic Platform, ergo they're forced to vote Republican. Just like usual. If anyone on the left side, even a random fucking schmuck, says something uncouth, welp, that is it. Gotta vote Republican. Republican's aren't actually **fooled**. They want to be "fooled," they are the people who legitimately think that Criss Angel or Penn and Teller actually perform true sorcery.


Rated_PG-Squirteen

Not to mention the multiple pieces of evidence uncovered that literally showed Amy Coney Barrett pledging her support to overturn Roe v Wade via signature or statement. She did it for several different conservative groups and causes, but other than that, who could've ever predicted her wanting to actually do away with abortion rights.


pomonamike

Everyone paying attention saw this coming. They said it out loud. They enacted laws purposefully written to be taken to court and get to the SCOTUS. The Republican Senator in charge during the Trump admin flat out called these justices “assets.” Knowledge isn’t power, it’s depressing.


allnadream

The only bright side here - and this is a *massive* stretch to find a bright side - is that at least we'll stop being gaslit by the crowd whose been insisting this *definitely* wasn't going to happen. Although now that crowd has shifted to saying things like: "The GOP won't try for a federal ban." And "I wouldn't expect this to extend any further."


Jayborino

Trump won't be that bad, give him a chance. Putin won't invade Ukraine, it's all for show/intimidation. Roe is untouchable, it's been settled law for too long. The I-told-you-so on all of these hits different and gives no satisfaction. Watch the conservative pushback to our supposed 'hysteria' to know exactly what will happen next.


HallucinogenicFish

> Trump won't be that bad, give him a chance. Remember this one? “Oh, all of this appalling, heinous shit he’s saying is just campaign rhetoric, he’s going to pivot and start acting presidential.” Pepperidge Farm remembers.


BobbyBifocals

I do find it funny how they call it hysteria It's like yeah bro, women's rights are actively being stripped lol. Weren't conservatives going absolutely ape-shit over mask mandates? That's a a piece of fucking cloth over their face compared to ultimate control over a woman's reproduction desires. Talk about fucking hysteria


Huskies971

>I do find it funny how they call it hysteria With the actual Greek word origin, calling it hysteria really does highlight how women have been treated throughout history.


starmartyr

Pointing out conservative hypocrisy is an exercise in futility. Nobody believed them when they said these things and nobody who said it believed it. They don't care that we know that they were lying, because their lies do not have consequences.


Ok-Abbreviations2278

They will continue to gaslight, dont worry. "What you say has happened did not happen"


420inPDX

No, they'll just move on to gaslighting about contraception or gay marriage.


dogbolter4

I honestly never thought in my lifetime I would see what the US has become. Banning books, banning abortion- and yes, the two are related- it’s horrifying. The likely move to ban same sex marriage... it’s as if the things that I admired about the US, such as robust intellectual debate, progressive ideals, striving towards excellence in science and humanities has all just- evaporated. It’s gone. The US as I knew it as an affectionate observer has disappeared.


GonzoVeritas

They will move to eliminate gay marriage and contraception, and I think the speed with which they do so will surprise many. They keep on saying they will do this, they have rallies proclaiming it, but everyone ignores them, thinking it's impossible. It's not impossible. It's now probable. “When people show you who they are, believe them the first time.”


MyMacchiato

This is a repost of something I’ve been putting out for a while. Just so everyone understands the scale of—if—abortion access is put to the states: Here’s an infographic showing how the states might respond post, Roe, Casey: https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2021/10/26-states-are-certain-or-likely-ban-abortion-without-roe-heres-which-ones-and-why Only 15-states* and the, District of Columbia, have made laws to protect access to abortion. *Colorado recently made it the 16th-state to do so.


BlueSkySummers

26 states have trigger clauses which will ban abortion immediately.


Radi0ActivSquid

Nebraska is trying really hard to get a trigger law that would ban ALL abortion. Even for cases involving rape and incest.


CoolFingerGunGuy

Don't forget that pregnancy after rape is an "opportunity." I'm sure the person that said that would think differently if it was a relative of theirs that got raped. But then again, there's that one dude that said he told his daughters if they are getting raped, to lay back and enjoy it. So, they're all monsters in the republican party.


ArnoidTheAnnihilator

We know how they feel when it's a relative. https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2019/5/15/1857976/--The-Only-Moral-Abortion-is-My-Abortion-an-article-by-Joyce-Arthur


Razakel

>We know how they feel when it's a relative. Yeah, they don't want anyone to find out who the father is...


sedatedlife

Every red state will have the same law passed before the decision officially comes out now.


NorionV

And if I recall, 8 states already automatically outright ban abortion. So if Roe V Wade goes down, millions will instantly be shit out of luck. This is a bigger problem than most are seeming to think, you are correct to say.


NPD_wont_stop_ME

Yep, and Republican parents of gay children will continue to vote Republican. Conservatism really is a fucking cancer on our society. We're moving *backwards* when the focus should be on mending our country and saving democracy.


assumeyouknownothing

This right here. As a proud gay man, I grew up with conservative parents who although they love and support *me*, they will always vote Republican and vote against my rights as well as my two sisters’ reproductive rights. They can claim to be vocally supportive of LGBTQ/women but it doesn’t mean shit since they consistently vote Republican because “low taxes”.


GoGoBitch

The sad part? Republicans are actually raising taxes on the majority of Americans these days, the highest income bracket excepted, of course.


thealmightyzfactor

Yeah, mine and everyone in my family's went up, but some of them still bring up how drumph 'lowered taxes' - like you literally paid more as a percentage of your income, wtf are you talking about.


ricochetblue

Because taxes come before human rights.


TheBigPhilbowski

But you see, they don't love and support you then.


pixellating

and criminalizing homosexual activities.


DragoneerFA

Look back a little over ten years ago, and Rick Santorum was talking about bringing back anti-sodomy laws to arrest people in their own homes for consenting activity. People lost their shit over the idea at the time, and rightfully so, but... given enough time, we'll be right back to where we were. This is what they've always wanted. Edit: [Sauce](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rick-santorum-gay-marriage-sodomy_n_1030513).


DangerBay2015

Alito directly mentioned sodomy laws in his 90-page opus leaked today. It’s not just a court ruling, it’s a how-to guide.


MildlyResponsible

Also important to note that only 14 years ago Californians voted *to take away* the right of gays to get married. This was the same year they helped elect the first black president, and 3 years after it was legalized in all of Canada. This isn't to say California will criminlize being gay tomorrow, but people forget how recent these rights have come to be, and how behind the rest of the world even the most liberal parts of the country have been. Roe is 50 years old and they're going to throw it in the garbage, do you really think decisions from the last decade or two are safe? Especially when they all use the same fundamental interpretation of the Constitution?


assumeyouknownothing

Yep. *Lawrence v. Texas* will be overturned and homosexuals including myself will be put away


etownzu

Next on the list. Contraceptives. Gay marriage rights. Miscegenation. Any other ground breaking law/ statute using the creation of the right to privacy as an indirect right afforded to us via the 4th amendment. Buckle up buckaroos the fascist state is coming along greatly thanks to "moderates" having 0 ability to push back cus they are spineless "moderates".


upbeat_controller

Surprised nobody has mentioned this so far, if there’s anything that absolutely ain’t grounded in the “history and the traditions of the Nation” that the “Originalists” on the court drool over, it’s whites marrying blacks :/


agent_flounder

Any rulings combating racism, misogyny, or any other form of progress made in the last 70 years are likely to be overturned as well. We never should have relied on the SCOTUS to do the work of the legislature. Rulings aren't law. And as much as we wanted to believe they were somehow set in stone, clearly they never were. The GOP long game is finally paying off for them and their right wing extremists and religious zealots, it seems.


Traditional_Art_7304

Sterilization and an uptick infant deaths would be the unintended consequences I would expect.


Nokomis34

The 4th Amendment is the biggest thing protecting us from law enforcement. The 4th Amendment pretty much underpins all interaction between law enforcement and civilians. Be very afraid if this affects that at all. If I'm understanding it right, they are arguing that the constitution does not specifically state a right to abortion as the reason for overturning it. Well, there's a lot the constitution doesn't explicitly say, like the right to privacy. No where does it say that citizens have a reasonable expectation of privacy. It's just how the 4th has been interpreted for a long time. So yea, if they can overturn Roe v Wade on those grounds, be very afraid what else this court could do.


Backwardspellcaster

>They will move to eliminate gay marriage and contraception, and I think the speed with which they do so will surprise many. Within the next months, mark my words. While they have the majority in the court and everything. They push this through hard now.


Admiralty86

Wait, they want no abortions AND no contraception 😳? Like condoms and BC could be banned?


HallucinogenicFish

[Blackburn denounces Supreme Court contraception ruling from 1965 | The more prominent Republicans criticize the Supreme Court’s Griswold v. Connecticut ruling on contraception access, the more the public should care.](https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/blackburn-denounces-supreme-court-contraception-ruling-1965-rcna20862) > the Tennessean, reading carefully from a teleprompter, eventually said something genuinely interesting: >> “Constitutionally unsound rulings like *Griswold v. Connecticut*, *Kelo v. City of New London*, and *NFIB v. Sebelius* confuse Tennesseans and leave Congress wondering who gave the court permission to bypass our system of checks and balances.” > The rhetoric came less than a month after Republican candidates for state attorney general in Michigan also denounced the *Griswold v. Connecticut* precedent. > Circling back to our earlier coverage, *Griswold* was a landmark case in modern American history. In 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 7-to-2 ruling, struck down a Connecticut law that restricted married couples’ access to birth control. The court majority said such statutes are impermissible because they violate Americans’ right to privacy.


LoserGate

Also, don't forget it all started when Republicans got the Supreme Court to gut voting rights


acityonthemoon

I guess Chief Justice Roberts really *is* going for the Dred Scott award, isn't he...


fuck_republicunts

Citizens United was before that. The 2010 REDMAP gerrymandering was before that. It's been a long time coming.


PolicyWonka

People really need to be focusing on the privacy aspect. That’s one thing these laws all have in common. Basically, Republicans are saying you no longer get to have privacy — the state is always watching you in the bedroom, bathroom, and anywhere else.


TacticianRobin

And yet Republican voters will still somehow believe they're the party of small government.


DSMatticus

So, there's this legal concept called "the constitutional right to privacy." In this case, we're not using the word privacy to mean what it means today (secrecy). We're using it to mean something more like... "the right to conduct one's private affairs as they see fit." But the thing is, the constitutional right to privacy isn't actually in the constitution. It was basically invented by court rulings. Specifically, the Supreme Court declared that the first (free speech, free assembly), fourth (free of unwarranted seizure), and fourteenth amendments (right to due process) *implied* a constitutional right to privacy. How can the government honor the spirit of those amendments while claiming the authority to control every personal decision you ever make? It can't, obviously. And so here's the kicker: the constitutional right to privacy is behind almost every major cultural defeat social conservatives have ever had in court, so they fucking hate it. The basic friction here isn't all that hard to grok, if you think about it. What do social conservatives want? They want the government to punish people whose lives they disapprove of. What does the constitutional right to privacy do? It protects you from being punished by the government for the way you live. Legalization of contraception? Constitutional right to privacy. Legalization of interracial marriage? Constitutional right to privacy. Legalization of abortion? Constitutional right to privacy. Decriminalization of homosexuality (yes, we were arresting gay couples for having consensual sex as late as 2003)? Constitutional right to privacy. Legalization of gay marriage? Constitutional right to privacy. No one knows how far they'll go with this. The limit is their own boldness.


AgitatorsAnonymous

If they go after Griswold, the case that established the right to use birth control and successful gut it, then the Right of Privacy is gone. Privacy was created (from a legal standpoint in the US) in the Griswold v. Connecticut case, and since either Birth Control access or Gay Marriage is next on the chopping block, it's easy to see where this is heading. I give it two years, if that, before they gut Griswold which would invalidate every, single solitary court ruling based on it.


bensonnd

I'm guessing states like Texas and Florida will go after things like Griswold and Obergefell MUCH sooner. I give it by end of year now that they've effectively been given the green light and know where the majority of the court stands.


that1prince

Attorney here. This is what I’m getting as well. They are removing any rights that aren’t explicitly mentioned in the original constitution and bill of rights (which if your read it thoroughly really only has a few directly mentioned). Most of the “rights” as we understand them today are implied or patched together through a logical progression of interpretations about things the founders couldn’t have foreseen. But just like with prohibition and Jim Crow laws, the rights we enjoy can be rolled back if we aren’t playing defense at the same time we’re playing offense on other issues.


freakincampers

There is no inherit right to a lawyer either in the constitution, nor does the constitution say the police have to read you miranda rights. Expect those to go away too.


rickpo

I'm old but not *that* old, and when I was a teenager, you had to have a prescription from a doctor to buy a condom. You had to have a legitimate medical reason to use birth control.


juggles_geese4

Seriously? What condition would you neeed to get a prescription for a condom? I don’t understand. I’m clearly far to young. That’s what I find utterly baffling is a group of men who are likely impotent or (assuming they are faithful) whose wives have been postmenopausal for 20 plus years are the ones making these laws that are going to the court. My generation is at the age of being parents many of us are specifically choosing not to be because the world is shit and I can’t afford to have a kid and to pay for myself to live. So I have to chose to abstain, but some how I need to ensure my husbands needs are met (because you know conservativeness..) or if I’m raped I guess that’s god way of tell me I’m to be a mother, which would also involve going off much needed (life or potentially death) medications so I don’t risk harming the fetus or causing a miscarriage, because fuck my well-being I’ll get to experience the joy (and by joy I mean I don’t think I’d love through breast feeding as I have some pretty bad mental illnesses that unmedicated likely lead me to going down a scary path or two before the time I can get back on them comes along.) of motherhood. Just a just fucked, but would that be reason enough for a prescription for bc or condoms back in that day and age? Because it’s not enough to warrant me getting my tubes tied or anything more perment than an IUD. Praying if I get it switched out soon it’ll last until I’ve hit menopause but I’m also wishing for that to be around 40 then soo. I feel I need to repeat this a few times, but this is fucked.


rickpo

I believe the intent was, they only wanted people using birth control if the wife's life would be in danger if she got pregnant. So you had to be married, and the wife had to have a serious medical issue. I don't think that's how it worked in practice. I'm pretty sure most doctors would write you a prescription anyway. But it sure was hard for teenagers to get their hands on condoms. I was too young for it to effect me directly, but I heard about kids who would drive over the state line to buy them, or steal from their parents' supply.


Medic_Mouse

The wild part is that the very nature of pregnancy and child birth makes both those things a danger to the mother's life.


p001b0y

I’m in my fifties and remember being young and seeing contraceptives under lock-and-key but I don’t remember the kind of stuff you are referring to.


NorionV

Might have been a regional thing. Like with this abortion stuff right now: a bunch of states have it technically banned, but Roe v Wade is blocking that. Maybe that person lived in a state that had these issues, but you didn't.


chaoticnormal

Besides unwanted babies, no condoms would make stds skyrocket.


AccurateStromtrooper

Yes. They didn’t like that millennials couldn’t afford babies and just chose not to have any. They need future slaves


RobbyTheRobit

All of the actions of the GOP makes sense when you realize they want a poor, uneducated and easily exploitable workforce.


pmmeaslice

These fucking idiots don't understand that there are plenty of us that WANT kids and we are refusing now due to these rulings. I will not risk this upon myself (death or disability/permanent pain just for being pregnant) nor will I bring a daughter into this world to face this risk.


Divio42

> These fucking idiots don't understand Here's the thing: These fucking idiots, meaning the Justices deciding this stuff and the politicians pushing it, they do understand. They just don't care. They have money and they have power. These laws don't affect them. If their mistress needs an abortion, they still have ways to get it at little cost to them. They see this as a golden opportunity to put the left on a massive defensive push forcing us to waste our time and energy fighting for basic fucking rights so it's all that much easier for them to push through shit that does benefit them when the comes and we'll be too distracted and/or tired to really fight back.


momalloyd

It's a numbers game. Why bother trying to convert people to your way of thinking, when you can just out breed everybody else.


monstersammich

They will Prob come for interracial marriage too since “that’s not in the constitution” either


WildYams

[Republican Senator Mike Braun from Indiana recently said he believes the Supreme Court needs to overturn the case that made interracial marriage legal.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/22/braun-supreme-court-interracial-marriage/)


sighbourbon

which is fun, because SC Justice Clarence Thomas is only allowed to remain married to his white wife Ginnie because of this exact law.


peeinian

Maybe he’s looking for a way out of his marriage


GreatTragedy

Thomas is the perfect combination of incompetent and evil that he'd vote to overturn Loving.


DangerBay2015

It’ll be a Red State talking point heading into November, sure enough. They don’t have the abortion issue to rally people around anymore. They won that fight.


CrotalusHorridus

> They don’t have the abortion issue to rally people around anymore. They won that fight. They always have to have an out-group. It'll be LBGTQ next


azdustkicker

Can you apply for asylum in another country because your nation is turning into a fascist hellhole where your personal safety is increasingly coming into question? Asking for a friend.


blackesthearted

After Mike Braun said even interracial marriage should be left up to individual states, I've seen family members parrot that, too. "Everything that takes away states' rights should be overturned. If a state wants gay marriage, it can decide. If a state wants interracial marriage, it can decide. Everything should be a state-by-state thing." So, Obergefell, Griswold, Loving. Nothing is safe.


RobbyTheRobit

They already are attacking LGBT people and with the mention of Lawrence v Texas they've signaled they're not just going for a ban on same sex marriage but criminalizing homosexuality.


uprislng

>They don’t have the abortion issue to rally people around anymore. It will be an issue, unless they find a way to criminalize it at the federal level, because there will be states that legalize it. For instance I believe Colorado passed such a law recently, I suspect in anticipation of the coming storm. I wonder how this will play out over time in voter demographics. We already have a problem with self-segregation leading to blue states becoming bluer and red states becoming redder. This is just another dividing factor.


[deleted]

>“When people show you who they are, believe them the first time.” Maya wept


sheepsleepdeep

When a conservative majority opinion crows about made-up rights that are “not deeply rooted in history”, and suggests a right to privacy isn't in the Constitution, your ears should perk up.


bin10pac

Originalism = fundamentalism.


HaloSlippin

It’s not even all that complicated. This is the “judicial activism” the right loves to whinge about. But we all know it’s never been about principles. It’s all just post-hoc reasoning to get the outcome they want. Originalism is just a convenient excuse.


New_Ad_3010

FascistGOP 2022/2024


kmoonster

Note: same-sex marriage happened for the same reason as inter-racial marriage. Namely, it is kind of difficult to be married in one state and not another even if all you ever do on the other state is make a pit stop while passing through to elsewhere. Say you are flying from one 'friendly' state to another and are redirected to an unfriendly due to emergency or weather. One of you trips and tumbles down the stair at the hotel you got a voucher for, go to the hospital for a fractured bone. The hospital could refuse to let you in to see your partner on grounds of "only immediate family can visit, and the state does not recognize the marriage as valid". That sounds far-fetched, but it's an entirely possible scenario. Edit: and if that's annoying, the possibilities with minor children are terrifying, doubly so with a minor who is of conflicting, ambiguous, or transitioning gender or sex. This is not OK. You and a spouse can leave a bad situation on your own merits as adults, a child cannot and what's more can be legally removed from your custody and held as a ward or placed in foster care. Edit 2: I forgot to finish the first part-- we have both same sex and interracial because laws in one state conflicted with another, resulting in a short circuit as soon as a legally married couple tried to do things that legally married couples do (and no, not sex). Being told "no" resulted in a federal decision being handed down to resolve to discrepancy, and here we are.


beedubaya

That's the scenario the Baptists are salivating to make reality, and they own the country now.


holdingoutforafearow

For fiscal conservatives they seem quite bent on financially crippling the country.


beedubaya

They want gays back in the closet, women back in the kitchen, brown people back to the back of the bus, a Bible into every science classroom, and severe punishment to anyone who objects. They are quite bent on imposing that vision.


aloneandeasy

It's terrifying that some people watched *The Handmaid's Tale* and thought it was an inspirational tale about the birth of a new nation!


Holiday_Newspaper_29

As regards women, it seems that their goal is to get women out of the workforce and back in the kitchen...'barefoot and pregnant'. So, the next targets will be contraception, maternity leave and benefits.


icenoid

That’s been a push for years. When they talk about the decline of the traditional family, they, among other things, mean that women should be at home raising kids.


TreboRsirhC

Good luck having one income


rangerfan123

They want you to work 60 hours a week with no OT


Kwahn

Unironically true, they miss when a man had a right to be a wage slave, and a woman had a right to be one a bit more literally


1Darkest_Knight1

Its wild to think that people can barely make ends meet with two working adults in the family, but the GOP is so detached from reality that they think they're saving us from ourselves by forcing the woman back into the home. They cant see the forest for the Trees. This ultimately isnt going to work long term. Maybe thats the idea though. Tear it all down so they can build their Christian Caliphate.


Emily_Postal

They said that back when Hilary Clinton was First Lady. This was their goal for over thirty years.


OllieQ25

As an LGBT person I’m scared.


MadFlava76

Gay rights were built on the decisions that gave Women’s rights. Now women’s rights are being systematically destroyed by the courts. You have every right to be afraid because now everything will be a target.


orangemansus

Terrified lesbian over here.


thisisntinstagram

Me too. My fiancée and I have been toying with the idea of getting married sooner rather than later because of this bullshit.


nayahs

Seriously, do it. Nothing is off the table anymore.


zirzeal

As a trans person living in a very red state, I’m terrified.


WeAreTheLeft

I don't want to sound to alarmist or hyperbolic, but this is setting the grounds for two Americas, literally Coasts with secured human rights and the South a version of Gliead-Lite. by giving states the choice to decide on all rights not EXPLICIT in the constitution we will have blue states with codified laws for things like gay marriage or abortion, but red states will exert their "right" to deny these things. It's culture war on steroids. They will try and say this ruling applies only to this specific case, but it won't, legislatures in Red states will push the bounds of the law knowing the court won't do shit. Our only hope (which is small) is the red states overshoot their line so far it evokes a mass reaction from the people, but that would require Democrats with balls (metaphorical people, not actual balls) to counter the republicans, but the current leadership is useless. Strap in for a very shitty 25 years.


cultfourtyfive

Part of their game plan is to make national laws banning abortion, gay marriage, and every other perceived "non-Christian" right the minute the GOP has full control. So I don't even think we'll have the bastions of blue states given the fuckery of the Senate makeup and the current voter supression efforts.


Capricore58

Fuck this fight, let the fuckers have the dystopian wasteland they want. I support the independence of Greater New England


sprocket1234

I am totally discussed by this and what it seems to be leading to. They talk about their rights not to get vaccinated and wear masks. These things affect others. Abortion is a personal choice that people walking around me would have no consequences. Same sex marriage and interracial marriage doesn't have any affect on people around them. They want rights to control others, yet not be controlled, SMFH I truly believe if abortion were linked to medication for ED, there would be no discussion at all.


coskibum002

SCOTUS is a sham. They're supposed to impartially interpret and uphold laws. They're now just a far right talking piece.


UnreliableTL

It's impossible to be completely impartial, but these people aren't even trying.


TheDukeOfMars

The current Supreme Court has always held the decisions of the previous courts as sacrosanct. I fear this will be a modern Dred Scott case and will serve as precedent for years to come. There is a reason you can’t just go change previous Supreme Court cases, because then the next court will just change it back and it officially becomes a partisan institution forever.


musicmage4114

Yes, you can “just go change previous Supreme Court cases,” because that is literally what just happened. [It’s happened plenty of times before](https://qz.com/2098152/how-often-are-supreme-court-decisions-overturned/ ), sometimes within just a few years. Like the professed non-partisanship of the Court, *stare decisis* is a comforting lie the legal profession tells itself in an effort to maintain an air of legitimacy. The people who are supposed to be bound by *stare decisis* are the same people responsible for holding themselves to that rule. One court’s “landmark decision” is a later court’s “faulty reasoning.” That has always been the case, and will continue to be so.


DangerBay2015

And not just same-sex marriage. Interracial marriage. Abortion was just the already way too massive tip of the iceberg.


NotMeow

Watch Thomas vote against Interracial marriage. Lol... he's just that much of a tool.


MC_Fap_Commander

>Interracial marriage For anyone who believes this is hyperbole, Florida went from a gay friendly-ish southern state to "hunting down gay GROOMERS!" in the span of a few weeks with just the right propaganda. **This ruling means that no right you believe you have is at all safe.** React accordingly.


johndoped

Remember that first season of The Handmaid’s Tale where the gay coworker was hung outside the work offices? Make no mistake, conservative Christians may have softened on their language about a lot of things but probably wouldn’t complain too much if the US regressed a la Iran 1979.


MC_Fap_Commander

There was a chilling scene early in the Handmaid's Tale when some incel at a cafe harassed a lesbian couple pre-Gilead. It seemed absurd to think losers like that guy would have control over a political system. But here we are.


[deleted]

do people really not understand the novels were written *about the evangelical movement in the US*?


ImmaculateBadger24

>do people really not understand the novels were written about the evangelical movement in the US? I mean, you can literally see people behave like that IRL and some Americans still don't understand what Handmaiden was really about. Y'all are fucked in the short term, and the rest of the world too in the long term.


EmperorPenguinNJ

And when you consider that Republicans view Gilead as a paradise, it’s really scary.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Michael_In_Cascadia

By however a county clerk feels about issuing license to a couple.


FalstaffsMind

If you read the Florida Laws such as "Don't say Gay' or the "CRT" law... they never define anything. The laws are purposely vague. What they mean is up to enforcement.


_DOA_

In Lousiana, at least, they used to have the "one drop rule." Something like this: if you are 1/32 "non-white," (based on ancestors' birth certificates), then so are you. I learned about this when a blond, blue eyed woman lost her shit and sued because she found out her birth certificate listed her as black. Here: https://www.nytimes.com/1983/07/06/us/louisiana-repeals-black-blood-law.html


code_archeologist

And contraception. This decision didn't just overturn Roe v Wade, it tees up Griswold... Which if we lose that one pretty much destroys all ideas of a right to personal privacy.


coolprogressive

Thought-crime too, coming soon.


Ruffles808

I just…. *like what the actual fuck???* For fuck’s sake, I’m imagining that if all of this shit goes through, we genuinely might see ass-backward shit like segregation come back in our lifetimes. They’ll start with crippling the LGBTQ community and women, then they’ll probably move on to non-whites shortly after, and after *that* then they’ll come for the non-rich (read: YOU). *Is this the America actual living human beings want to live in? A state where we get cucked by our government and the wealthy class?*


Doublethink101

>But in so-called Originalism, a once-fringe legal theory that is now the gospel of half the Supreme Court, a right must also be “part of the Nation’s history and traditions” to be protected. Might I just mention that under this view, voting as a right is on the chopping block too. When this nation was founded, most people couldn’t vote.


PoWerFullMoj0

Should this come to pass, we all should prepare for a lot more: Domestic abuse, child abuse, poverty, prostitution, drug addiction, broken families, mental health crises, ridiculous necessity for government assistance which may not be available thereby reinforcing poverty, health issues, strain on healthcare systems, more inflation. But by all means let's protect the hell out of all those clumps of cells at the cost of everything else. Clearly we just don't have enough people on Earth, right? I wish so much I could live far into the future so I could laugh at where self-righteous idiocy has led us.


houseman1131

Don’t forget crime to sky rocket.


PoWerFullMoj0

Yup, forcing people into lives of desperation will definitely fuel that.


TheDukeOfMars

The book Freakonomics, which was required reading for my intro to economics class, literally opens talking about how the sharp drop in crime after the 90s is strongly correlated to the Roe decision a generation before hand. We won’t feel the effects for 20 years from now, at which point they’ll blame it on the party in power.


MightyMetricBatman

Police, prosecutors, and prisons don't prevent major crimes like assault, rape, and murder; they deal with the aftermath. To prevent major crimes, you have to minimize the conditions that cause people to be willing to do those things. And nearly all of that is economic opportunity, economic support for the disadvantaged, and healthcare. Guess which side of this the US has become the shitstain of the major developed economies.


pmmeaslice

I remember reading from a prison guard who said 90% of people in prison have either a history of TBI or a mental health condition.


newnemo

My great state of Vermont, as well as others, enshrined in law access to abortions. They will act rapidly to follow with more codified human rights that SOCTUS overturns. We are now a nation divided, which will fall and fail. It isn't freedom of religion it is freedom *from* religion. I'm angry, I'm heartbroken and frankly frightened for those who cannot migrate to states that recognize basic human rights as most won't be able to afford to do so. With abortion it is the poor that are most affected. I haven't read through this thread so pardon if this is a repeat, Margaret Atwood is a visionary although I feel certain she laments it.


Stone_007

This is so bad on so many levels but it’s also one step closer to them seemingly wanting civil war. How can we be the United States of America when it’s going to turn into red states and blue states basically being polar opposites. Republicans will simply go to blue states for abortions and poor woman who can’t afford it will suffer the most. Edit typo


chanepic

Especially maddening becauseL 1. There are more dems/independents than GOP . 2. These supremes were seated by an unpopularly elected President. 3. They are NOT GOING to STOP. 4. Dems will still lose this November because, sorry to say it but, mediocre white men run this country. Edit: I want to be clear here. I’m not saying there are no great white men. I’m saying these particular mfers doing these things.


peter-doubt

Logic? What logic? This is politics, and the discrediting of the Roberts Court. Fine legacy, there.


420inPDX

Oh, there is ***so much more*** at play than just abortion, contraception and same-sex marriage. This spells doom for: * Interracial marriage * Laws against gay sex * Laws against adultery * Worker's rights * Minimum wage laws * Voting laws * Drug laws * Immigration laws Basically anything that isn't explicitly in the Constitution is doomed -- and even then, if the GOP gets enough state legislatures on board, they can just manipulate the Constitution to say whatever they want. Welcome back slavery and women being essentially chattel with no voting rights or representation. Don't fucking say that I'm fearmongering. That's what people told me back in 2016 worrying about *Roe v. Wade* and electing Trump. Lo and behold, guess who was right. **Edit:** Oh, I forgot -- you know how Trump wanted to "fix" the libel laws in this country so that nobody could call him on his shit? That's back on the table too. Same with a locked-down sanitized internet.


glowsylph

At least we can be gloves-off about it. If you support Republican ideology, you and your beliefs belong in the trash. The chance at common ground left when you are trying to criminalize me and mine out of existence. Now it's self-defense.


Fluffy_Morning_1569

Just like Russia claiming they weren’t going to invade Ukraine.


N0T8g81n

What SCOTUS giveth, SCOTUS may taketh away. If *stare decisis* were sacrosanct, then Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas couldn't have been decided as it was, and Plessy v Ferguson would have remained the final statement on segregation. SCOTUS has become a blatantly political government body. Balls and strikes? More like balks on a whim. There was no broad political consensus on abortion rights in the early 1970s, and there hasn't been since except that majorities tend to favor a right in the 1st trimester, then government regulation. Absolutely the case that if there's no 14th Amendment penumbra providing a right to abortion, neither is there any penumbra which extends to Obergefell v Hodges, Griswold v Connecticutt or Loving v Virginia. If we want to become strict textualists, then neither is there any basis for Gideon v Wainright. If this doesn't drive non-conservatives to the polls, nothing would seem to be able to, and the nonvoters would deserve the country they get.


Rainbow_Seaman

I’m gay. I’m fucking terrified. I have absolutely no way to leave if shit hits the fan


OpenImagination9

If this doesn’t deliver a solid Democrat majority in congress nothing will.


artcook32945

This will, if passed, affect Red States the most.The Dems can use this to run on.Every Women's Group will be on their side. Because the GOP, if in power, will make this a National Law. GOP Women will be as affected as every one else.They may just not vote.


[deleted]

I fear you gravely underestimate the number of GOP women that want harsher treatment of those seeking abortion than even their male counterparts


ency

Exactly, except for theirs of course.


GoGoBitch

The only moral abortion was my abortion.


ThatEvanFowler

Or the one I make my husband's tramp side-piece get. I have spoken to Jesus and he gave me the a-ok on that one.


TwentyFoeSeven

Remember that woman who was arrested for a miscarriage? That’s the future the Rightzis want; arrest any woman, for any “wrong doing”. She refused sex to a good ole boy? Toss her in jail. She refused to accept a marriage where the husband will beat her and cheat on her? Toss her in jail. She refused to be a good ole boys mistress? Toss her in jail. This is the result of loser white boys who couldn’t get any during the 60s. They were “hurt” during the free love era and are now taking it out on all women. I bet dollars to KKK hoods that most of these new rules and laws will apply to white men only. No one wants to fuck you; which is why they are also pushing to legalize rape.


_DOA_

WTF with this title? Like, this was a secret? "We Told You!" Yeah? No shit.


sideburns2009

I’ll be damned if my marriage is nullified by a racist fascist hillbilly. All hell will break loose.