Birth control is next. SCOTUS and the extreme right are coming after not just Roe, but also Griswold (v. Connecticut). That's the case decided in the mid-60s that some see as the precursor to Roe. Believe me, that case isn't safe either. These nuts want total domination over women.
It all comes down to white supremacy and wanting to maintain birth rates of white women. (Hint to extremists -- maybe try universal health care, daycare, pre-k and financial assistance.)
This was a repost (copy & paste) on a girlfriend's page. Wish I knew who deserves credit:
I want to quote this message from Jeanne on prediction page as a humble reminder of where we are now and where we are going in the future.
"In 2014, I predicted a lightening event would happen in 2020 that would cause our world to shatter and then pivot us towards a better world......... For the next eight years we will transition towards this new world, as empathy, caring, and a more equalitarian system gradually rises. It won’t happen all at once, though. There are more battles ahead and the journey is long....."
"There are more battles ahead and the journey is long" is exactly what are happening before our eyes at this very moment. Trump opened the Pandora's box and this is a wake up call to complacent people. We marched to the polls in 2018 and 2020 and gave Democrats many wins and we shall keep doing it and I believe the outcome will be positive.
Keep faith everyone and have a wonderful Labor Day.
@lynnventura Hi, I hope that doesn't happen and attitudes can change.
It has made me wonder what the situation was here in Australia about abortion as I had not had any involvement with that. I am putting some information below if it helps seeing how other countries deal with it.
Abortion in Australia - Wikipedia
Abortion in Australia is legal. It has been fully decriminalised in all jurisdictions, starting with Western Australia in 1998 and lastly in South Australia in 2021. Access to abortion varies between the states and territories: surgical abortions are readily available on request within the first 14 to 24 weeks or pregnancy, although with no limit on gestational term in the Australian Capital Territory; later term abortions generally require the approval of two doctors, though are prohibited in the Northern Territory after 24 weeks unless it is required to save the women's life, and are heavily restricted in Western Australia after 20 weeks.
Since at least the 1980s, opinion polls have shown a majority of Australians support abortion rights, and that support for abortion is increasing. While anti-abortion violence is rare in Australia, anti-abortion activists have used tactics including "verbal abuse, threats and impeding entry" outside abortion clinics.[1] In response, all jurisdictions have enacted laws prohibiting protesters from harassing visitors and staff within a certain radius of abortion clinics, beginning with Tasmania in 2013 and lastly with Western Australia in 2021.
A woman's sexual partner is not required to be notified of an abortion, and Australian courts will not grant injunctions to prevent the procedure, even if the applicant is the putative father of the fetus.[2] No waiting periods are imposed on having an abortion. A minor does not need to notify a parent of a proposed abortion nor is parental consent required, except in Western Australia. While abortions are regulated by the states and territories, the procedure is partially funded under the Federal Government public health scheme, Medicare, or by private healthcare insurers. In the case of “a child capable of being born alive” (usually taken to mean after 28 weeks of pregnancy), a termination may be subject to a separate crime of child destruction in some states and territories.
Australian abortion law and practice - Children by Choice
Abortion is no longer a crime in Australia. But legal hurdles to access remain (theconversation.com)
Regards to all
@matildagirl Eliminating the right to birth control is on the right wing's wishlist, but if I can't possibly see them accomplishing it, and if they do, it's going to be crazy. Can you imagine all of a sudden not being able to access birth control? I'm way less concerned about that than about abortion rights.
Bottom line is the right and the GOP want to erase rulings handed down by the Warren Court, which was the most liberal in US history. They decided Griswald (although not Roe). It was an incredibly consequential court and its decisions are hated by the right wing.
Check out Wikipedia if you're interested in a little constitutional law, and also why the right wing has been so obsessed with controlling the supreme court.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Court
@laura-f agreed. Georgia is rushing to follow along. Current leadership needs to stop worrying about bipartisan ship and focus on accountability of previous and current GQP. They gain ground with each second they are allowed to get away with it.
@lynnventura I remember being worried about them getting rid of access to birth control in my late teens early 20's when I could vote...I'm 38 now...I don't see how they could do that, especially for medical reasons. i'm not on it anymore, but I used to be for heavy periods/endometriosis.
@michellepazicni I wouldn't worry about it. I don't think they'll actually do it, although they are extremists who want to try. I imagine the pharmaceutical companies would go nuts if they even tried it.
I disagree that the GQP won't try to further restrict birth control in all its forms including pharma.
SCOTUS has already allowed certain religious institutions to deny such access via their insurance plans.
Big Pharma will find a way to make up the money elsewhere, and the insurance companies don't like paying for it anyway.
It has been hard to be positive this past week, but am hoping this 9/6 response from Garland is a ray of hope. DOJ link on the bottom.
Statement from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Regarding Texas SB8
The U.S. Department of Justice today issued the following statement from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland regarding Texas SB8:
“While the Justice Department urgently explores all options to challenge Texas SB8 in order to protect the constitutional rights of women and other persons, including access to an abortion, we will continue to protect those seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services pursuant to our criminal and civil enforcement of the FACE Act, 18 U.S.C. § 248.
“The FACE Act prohibits the use or threat of force and physical obstruction that injures, intimidates, or interferes with a person seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services. It also prohibits intentional property damage of a facility providing reproductive health services. The department has consistently obtained criminal and civil remedies for violations of the FACE Act since it was signed into law in 1994, and it will continue to do so now.
“The department will provide support from federal law enforcement when an abortion clinic or reproductive health center is under attack. We have reached out to U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and FBI field offices in Texas and across the country to discuss our enforcement authorities.
“We will not tolerate violence against those seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services, physical obstruction or property damage in violation of the FACE Act.”
If you have an incident, concern, or questions, please contact the FBI at FBI.gov/tips or through the complaint portal civilrights.justice.gov.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-attorney-general-merrick-b-garland-regarding-texas-sb8-0
@theungamer It is a nice statement, but whether intentionally or not, it completely missed the point. The FACE Act is not even the issue; FACE has always been enforced - at some times and places better than others, admittedly, but this new vigilante law is the issue. It is a blatantly unconstitutional law that the Justice department should have been ferociously fighting all along. Instead, we get a bland, luke-warm, Milque-Toast statement about how "we're going to enforce this other law over here that has nothing to do with the issue in the hope that it will distract you from the fact that we did absolutely *nothing* to try to stop an unconstitutional law from being passed. Oh yeah, we're also not going to sue Texas for it even though it's obviously unconstitutional because...well, I don't know, we're just not."
@tgraf66 Merrick Garland's statement may have some unseen possibility. Sometimes life has a way of coming around the back side of an issue with unexpected results. Maybe these new laws will cause an excess of court cases, overburden and crash the Texas court system. Let's leave space for possibility.
@cindy I love this. I found it last week on Twitter and reposted on my FB page. I actually engaged with someone there and we both managed to remain civil! I knew her perspective and fully anticipated we were on opposite sides of the issue. She kept bringing up the moral/philosophical arguments for personhood, etc., but never dealing with the autonomy question and the (what I consider to be the primary) issue of forced birth. The argument presented in the post you shared really details what most of the religious arguments dance around. Thanks for sharing here!
Interesting article talking with CEO of Redfin about the movement of the U.S. and climate change. People may be moving to Texas for the lower prices and cost of living right now but in the long-term it might not be the best move. Insurance companies know what is coming.
Homebuyers not worried about climate change: Redfin CEO (cnbc.com)
But I can understand not leaving a state you have made a home in. I was born in NC. Other than some study abroads, student exchange, working at a camp in VT, etc. I have lived here my whole life. You want to talk about a political battleground state... Plenty of stupid, ignorant people but also some progressive people here. Plenty of relocated Northerners as well as Southern morons with Confederate flags.
I'm hoping climate change won't affect me too much in Central NC. I've put up radiant barrier and it really does help control the heat of the home. We could live without A/C. It wouldn't be comfortable but it would be survivable. It's already paid for itself and things are only going to get worse.