R.I.P. Roe v. Wade
When the Republican-dominated Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade after nearly half a century as America’s guidepost on abortion rights, you could almost hear the feminists screaming from coast to coast. I don’t make light of their screaming; they had every right to scream. But of course the story is more complicated than the abrupt snatching of “choice” from the nation’s female population.
By returning abortion policy to the individual states and the people who elect their state representatives, the Court was striking a blow for pure democracy – wasn’t it? Well, yes and no. Yes, it’s arguable that state-by-state policies on abortion are theoretically more “democratic” than a nationwide policy handed down from on high. On the other hand, the SCOTUS decision ignored the fact that the majority of Americans favored Roe v. Wade. Even a recent Fox News poll revealed that 63% of respondents believed that Roe should stand.
By overturning Roe v. Wade, the Court has paved the way for draconian policies that are already shaping up in some of our more benighted states. Near-total abortion bans from day one of a pregnancy have already become law in at least 13 states, with more expected to follow. (Exceptions are almost always made for life-threatening pregnancies, but not necessarily for cases of rape, incest or catastrophic fetal abnormalities.) Some states have raised the spectre of prison and steep fines for anyone helping a woman obtain an abortion – even the possibility of criminal charges for miscarriages. And Justice Clarence Thomas, always dependable for his boldly reactionary opinions, has intimated that contraception and gay marriage could be next on the chopping block.
The pro-life movement has won, at least for now. At the same time, most of the nation has lost. Not only because countless thousands of women will either be forced to bear unwanted children, sneak across state lines to abort them, or resort to more desperate means of ending their pregnancies… but because the Court, in its dubious wisdom, scrapped an eminently reasonable and yes, moderate approach to the abortion dilemma.
Is it possible to take a moderate stand on abortion? Isn’t it a simple either/or issue? Either we allow abortions or we ban them, right? Wrong. In fact, the original ruling of Roe v. Wade back in 1973 seemed – to me, at least – the most enlightened approach to this thorny and ever-divisive subject.
Roe originally permitted abortions during the first trimester, before a fetus is medically viable or even capable of voluntary movements. It let individual states decide abortion policy during the second trimester, with concern for the health of the mother as the deciding factor. Finally, it authorized bans on abortion during the third trimester, with exceptions made for potentially life-threatening pregnancies. But that wasn’t enough to satisfy the pro-choice contingent, so the Court’s 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision scrapped the original trimester plan and removed most of the restrictions.
Of course, The New Moderate takes issue with both the pro-life and pro-choice absolutists who have dominated the conversation for the past half century.
I respect the pro-life assertion that human life is precious and shouldn’t be discarded like yesterday’s newspaper. But is a shrimp-sized fetus with barely recognizable features genuinely human? It’s the blueprint for a human; it would develop into a human… but is it human enough to warrant turning women into baby factories against their will?
Should a young rape or incest victim have to live with shame, put her life on hold for nine months to carry the perpetrator’s child, and help him propagate his wayward genes? Should even a careless college girl or aspiring career woman be forced to put aside her aspirations as the result of an untimely pregnancy? As long as she seeks an abortion during the first few months of her pregnancy, while the child she’s carrying isn’t even recognizable as a child, I think she’s entitled to make the decision herself.
Does that make me a pro-choice advocate? Not exactly. The classic “My body, my choice” mantra deliberately overlooks a crucial point: that a pregnant woman is carrying a second (and genetically distinct) body inside her body. Once that body assumes recognizably human form, makes voluntary movements and can feel pain – usually around 20-24 weeks – abortion becomes eerily tantamount to murder, and no amount of feminist rhetoric should justify abortion on demand at that late stage.
Granted, the vast majority of abortions (93% in 2019, for example) take place before 13 weeks, and nearly 99% before 20 weeks. But with some 900,000 abortions being performed in the U.S. each year, that leaves roughly 9,000 late-term fetuses deprived of a chance to live. Probably a high percentage of those are non-viable or pose a serious threat to the mother’s health. But the others should be protected by law.
That’s the one minor restriction I’d like to see imposed on a woman’s “right to choose.” If she’s going to make the choice, she should be required to make it before the second trimester – unless medical complications necessitate a drastic late-term abortion. Unlike some of the newly unleashed state laws, such a restriction wouldn’t attempt to subjugate women or turn them into compliant brood mares. It would simply ensure that a recognizably human fetus gets a fair shake.
The majority of Americans are actually moderates on abortion. Surprised? So was I. The pro-life / pro-choice dichotomy dominates the national debate, while (as usual) the middle is a bastion of silence. According to a recent Gallup poll, 35% of Americans said abortion should always be legal, while 13% believed it should always be illegal. That leaves 52% with more nuanced views, comparable to Roe v. Wade.
So where do we go from here? Given that over half of Americans are neither pro-life nor pro-choice absolutists, we have a few options that can temper the radical conservatism of the current Supreme Court.
Although I routinely shun partisanship, I’d advocate electing enough Democrats during this fall’s midterm elections to gain a majority in both houses of Congress. Not woke Democrats – just your standard-issue, fair-minded, moderate-to-liberal Democrats. A Democratic majority could wield the power to codify the terms of Roe v. Wade as federal law, nullifying the Court’s decision. If that sounds like top-down meddling from Congress, remember that it would be based on popular support from the majority of Americans – those who favor a nuanced approach to abortion.
And what if the Republicans win at the polls this November? It means we’d have to accept – at least for the time being – an abortion policy that varies wildly from state to state. It would mean helping pregnant women sneak across state lines, giving them access to abortion pills, or (if all else fails) requiring their mates to pay child support.
Still, the question remains: Why has abortion caused such a political firestorm when it’s clearly a nuanced medical issue? Because America has become a nation of opposing tribes – angry, dogmatic, mesmerized by ideology, and unwilling to compromise. Maybe that’s the biggest problem of all.
Rick Bayan is founder-editor of The New Moderate. His three collections of dark-humored but strangely comforting essays are still available for the ridiculously low price of $2.99 each on Amazon or wherever else e-books are sold.
THE NEW MODERATE 
not half-way and after the first trimester only if the mother’s life is in danger or for gross fetal deformities. Secondly, where are the moderate Democrats that we can elect in the upcoming races? Seems like wokeness dominates and I hear many saying abortion is allowed even at birth. Also, I am terrified of Thomas’s statement about restricting contraception. If there is anything that is a preventive to abortion or brining unwanted children in the world it is contraceptives.
Dobb’s makes similar constitutional errors to Roe and Casey.
but ultimately I do not think it will prove consequential.
It will result in lots of changes in state laws regarding abortion.
It will result in early abortions – or better use of contraception or both.
But I do not think it will result in women dying in back alley’s.
We are in a different era, it is much easier to avoid a child or circumvent this law than 49 years ago.
Thomas is somewhat correct – if Dobb’s is correct (which it isn’t, but neither is Roe or Casey),
then Griswald, … should all fall too.
But Thomas is alone. There is a 5 member conservative majority that is not going to strike down contraception of Gay rights.
I do not expect the courts to even see such cases.
I do not expect that any state is going to challenge those decisions.
Much of what is going on now is fear mongering.
Dobb’s is wrong, but I do not think it is consequential.
Thank you wordpress it omitted the first line of my comment. I said,
Thank you, I agree with almost everything you said but I would limit it to the first trimester.
Thanks, Savannah. I did a little more research and I have to agree that three months is a better cutoff point than 20 weeks. The fetus has already begun voluntary movements by then.
First,
If we are going to set cuttoffs – it is unwise to pretend they are meaningful.
Humans are not complete mental development until their early 30’s,
yet legally the can drink at 21, Be drafted at 18, consent to sex at 16, and drive, tedtify in court at 10.
All of these are somewhat arbitrary – different people reach stages of development earlier or later than others.
There is a debate here over when a life is human – there is no answer to that.
There is a debate over “viability” – if that is your criteria – eventually the point of viability will be conception. Today it is approaching 20weeks.
Regardless, you can persuade yourself that any point is the correct inflection point.
Ultimately, when we try to set inflection points such as these in the law they are ultimately arbitrary.
There is no point you can pick that I can not make excellent arguments that it is too soon or not soon enough.
This is a frequent error in your conception of “moderate”.
You presume that something that is ultimately arbitrary – i.e. NOT based on some strong fundimental principle, is going to gain broad public support.
Just because you pick some point in the middle that does not mean you will inherently get majority support – which seems to be your goal.
You do not need majority support for a decision that rests on clear principle.
Further, you are essentially arguing that everyone else is wrong – because of some point that you have chosen that is fundimentally arbitrary and is not distinguishable from other points based on some moral or principled basis.
Your version of moderate has no foundation that positively distinguishes your position from those you call “extremist” – that usually actually have some principle behind them.
I do not have a problem with arbitrary legal inflections points. But I have major problems claiming moral authority for those choices.
There is no moral authority for setting Drinking at 21 or driving at 16.
Hi Rick—per usual, your arguments are strong. I disagree, however, with the recommendation to remedy the situation by voting for more democrats in the Fall elections. This can’t be looked at as a single issue election.Too many horrific policy decisions have been made over the last 18 months that need to be addressed. That won’t happen as long as the democrats control both houses of congress. Also, there is no guarantee a democrat congress would codify a national abortion law. It is a wedge issue through which they have generated huge female support for their political party for decades.
In November people get to decide.
Is this issue important or not ?
The evidence so far is that outside of the far left, this is not an important issue, and that on Net if may benefit republicans more than harm them.
But there is nothing wrong with a person deciding that they will not vote for any republican and they will vote to get laws changed to increase abortion rights.
Just as there is nothing wrong with people deciding to vote for republicans because they finally made good on their promise.
My expectation is this will SLIGHTLY benefit republicans. and more strongly benefit Trump.
I understand your argument – and it is a valid choice also.
And in november people will choose.
Good points — yes, we have more than the abortion issue to think about. It’s just that although both parties are full of extremist nutjobs at this point, I feel marginally safer with the Democrats. At least they’re not beholden to the Trump cult and its conspiracy theories. But yes, I’d like to see more moderate Democrats win seats — if they can be found. (Of course, I’d like to see more moderate Republicans, too — but that looks virtually impossible now with the near-total dominance of the far right in the GOP.
Just when I was beginning to think that you were drifting away for the left.
Why is it that you feel marginally safer with Democrats?
Would that be because for the first time since the 60’s we have been afraid of a global nuclear war killing billions under Biden ?
Would that be because for the first time since the early 80’s we see inflation above 8% ?
Would that be because for the first time since the 80’s violent crime is increasing under democrats ?
I certainly do not feel safer today than just 2 years ago.
As to conspiracy theories – would that be the collusion delusion ? Or Hunter Biden is all russian disinformation ? Or any of the myriads of other nonsense we have been fed by the left over the past decade+
It would take me thousands of words just to list the real damage, real threat, real conspiracy theories of the left and democrats.
What is it that you actually think is the threat from the right ?
We had our first actual attempted political assassination since Reagan – with the attempt on Justice Kavanaugh. We have had violence at over 60 pro-life clinics – including dozens of arsons.
Again what is “far right” ?
Is it opposition to open borders ?
Is it about Trade deals ?
Is it about thwarting endless wars ?
Is it about energy independence ?
I do not agree with every republican policy,
but the worst of republican policies are far less dangerous and damaging than the best of democrat policies.
I had this debate with Ron, and apparently “far right” is a question of style rather than substance.
Is that were you are ?
Regardless, what is “far right” ?
As always, a balanced and well argued position, Rick.
When Barack Obama ran for his first term, he repeatedly stated that he would codify Roe, so that states which wished to prohibit abortion would not be able to do so.
You’ll probably recall that, in his first 2 years,Obama had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and an overwhelming majority in the House. Had he made it clear that codifying a legislative right to abortion, he could have done so, and would have had no problem with the GOP, which would have been powerless to stop him. My guess is that he would have had an huge victory in passing that legislation, and would have picked up a significant number of Republican votes. As you note, most American voters are in favor of moderate restrictions on abortion, and, politically, that would translate into many blue state and moderate Republicans supporting a bill that was not extreme.
In my opinion, Obama didn’t really want to resolve the abortion issue, because Roe has always been a reliable “bloody shirt” to wave around in order to goose Democrat turnout, not to mention inflaming the emotions of women who were led to believe that they would be kept “barefoot and pregnant,” (or, alternatively, wearing long red robes and white wimples, à la The Hand Maid’s Tale”). It had, over time, become the reliable rallying cry of Democrats during election season, taking the place of “the Republicans will end SS and Medicare,” which had grown somewhat stale, as Republican administrations came and went, with no attempt to end those programs.
In any case, Obama, who began the great partisan divide of our current politics by passing Obamacare without bothering to get a single Republican vote (not even Susan Collins, who WANTED to vote for it, but couldn’t convince the Democrats that her vote was worth a single compromise) decided that abortion was best left unresolved.
Trump, on the other hand, campaigned on appointing justices who would likely overturn Roe, and issue which animated the religious right to support a rich, non-religious NY liberal (former, perhaps) who had, in the past, been very openly pro-abortion.
My point is not that Obama=bad and Trump=good. It’s that resolving the issue of Roe v. Wade would take a divisive issue, which could be demagogued to the hilt, off the table. I agree 100% with Robert on that poiny.
I would point out that Republicans have done the same thing, by promising to repeal and replace O-care, without ever making a good faith effort to do so, and by campaigning endlessly on securing the border, while never doing so (Solid GOP majorities in Congress would not even give Trump $4B for his wall, and that’s chump change to D.C. politicians).
The big winner in the Dobb’s decision is Trump.
Abortion is one position I think he is actually hypocritical on.
But millions of people do not care – he is their hero now.
He delivered.
This harms DeSantis – though he is pro-life,
Because Trump delivered on this.
The big losers – especially if this proves to be a fizzle as I expect,
will be “RINOS”
The more important consequence of Dobb’s especially if it proves to be a fizzle, would be SCOTUS striking down more controversial and unconstitutional precedents.
I do not think that Loving, or Griswald, or Obergefel are in danger.
But I do expect more decisions like the one limiting the EPA yesterday.
This is not Rick’s worst post,
But it continues his constant theme that everything should be resolved by some kind of compromise.
Roe was wrong, Casey was wrong, Dobb’s is wrong. Rick wish that the court would just compromise is VERY WRONG.
While Roe, Casey and Dobb’s address the wrong right – there is no right to an abortion.
Dobb’s correctly argues that were there is no right the issue should not be solved by the courts. The problem with Dobb’s is there is a right, it is just not the right to an abortion.
We – including Rick are free to persuade the court they got it wrong – which they did.
But it is not the courts job to give us what we want – that is what legislatures and constitutional amendments are for.
Rick’s argument Which appears to be to convert Roe to federal law,
does not actually address the real question.
Which is What are the actual rights involved – and does the Constitution get that right ?
If not we should change it.
But ultimately I expect this will be one of he most anticipated duds in history.
Lots of state laws may change, women will choose to act eariler, but I do not except a large political backlash – outside of the fringe left, and I do not expect a substantial change to our lives. I do not expect an increase in unwanted children as an example.
Regardless, we are going to see.
Thanks, Priscilla. It’s hard to iron out a moderate position on abortion; in fact, I’ve already revised my ideal cutoff point back from 4 1/2 months to 3 months. But I still think it’s sad that the original terms of Roe, which were so reasonable and nuanced, had to be corrupted by the 1992 decision that virtually cleared the way for abortion on demand.
As for Obama… admirable man, great speaker, big ideas, the coolest president since JFK… but a little too prone to dithering on policy and backpedaling on his promises. More of a thinker than a man of action.
Put yourself back in that time, Rick… one of the biggest concerns was the budget – not Roe vs Wade… that was essentially considered a done deal until now.
I am presuming that the 1992 decision you are attacking is Casey ?
Casey merely does away with the trimester system – which was openly rooted in the courts understanding of the current state of medical science, to a “viability” standard.
There are serious legal and constitutional flaws in Roe, Casey and Dobb’s.
But Casey REDUCED abortion “rights” – and posed the imminent threat of seeing them reduced further as medical science advanced.
Further BOTH Roe and Casey allowed unlimited abortion on demand.
Both decisions limited the extent to which the state could infringe on the “right” to an abortion.
States were and REMAIN free to allow abortion right up to birth. That is not new.
And it is unchanged even by dobbs.
And Roe was not “reasonable and nuanced” it was arbitrary and blunt.
Obama looks incredibly good next to Biden.
But he was a poor president.
Further – while a slow trend had begun before him, he is an inflection point in the arbitrary excercise of executive power. And that has proven disasterous.
It should be self evident that nearly all the 1% increase in Growth under Trump was the result of rolling back regulation, and a more hands off approach to most everything.
If it was not self evident then, it should definitely be now.
Biden has reversed pretty much everything that Trump did without thought.
And the economy is responding – by choking.
I do not know that it is official yet – but GDP has declined for 2 quarters in a row, I do not think it is negative yet, but we have declining growth and rising inflation.
We know what has changed, you should be able to grasp the causes.
I would note the economy was headed towards a recession in 2016.
That trend reversed when Trump was elected.
It does not take a rocket scientist to grasp that Obama was a poor president, and Biden is the worst since Buchanon.
I like Obama as a person – though not nearly as much as you.
I would probably prefer having a conversation with him than Trump.
But being president is not about being likeable.
There are ways Obama resembles Kennedy – but those are about personality, not the actual job of president.
Rick, only question I have concerns the 63% that you quote saying roe should stand. That is a national poll. That means anyone that supports leaving roe as it was believes those in California, New York and Illinois, among other liberal states should dictate policy for Alabama, Arkansas and Mississippi, among other conservative states.
I do not accept that thinking. Please read the following from Pew research and look at the ending polling information by state. Arkansas and Mississippi have 60% and 59% of their citizens that want abortions banned. And in the article, they Pew states the original polling information was still pertinent, even with the increase support nationally for Roe. I suspect that is due to increase support for roe in the liberal states and not much of a change in conservative states.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/01/21/do-state-laws-on-abortion-reflect-public-opinion/
If we are at a point that people in the large liberal coastal states can dictate to the fly over conservative states rules for the all states to follow, then it is time to change the constitution and eliminate states altogether and have all policy come out of D.C.
Remember, abortion was not made illegal by SCOTUS. If a woman wants an abortion she can still get one if she lives in a state where it is illegal. She will just need to go to one where its legal. Or I suspect the feds will find a way to make the pills by mail legal everywhere using some constitutional article to support that.
Those in states that ban abortion have three choices, Live there and do nothing. Move to a state that allows them. Or get off their butts and vote. When only 35% to 55% of voters vote in elections, both off year and presidential years, that means there are a large numbers of people that can vote and change leadership within their states. And if they don’t vote, then they dont really have the privilege to demonstrate against laws enacted in their states.
Wasn’t that the argument by the southern states for the continuation of slavery? Isn’t our nation built upon principles of human dignity and freedom that negate the right of individual states to impose slavery or serfdom upon any group or individual?
Yes, that was the arguement. And when slavery was ended, the government amended the constitution to insure harm of those individuals was ended and their rights protected. So if abortion should be legal nationally because large percentages of citizens support abortion, then should we not change the constitution the same as they did in the 1860’s resulting in the 14th amendment in 1868 to insure the rights of women to obtain an abortion?
This is why it is important to get the actual rights correct.
There is no constitutional right to an abortion.
Dobb’s gets that analysis correct.
But there is a right to control over your own body.
Getting the right correct, changes the whole thing.
The end result is closer to Casey – which is sort of what Rick is arguing.
But it is not the same and it is constitutionally defensible.
Though obviously the constitution can be changed – with difficulty – as it should
The questions you ask are ones of constitutional rights.
After a bloody civil war we amended the constitution to make clear that slavery was unconstitutional. Arguably it was before.
I would note that some of the most evil compromises ever were over slavery.
That alone should give on pause.
With respect to the topic of discussion – there either is a right involved – and we must identify the correct right and protect THAT right, or there is not, in which case states can do whatever their citizens will allow.
There is no compromising actual rights – whatever they are.
States have no power over morning after pills by mail.
That is interstate commerce and there is no read of the constitution EVER that allowed states to interfere in ACTUAL interstate commerce.
The polls are all self contradictory.
At the same time as people wanted to presevere Rowe large majorities supported upholding the laws that SCOTUS just found constitutional.
I do not think polls matter – because they do not measure the strength of a view.
Another poster warned people not to make abortion a single issue to base your vote on.
Some people will. That is their right. But most people won’t.
As best as I can tell Abortion has barely risen as an issue of importance since Dobb’s
That does not mean people agree, just that they do not think it is important.
And I think they are right.
Alot has changed in 49 years,
If this really brings back backalley abortions – Republicans are toast.
But if as I expect this changes little, the court is likely to strike down even more unconstitutional precedents – though I doubt that will be loving, Griswald and Obergefell.
Ron: You bring up an important issue, similar to the debate over the Electoral College. Yes, a majority of Americans favor a moderate policy on abortion, but not necessarily the majority of red state residents. Should the states with larger (and more pro-choice) populations dictate national policy? I guess it all comes down to whether we view the U.S. as a republic or a confederation of individual states. I know the founding fathers decided that matter when they scrapped the Articles of Confederation, but the issue of states’ rights keeps popping up throughout our history.
Again with the fundamental errors.
The political structure in which the majority dictates to all is a democracy – not a republic.
I would further note this is NOT specifically about states.
The larger the country, the more diverse the people, the more harmful democracy is.
The greeks could not make democracy work in small city states.
If an issue divided the country in a way that was not geographical and 51% of the country felt one way and 49% the other – would the majority have the right to impose its will by force ?
The structure of the US government, our constitution, are designed to make it very difficult for the majority to dictate how the minority must live.
The issue is not “states rights”.
There are multiple issues involved.
But the one you seem to be fixating on is that government tends to do best that is closest to the people.
Optimal government for those in nowhere Idaho are not the same as those in New York City.
Democracy does not scale at all.
With specific respect to Abortion the fundimental question is whether there is a right involved.
If there is, then the supreme court must limit government – federal state or local in infringing on that right.
If there is no right involved – government is free to do as it pleases. State local or federal – constrained only by other provisions in the constitution.
I think Roe, Casey and Dobb;s were all wrongly decided.
But Dobb’s is correct that Roe and Casey are unconstitutional and it is correct about why.
Dobb’s is also correct that if no right is involved – then the courts have no role.
Technically Dobb’s did not return this to the states, it merely removed the courts from the issue.
One additional thought. Chuck Shumer can take the risk of eliminating the filibuster and codify abortion rights federally across the country.
But remember, Reid eliminated the filibuster for judicial appt’s because Obama’s appts were so far left. That was for all except SCOTUS. Well he cracked the door and McConnell drove a truck through it and now look what we have for justices.
So if he tries to limit the suspension of the filibuster to just abortion, the door is cracked once again. Think about 2025 if Trump get reelected, the house is GOP and the senate is 53-54 GOP. McConnell will drive another truck through the cracked door and there will be no one to stop anything Trump wanted to do. That scares the ____ out of me.
Ron, I’ll be surprised if the Dems eliminate the filibuster for Roe. McConnell has a lot of leverage in the 50-50 Senate, not to mention that he has Manchin and Sinema, who have steadfastly maintained that they are opposed to it (of course, they could probably be “encouraged’ to change their minds, with the right pot-sweetener, but would it be worth it?)
If McConnell wants to play hardball, Schumer won’t be able to pass anything but a federal abortion ban, which may not even survive a constitutional challenge.
I think that your point, made dozens of times over the years, is that the Constitution can be amended, if only our leaders had the political will to do so, and the democratic principles to abide by the result. The last time the Constitution was amended was over 30 years ago, and dealt with Congressional salaries (I can’t even recall the specifics of it). There are certainly any number of controversies that could be resolved by amending the Constitution, but it would be difficult, by design. Our current political leadership avoids hard work.
I didn’t mean to say “federal abortion ban.” I meant “federal ban on abortion bans,” lol!
I doubt Manchin and Sienama can be induced.
Manchin is probably the most popular democrat in more than half the country.
He certainly not going to lose an election in West Virginia.
Further both Manchin and his state are far more red than blue – there is a great danger in twisting his arm that he changes parties.
I do not think hat will happen, but only because democrats will not push that hard.
I doubt Sienama will change parties. But she will face re-election in a purple state and I think she has locked that for years to come.
Caving to the rest of her party is a sure road to defeat.
I am not surprised that Manchin is standing up to his party.
I am surprised by Sienama.
Regardless, there is no deal likely here.
It is probable that a federal abortion law would be unconstitutional.
Or alternately quite weird.
The normal way the federal government legislates in domains that are NOT within the constitutions federal powers is the bribe or blackmail states with money.
That is alot of how PPACA works,
Abortion is not in the domain of the federal powers.
There is no way to limit eliminating the filibuster.
Constitutionally the house and the senate get to make their own rules
and as we see with the J6 committee – there is no power to force them to follow their own rules.
If Schumer tries an abortion fillibuster work-arround, the Fillibuster is effectively dead.
You said you are scared ofd a 2024 GOP senate majority without the filibuster.
I am currious – what is it that you are afraid unchecked republicans will do ?
Democratic presidents and not even checked by congress anymore. That is what I am afraid of.
What is it that Republicans would do in 2024 if they had a fillibuster proof majority and control of all of government ?
This is a variation on my – there is really no consequential extreme right argument.
I am asking you to put your fears into words – because I suspect that they are unfounded.
But maybe I will agree,.
Regardless, we should be no more affraid of fictitious extreme right wingers than the boogey monster, and my suspicion is that your fear of republican control of government is fear of the boogie monster.
This is an excellent and unfortunate example of why a party based solely upon the perceived virtue of “moderation” will always languish in the tall weeds. While many topics do indeed lend themselves to moderation in coming to a viable solution (“common sense” restrictions on gun ownership and sales, etc.), there are some topics where seeking a point of commonly perceived “moderation” won’t work… and shouldn’t, frankly. As an example, Rick you note “the one minor restriction I’d like to see imposed on a woman’s “right to choose.” If she’s going to make the choice, she should be required to make it before the midpoint of her pregnancy.” So to you, “moderation” means allowing the elective taking of the life of the unborn child at the mother’s discretion all the way up to roughly 20 weeks.
I, on the other hand, would say that’s an abomination of a notion, given what we know here in the year 2022 regarding fetal development and the sensory world in which that unborn child resides. I’d characterize it as an act of brutality, pure and simple, unless done to save the life of the mother.
With the dissolution of Roe v. Wade, here in South Carolina the “heartbeat law” now goes into effect, and I believe that law to be an appropriately “moderate” one. Under that law, a woman who is raped or subject to intercourse in a condition of incest can of course take the “morning after pill”, preventing the development of the child. And she can have an elective abortion up until the time that a fetal heartbeat is detected…a clear “compromise” between the notions of protected life at conception, and those who support abortion on demand. And of course abortion is allowed even following the heartbeat detection when the mother’s life is in jeopardy, yet another “compromise” which allows the life of the child to be taken. Any further deference to some perceived virtue of “moderation” is wholly inappropriate.
Anonymous: I understand your concern. Since writing this piece, I’ve done some more research and revised the reasonable cutoff point for an abortion down from 4 1/2 months (when the fetus is already making voluntary movements) to three months, which I think is fair enough. (At three months the average fetus weighs half an ounce.)
The fetal heartbeat cutoff point — around five weeks — strikes me as too early. Many women wouldn’t even realize that they’re pregnant at that point, and a heartbeat alone doesn’t define whether a fetus is fully “human.” (After all, fish have heartbeats, too.)
You bring up a more important point, though: that the very nature of moderate thinking involves nuance, a tolerance for ill-defined “gray” areas, and a diversity of opinions (as with the cutoff point for abortion). Left- and right-wing extremists, on the other hand, enjoy virtual unanimity on most issues because they tend to see those issues in stark black and white.
Now I’ve read that a three-month fetus weighs about 2 1/2 ounces. (I thought the previous estimate of half an ounce was a bit suspect.) Still, three months seems like a reasonable cutoff point. Voluntary movements begin shortly afterward.
Noting the features of a fetus at some point in development does not make something a reasonable choice.
The cognitive ability of infants is low.
They can not see at birth, a whole slew of attributes occur at different times from birth through weeks, months years.
It is as reasonable – or unreasonable to say that you can kill the developing human before the fetal heartbeat as it is to say before it can walk.
Listing a bunk of attributes and randoming picking specific ones as an inflection point is NOT reasoned thought. It is less defensable than using conception or birth.
You want to claim superiority over the “extremists”, but all you are is less passionate.
Rick your own claims regarding what is moderate – undermine themselves.
You are vacillating on a time frame for abortion restrictions – but based on nuance that as you explain it is not that compelling.
If the fetus is a human life – does it matter if the woman knows she is pregnant ?
If it is NOT a human life – odes it matter if she knows ?
Why is whether a woman knows an important criteria ?
Are we free to commit murder if we do not know that is what we are doing ?
Your shifting points – from 4 1/2 to 3 months are arbitrary – which is the fetus kicking determinative ?
Why is ANY specific point determinative ?
You essentially confess the decision is arbitrary and then claim there is a correct choice.
The law that dictates that you can drink over 21 but not under is arbitrary.
We all know that.
But there are NOT strong competing factions that want humans to be permitted to drink from birth and those seeking to prevent humans from ever drinking.
We can resolve many things with arbitrary laws – only because even if majority disagree on the arbitrary point – they do not disagree vigoruously based on some moral principle.
There are only two attributes that seem to separate your “moderation” from “extremism”
That is a lack of passion,
and a religious faith that even in arbitrary choices the best choice is near the middle.
Neither of these inspire trust.
I have accused you of leaning left repeatedly.
That is not exactly true.
What is more accurate is that because there is no strong foundation for the choices you make you can easily be influenced to shift those choices, and the left is very good at emotional influence.
Ron P. For some reason I cannot reply to your reply. The 14th amendment “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” You explain to me how forcing a woman to have her body used to carry an unwanted child and then forcing her to alter the rest of her life to care for that unwanted child is not an abridgement of the privileges and immunities accorded to all citizens of the US? Of course it is!!! If such a situation were imposed upon men, they would be shaking their fists asserting the validity of the claim that this is such an imposition upon their freedom that it can easily be seen as covered by the 14th amendment. But please understand I am only for abortion in the first trimester except when it endangers the life of the mother or for gross fetal deformity. The mother has had sufficient time to determine her ability to care for the child and by that time the fetus has developed traits that prevent its humanity from being denied.
So the moral standard you’d use is that “The mother has had sufficient time to determine her ability to care for the child and by that time the fetus has developed traits that prevent its humanity from being denied.”? If “…ability to care for the child” is a valid criteria to determine whether a child’s life may be terminated, we live in dark days indeed.
Why stop at birth, if that’s your “criteria”… there are many children who grow up in relative poverty or have parents with varying degrees of child-rearing skills… shall we terminate them as well? If you take an innocent human life for any reason once it has a measurable heartbeat, I think it’s grammatically fair to say that you’ve denied its humanity.
Why define the existence of a heartbeat as the point defining its humanity? Why not at the point of conception? Or to use the logic of the Catholic Church of previous eras, contraception is killing the sperm or the egg hence it is a form of abortion.
Savannah, I use the initiation of a measurable heartbeat as the “starting definition of humanity” because (1) it allows for a consistent, science-based method for measuring an electrical output from the child and therefore provides for a non-ambiguous way of defining a clear marker in an admittedly dynamic fetal development process, (2) the heartbeat is initiated at a time in the child’s sensory development process whereby pain should not be present and (3) it provides the mother with several weeks after conception to take the morning after pill or otherwise undertake an abortion very early in the child’s development cycle. It strikes me as the best (admittedly imperfect) hope for a “moderate” compromise if one is genuinely interested in seeking a solution which protects the child while providing the mother with a measure of “choice”, even following conception.
Savannah, I am in agreement that limiting abortion-on-demand to the first trimester is probably the most moderate of all of the potential compromises that most politicians would consider, and I could live with that.
What I can’t live with is the belief that a woman has an inherent right to abort a baby.
Abortion is not a right. It doesn’t exist in the constellation of natural rights (although one could argue that a baby has a right NOT to be aborted).
But pro-abortion activists don’t want us to stop at merely putting some reasonable restrictions on why and when a woman can abort a pregnancy. They want abortion for any reason, at any point up to birth, to be enshrined as a sacred right, and they won’t accept less than that. And they have an entire political party that is fighting for their demands.
I wish I could nominate someone like you to be the Abortion Czar. I’d be more than happy to accept what you decided were decent, morally acceptable guidelines on this. However, if you chose to turn down that nomination, I’d pretty much be out of ideas.
Thanks Priscilla,. I don’t seem to have the option to reply to your reply so hopefully you will see this reply. Yes, I find the claim that abortion should be allowed at any point in the pregnancy to be horrifying. Even more horrifying is killing the child during the birthing process as some abortion advocates are demanding. I don’t think that anyone can deny that at a certain point in the pregnancy, a human being is growing inside of a woman, a human being wiho should have the same right to life given to all humans. The mantra. My body my choice denies these intrinsic rights and values and, in my opinion, undermines the intrinsic value of all people not in a position of power.
Pretty close to right.
People make life altering choices all the time and nature FORCES them to live with the consequences.
That said – absolutely the 14th amendment priviledges and immunities clause says “You may not F$%K with my body” As does the 9th amendment.
Randy Barrnett’s “restoring the lost constitution” does not as I recall directly address abortion, but it does directly address the FACT that the privildges and immunities clause was put in the 14th amendment SPECIFICALLY because SCOTUS had completely ignored the 9th amendment.
Unfortunately SCOTUS constantly ignores large parts of the constitution.
Rick, Not your worst post.
But a glowing example of exactly wht is wrong with YOUR form of moderate.
Roe was WRONG, Casey was WRONG, they were wrong from the start.
Dobb,s BTW is Also WRONG, though it is nearly entirely right about why Roe and Casey were wrong.
You cite polling as the basis for your view of a moderate approach – whatever that is.
We do not decide what Our law MEANS by polling people.
Our Law and constitution MEAN what they Say.
If they do not say what we want – we change the law.
SCOTUS is not the legislature – that is one part of Dobb’s they got right.
It is their job to determine if Existing law is constitutional. Not if it is right, not if it is moderate, not if it is popular. All those other things belong to the legislature.
Dobb’s is wrong for much the same reason that Roe and Casey were wrong.
The fundimental question for the supreme court is whether a state law infringes on a constitutional right.
Dobb’s CORRECTLY found there is no right to an abortion.
But it failed to consider that there is an actual right at issue.
The right of ANYONE to control over their own body.
The fifth amendment guarentees that we are secure in our own persons.
The 5th amendment as well as other parts of the constitution establish that we have property rights and our bodies are our first and most fundimental property.
The 9th amendment makes it clear that even when rights are not spelled out in the constitution they belong to the people.
A women is free to remove a fetus from her body, at any point from conception through birth.
Just as she is free to remove a mole. Or free to change her mind about donating a kidney as she is being rolled into the operating room.
It is not relevant whether the fetus is a shrimp or a person. We are not legally obligated to sustain the life of others with our bodies.
But the women’s right ends with removal of the fetus. She is not free to kill it. Only free to remove it – even if death results.
Within the constraints of constitutional rights – States (or the federal government) are free to pass laws regarding that fetus. They can require the woman to conduct the removal in the way most likely to preserve the life of the fetus – or not.
You fixate on rape and incest or the life of the mother.
These do not factor in.
The womans right to remove the fetus is absolute – at anytime during pregnancy for any reason at all. It is irrelevant whether the fetus is threatening the woman’s life or not.
It is irrelevant whether it is the product of rape or incest.
We are allowed to kill people in self defense – if someone attempts to rape you – you can kill them. But you can not wait 3 months and kill them.
Rape is absolutely heinous and my experience with it is far more intimate than yours likely is.
But rape and incest do not change our rights.
The argument I make up is consistent with the actual constitution that we currently have.
More so than Roe or Casey or Dobbs. It produces an outcome similar to Casey – after “viability” whenever that might be, the state may succeed in preserving the life of the fetus.
But unlike Dobb’s or Casey or Roe – the state may NEVER abridge a person’s right to control of their own body. It can only attempt to allow the fetus to survive removal – or not, as the state chooses.
But say you do not like that – which is the decision Dobb’s should have been ?
Or you do not like Dobb’s ?
Change the law or change the constitution.
You spend a great deal of time fixating on what a bunch of red states might do.
Though states are going to do what the people of those states want those states to do – just as blue states will do as the people in those states want.
If as you clam a super-majority of people support your “moderate” position – whatever that actually is – then you will be able to change the law or even the constitution.
That is the part of Dobb;’s that is correct.
The country has watched and waited for this decision and its aftermath with bated breath.
Will the left explode and burn down the country ?
Will republicans be driven out of office in November ?
Will people just yawn ?
So far the result seems to be more than latter than the former.
As noted in another post – Dobb’s correctly found Roe and Casey unconstitutional,
But still managed to rule unconstitutionally themselves.
But I am not addressing that here.
I am asking does this decision matter ?
So far it appears not.
The limited violence of the left in response has accomplished nothing except to make the J6 hearings look even stupider than they are. No one attempted to burn down the capital on J6.
While there have been 60 violent attacks on pro-life clinics and many arsons.
Apparently the american way is to burn things down when we do not get what we want.
Still the violence only involves a few and only “the usual suspects”.
So far I am no seeing evidence that the country as a whole is outraged, that this decision will alter the election.
I strongly suspected something like this when TX passed SB-8 with its elaborate enforcement mechanism to circumvent court scrutiny.
Ignoring the fact that the court should ALWAYS accept facial challenges to the constitutionality of a law – even if no one has standing to challenge whether the law is constitutional as applied.
TB SB8 was otherwise and interesting slight of hand.
From the start one thing I wondered was – will it have an effect ?
i.e. Will SB8’s prohibition on abortions after 15weeks actually result in some great harm ?
What would happen if before SB8 reached SCOTUS it was self evident that the only effect was that women got abortions before 15 weeks ?
Are moderates “offended” if the result of a purportedly draconian right wing law was not fewer abortions by just earlier ones ?
We are now seeing red states fall over themselves to legislate absolute bans on abortion.
But what if the only effect of these laws – is women chosing sooner ?
There are a variety of “morning after” pills – some are OTC. Further you can buy them on the internet, from europe, from china, on the dark web.
Even if states make these illegal – that is unenforceable.
So what if nothing changes – except that women make their choice eariler ?
I am highly suspicious that – regardless of the fact that this is a bad decision, the bad effect will not be on abortion rights – but the already present effect on broader control of our bodies.
Our right to choose to vaccinate or not, to choose to mask or not, ….
I alluded to the potential effect on elections.
Ignoring for a second Rick’s channelling Thomas and expecting Obergefell, Loving, and Griswold to fall next – which is not going to happen – whether Thomas is right on the constitutionality of those laws – he is not, he is alone in his views.
Gorsuch wrote the most recent Trans rights decision – and though I think he got it wrong – he is certainly not backpeddalling to banning contreception, intermarraige, and gay rights.
Those things will not happen.
If there is a consequential impact on the lives of women – Dobb’s will result in a large political backlash. But I strongly suspect that is not the case.
Conversely Dobb’s is inspiring the right. An almost 50 year fight – and they finally won.
I do not actually beleive that Trump is really pro-life. But he is being idolized by the pro-life movement right now.
It is arguable – and I think correctly that the impact on the upcoming elections will be net positive for republicans.
I am not seeing negative changes in polls for Republicans, If anything polling is a pt or so more in favor of the GOP.
Regardless, in a few months we shall see.
Reply to John D. You say that the development of a heartbeat is the point at which a fertilized egg should be defined as human. It is certainly a convenient marker because it is something that is definite. I have seen pictures of several animals in the womb at the stage of heartbeat development . I cannot even determine to which species they belong. Hence, I don’t see how the presence of a heartbeat defines the point at which we say that a fetus has progressed to a human. There is nothing to distinguish it from other mammals at that stage of development. If you say their DNA defines that difference, then all abortions should be illegal because DNA is defined at conception. I think that it is a much more nuanced determination. I have seen pictures of human fetuses at 4 and 8 weeks, they only remotely resemble humans. At 12 weeks, although extremely tiny, the similarity to a human is too great to dismiss it as not being a human. Hence, I stand by my belief that as long as it is performed before 12 weeks, it should be allowed.
Savannah, you note “There is nothing to distinguish it from other mammals at that stage of development.” Sure there is… it’s the one present in the human pregnant mother’s uterus.
I understand your point, but I’m looking for a marker whereby evidence can be recorded by the attending physician or healthcare professional at the time of the abortion, such as the presence or absence of of the electrical output relating to a heartbeat. Leaving it as “12 weeks” or “10 weeks” is reliant upon information from the mother which may or may not be fully accurate. Using the heartbeat means that a recorded measurement and be taken and filed showing that there is no electrical signal prior to the abortion, and none after.
That said, 12 weeks is obviously much preferable to the 4 and a half months referred to by Rick. With Roe v. Wade now overturned, that’s a decision the states will be making, of course…
Just seeing that Rick has revised the time frame in which abortion might be performed from 20 weeks to 12, and wanted to update my comments and take note of that…much better.
Another difference is that the zygote of two human gammettes can only become a human regardless of what it may resemble. There are only two possible outcomes.
Abortion – natural or otherwise, or a human.
Savannah/Priscilla, took me a day or so before I could get to desk top to post this, can’t get comments to show up everytime if I use any other device except desk/lap top computers.
First, the issue with states rights and the slavery comparison is somewhat difficult for me to reconcile. There was/is no argument that the slave was a living individual. They might have argued that a slave was an inferior human to whites, but they were still human. There is an argument as to when life begins, even to the point some might argue that life does not begin until the actual birth takes place. So based on the differences in the arguments as to life, it is my belief that states should have the authority to make that determination as provided to them by their citizens through their elected officials.
Now my personal position is pro-life, but I do not believe my moral beliefs should be used to control the actions of women in a position of making a decision on abortion. One, my religious beliefs are personal, my beliefs as to when life is created and begins is much different than others and that is something that should apply to me and my family. Second, i am not a woman, so that in itself should disqualify me from making any decision for women anywhere. That is why I have never voted for anyone based on their abortion positions.
Abortion is the same as other issues I will define here as special interest issues. It is like the parental rights concerning what kids learn in school, LGBTQ reform and other issues where groups of individuals with common interest are very vocal for their support for one or the other side of an issue. They may increase turnout in specific states or races that can influence state and local elections. But they are not like national issues that can create larger turnouts in federal elections like security and the economy.
This may have some effect on the upcoming elections, but take one election in a state where abortion is being limited or banned and the voter is a female swing voter, middle income, with two elementary aged children living on two incomes. The issues of importance are parental input as to what their child is exposed to in school, the fact the average cost of a hot dog today is 20%+ what it was last year (and that applies to most food kids eat) and abortion. Two candidates one running on third grade and up learning about LGBTQ, the current economy being good and abortion rights, the other running on parents having input into what their kids are learning, changing the policies to improve the economy and abortion limits. And when I say having input input education, I do not mean control, I mean parents and local education agreeing on acceptable subjects,
My thought are more individuals will vote on the economy over abortion and many parents on education over abortion. But I could be completely wrong. I really dont have a crystal ball. More like a rock head!
I agree that people will vote the kitchen table issues, Ron. I’m not even sure why so many people consider abortion so important that they would make it the single-issue that determines their vote. I mean, it’s an intensely personal decision, I get that, but there are so many ways to avoid unwanted pregnancy in this day and age that I can’t fathom why so many consider it the hill that they’re willing to die on. I have a close friend who says that she’d never vote for a pro-life candidate, no matter what. This is a generally center-left leaning woman, well past childbearing years herself, with 8 beloved grandchildren, all under the age of 10. For the life of me, I can’t fathom why she believes that placing reasonable restrictions on the procedure will lead to banning it entirely.
On the other hand, she doesn’t seem very worked up about the overturning of Roe. I’m sure that she wishes that SCOTUS had decided differently, but she hasn’t even mentioned it since the ruling came out, and we do talk about politics. She lives in NJ, where abortion is legal until birth, so that won’t change anytime soon. In other words, abortion, as an issue, probably won’t affect her vote, regardless of what she says.
She’ll vote Democrat, as she always has, and all the wailing over Roe will just be the political noise that we’ve all become somewhat immune to.
Sometimes people say things that are not fully true. Her comments may just be a way to deflect debate from other more substantive issues that do impact her personally.Economy, education of grandkids, etc.She may be in the group supports democrat financial policies, LGBTQ education, drag queen book readings for kids and government control without parental input into educational subjects and using abortion is an easy way to support woke policies without defending them.
I have alwasy tried to vote on the “future and how it impacts everyone”. So far over the past 22 years, there really has been no good choices in either party. The future look dire with the debt that is being run up over that period and no decrease in spending in any years as far as one can see,
One can say that corporations and the rich need to be taxed more. When looking at the big picture that will not do much to help anyone. Taxing the large corporations just reduce income that goes into pension funds, both defined benefit and defined contribution. That just reduces what people have to retire on in the future. Taxing the rich only takes it now for government waste so it is not available for charitable giving when the rich die, And when I say rich, i mean types like Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Warren Buffett,
Why in gods name would anyone want to tax Elon Musk ?
Can you conceive of anyone that has ever made better use of wealth than he has ?
We need more Musks not less and I would not tax them at all – if they could deliver the same results that are so beneficial to all as Musk has.
The same is true of the others you mentioned and many you have not mentioned, But Musk makes the best proof that government can not accomplish the amazing things that private actors can.
Dave “Why in gods name would anyone want to tax Elon Musk ?”
I know that is sarcasm and you know the answer.
My thinking is if you have an enemy, you can garner support easier than you do if you have a friend.
That was NOT sarcasm.
When you tax something – you get LESS of it.
Do you want Musk or Bezo’s or Buffet or … to do LESS ?
A certainly do not.
Nearly all of the Billionaire class in this country are incredibly productive people.
They are littlerally doing for all of us what Government claims to want – making our standard of living better.
Their success employs millions.
Mush is the most obvious example, but the rest are no slouches.
If you take $1B from Musk – it will have absolutely no impact on him at all.
But you will have $1B less investment, less employment, less production.
There is nothing that Government can do with the $1B it took from Musk that will make up for the harm caused by taking that $1B.
Conversely if we want to “stimulate” the economy – rather than have government decided how to spend $1B – we would be Far better off leaving Musk or Buffet an additional $1B to invest as they see fit.
These are people who have PROVEN over and over they know what they are doing.
They KNOW how to make the world better.
No one in government has a tiny portion of the skill to make things better than these people.
I know that Buffet in particular has advocagted for higher taxes on himself and the wealthy.
That is the STUPIDEST thing Buffet has ever done in his life and he should know better.
Government will NEVER be able to spend what it takes from billionaires a tiny fraction as well as they will themselves.
Anyone with wealth over several million dollars, no matter what they might think – is actually working for everyone else – not their own profit.
Do you think Musk lives better with 400B than he did with 400M or 40M ?
Not in any significant way.
But the rest of us beniefit from what Musk does.
It appears very soon that Starlink will be delivering high speed internet – to OUR CARS.
That is actually a huge deal for me personally. My business model requires taking thousands of pictures for a building inspection and transfering them to the office as quickly as possible.
I have unlimited data on my phones – but still end up being speed limited a week into every billing period. I would happily pay $100/month to have high speed internet in my car.
I could wifi my phone to the car and pictures would be at the office as fast as I took them.
And time is money.
And that is just ONE thing Musk is working on that will make my life better.
Oh, and it not only improves MY LIFE – but that of the people I employ.
Anyway – NOT SARCASM AT ALL.
Reduce TOTAL government spending to about 5-8% of GDP – as it was DURING the Civil War, and you will see 7-8% growth per year.
It is extremely rare that we get to see the impact of different government policies so clearly as we are today.
We can directly compare the state of the country under Trump to that of Biden by results.
I have been arguing for a variety of free market libertarian values for decades.
That argument should be over. The results are clear. ‘
I personally would recommend that Republicans get out of the way of Democrats self destructing. Republicans do not have to vote for stupid democratic laws – they also do not have to filibuster them. If democrats wish to make things worse – LET THEM.
If the only way we can learn is through the consequences of mistakes – then lets learn as much as we can.
What bothers me reading your post is that with the opportunity to actually learn.
In several areas – you have not learned.
We have a massive problem with education and values that to an extent both the left and right are wrong on.
Right in the US inherently means “conservative” – which is also one of the reasons why your concerns about the “far right” – so long as you means extreme conservatism are baseless.
Conservatism inherently means “go slow” or maybe return to some point in the recent past.
This is more often good than bad (because change is more likely to be bad than good) , but even when it is bad it is not nearly as dangerous as the opposite – unrestrained change.
Change is extremely important – because change is how we improve. But as I stated before most efforts at change are BAD not good.
But the more serious issue today is that we are challenging issues such as sex that have traditionally been tied to morality.
The core problem is that rooting out moral errors in our core values leads some to reject the concept of morality entirely.
People can not govern themselves without strong shared moral foundations.
I talk about “the rule of law” – but the rule of law does not exist without strong shared moral values.
The natural progression of western enlightenment thought would ultimately lead to changes in moral values regarding acts that do not harm others.
But the left is going far beyond rejecting moral values that do not have a basis in harm to others and on to just rejecting wholesale the entire concept of morality.
And the rule of law is not possible without broadly shared moral values.
You said the future is important to you – the future the left is leading us rapidly towards is anarchy and then ultimately totalitarianism of some from.
This MUST be corrected shortly. The closer we get to anarchy – the more certain that totalitarianism is. It is probably more likely that the totalitarianism will be “Right” totalitarianism, than left., But it is still bad. Though historically Right totalitarianism can return to sanity easier than left totalitarianism.
The very people you attack and claim are “far right” are our best hope to avoid a far more totalitarian future. These are the people who stand the best chance of Stopping this nonsense NOW. the faster we move towards anarchy – the worse the totalitarian blowback will be. The destruction rather than change of moral values brings us to anarchy rapidly.
I would note that “destruction” is what separates the right from the left.
The left has always pushed rapid change. Today it pushes DESTRUCTIVE rapid changes.
There are many ways to support government through taxation.
Every single one is HARMFUL.
Some are worse than others.
Hybrid systems are the most harmful – they allow the highest levels of damage and have the most uneven results.
SOME government is beneficial – sufficiently to outweight the harm of taxation.
But MOST govenrment does not have sufficient benefit to outweight the harm of taxation.
The above is NOT opinion – there is massive amounts of evidence to support every single assertion above.
With respect to your claim that the Rich or corporations should pay more taxes.
You can have a system that only taxes property, or one that only taxes sales, or one that only taxes individual income, or one that only taxes business income.
There are differences, and TODAY the most efficient and least harmful is sales taxes.
REGARDLESS, combinations are BAD.
The worst form of taxation is taxing Investment – taxing business, and taxing the rich.
That may not appeal to you emotionally, but it is STILL a fact.
Though I do find it hillarious that you are fixated on taxing the rich and corporations.
These already pay nearly all the cost of government – and you think they need to pay more ?
In terms of benefit to the world, standard of living, …..
The most beneficial is for Business or the Rich to reinvest.
The next – FAR LESS benefit is charity.
The WORST is government.
Abortion will with certainty be a major problem for Republicans – if and only if the actual consequences for real people of overturning Roe are consequential.
I may be wrong, but I doubt they will.
I first thought about this with TX SB-8 – the Abortion bill that tried to circumvent challenges to its constitutionality.
I think the mechanism in SB-8 was wrong and I think the Court should have confronted that.
There must ALWAYS be standing to challenge the facial constitutionality of any law.
But it got me to thinking. What if SB-8 took long enough to get decided an was in effect long enough that we could see the consequences – and the consequences were not dire or even significant ?
We KNOW that shifts in the arbitrary point in which women can get an abortion result in women making decisons earlier or delaying. They do not significantly change the total number of abortions.
Half the country criminalizing abortion – so long as birth control and morning after pills remain legal might not significantly change more than a handful of women’s lives.
If that is a case – Abortion is dead as a political issue.
If on the otherhand hundreds of thousands of women end up with unwnted children – that will be a disaster for the GOP.
My bet is that the impact will be near inconsequential, and I think there is evidence to support that assessment.
My guess on the politics based on what I am seeing is that Dobb’s will have a small positive benefit for Republicans.
But that is just my read of the tea leaves.
All the people I know or see who are irrate over Dobb’s were never voting republican.
The real question is whether they were going to sit out the election and have now decided to vote.
Conversely there are republicans who are energized by this. They have waited 50 years for this, they were told it was never happening and it has. these people are empowered.
I do not think either of these groups is large – though Dobbs is a promise kept by republicans – particularly by Trump.
We have conflicts here because Trump republicans are extremely loyal.
That is NOT because they are dupes.
It is because Trump has kept his promises to them, and so they trust him.
Some other republicans benefit from keeping election promises.
most of the republicans that “moderates” on TNM support – are the ones who do NOT keep the promises they make.
Interestingly Democrats are trying to repeat the success of Trump – by giving the far left as much as possible of what they want. And to some extent this is solidifying the political support of the far left of the democratic party – Trust is important.
But there are fundimental differences.
I have challenged you to clearly identify “the far right”, and I have challenged Rick on the same thing.
If you claim Trump is “far right” – then you have just labeled 40%+ of the country far right,
and you have labeled policies that are supported by 60-90% of the country as far right extremist. Even the “far right” policies that do not have broad support, are not dangerous or disruptive.
This is NOT true of the “far left” – with few exceptions their policies and positions are unpopular and unsuccessful.
WE saw during Trump’s presidency the actual “dangers” of republicans.
Those dangers resulted in the strongest economy in the 21st century, the strongest progress towards peace throughout the world, energy independence.
Despite idiocy in the media and on the left and constant fear mongering – the Trump presidency was actually pretty good and pretty tame – not dangerous to anything except Progressive Goals.
Conversely we see he impact right now of the left getting some of its way.
We have moved from the wind at our back to pushing into gale winds.
My children live with the fear of nuclear annihilation at the back of their minds.
Conflict with Russia and China is more likely and both are more militarily brazen.
A strong and rising economy is choking, inflation has reared its ugly head.
And violent crime is on the rise.
In area after area left wing policies harm each of us.
The left is the danger – both in policies and in the actual likelyhood of real violence.
Dave “I have challenged you to clearly identify “the far right”, and I have challenged Rick on the same thing.”.
The “far” in both parties are somewhat like pornography and Justice Potters definition. I can not give you what I consider a specific definition of either. But those that hold onto Trumps coattails today are ones I could place in that category after Jan 6th.
Trump was not far right. Never had been. His policies are less extreme in my mind than Ted Cruz or others that want to control certain moral behaviors of individuals. It is much more easy to identify the far left given their policies that are far left are much easier to identify.
That is why I voted fro Trump in 2020, even though I can not stand the man personally. I did not vote for him in 2016 due to that reason nor would I ever vote for him again given the Jan 6th actions. I voted against Biden since I had good reasons in my mind what would happen. If Harris and Trump run, I could not vote for either because they are both equally bad for different reasons. I really doubt Biden will run again.
And in the Jan 6th respect, I can classify Trump “far right” as it applies to any dictator that wants complete control of their country. Had the Jan 6th committee limited the testimony of their witnesses to the same criteria as a judicial trial, most all of the testimony would be difficult to disregard, But allowing hearsay testimony has caused much of the first hand information to become questionable since second hand info was allowed in and used as a “bombshell” that seems to not have exploded.
So the best I can do is give you a few things I would classify as far right policies and then each politician would be graded on their position on those. the more they believe, the more far right. These are beliefs they support, not something that may or may not pass SCOTUS test.
1. A complete national ban on abortion.
2. Any drugs used to promote an abortion are illegal.
3. Traveling to another state for an abortion is illegal.
4. Same sex marriage illegal.
5. Eliminating any protections for LGBTQ population
6. Closing the border without any attempt to change immigration laws to address 2022+ issues
7. Reducing race relation reforms including the elimination of any historical education of race relations within the country in schools. (NOT CRT, that is not race relations, that is blame)
8. Avoiding “slavery” as Texas has tried to do with is asinine “involuntary relocation” crap
10 Total elimination of any gun ownership and control laws nationally.
11. Absolute refusal to compromise on any issues, no matter how that may impact the outcomes desired.
12. Anyone that believes Trump defeat was due to fraud and he is still the true president.
Those are just my thoughts. As with any politician, they can be graded. I suspect I would put #12 at the top and if anyone said no to that, then further grade them. If they said yes, then no further grading would be needed as anyone thinking Jan 6th was democracy is a total moron, lunatic and radical nut job.
Sorry Ron, not buying it.
Nebulous definitions of “the far right” leave us with nonsense that it is 0.1% of the country one minute and 40% of the country the next.
Your justice Potter Stewart example is a perfect demonstration of what is WRONG with an ambiguous defintion.
If you can not define pornography – you certainly can NOT make it illegal.
If you can not define “the far right” – you can not blame them for anything – because we do not know who YOU mean.
I do not know what you mean by Trump’s coattails – and as I have stated before – your understanding of Trump supporters is backwards.
Trump does not brainwash people into supporting him.
They support him because he stands up for them.
RCP has Trump beating Biden by +5 in their average of polls – some polls have Trump beating Biden by +10.
Are all those people who will still vote for Trump “far right” ?
What about me ? I have never voted for Trump. I am opposed to more of his policies than YOU are, I am angry about J6 – but in the OPPOSITE way that you are.
The capital of the United States was unconstitutionally locked down to prevent people from excercising their first amendment rights to free speech, protest, assembly, and petition government.
That is the root cause of everything that went wrong.
Further not “the left” – but the democratic party – with alot of help from YOUR moderate republicans, conducted a LAWLESS election – that it is going to take decades to fix.
As a result we ended up with a demented president and mangled election processes that again are going to take decades to fix.
The rule of law matters a great deal to me – Trump has frequently offended me – and he has clearly offended you far more than me. But he has NOT acted lawlessly EVER as best as I can tell. Lots of idiots – trying to bend the law to make his conduct illegal does not make that so. Conversely, we have seen a LONG LIST of lawless actions by democrats – or those in power.
We follow the law – AS IT IS, whether we like that law or not. If we are actually unhappy with the law or constitution – CHANGE IT.
We do not make up new laws out of thin air – not new election laws, not knew public health laws – because we have manufactured a crisis. The 2020 Election as REQUIRED to be conducted according to the laws and constitutions of the various states. If there was some compelling reason the law was inadequate – we have legislatures to change that.
When law enforcement seeks to conduct a criminal investigation – it must meet the requirements of the law and constitution. Government is NOT free to investigate anyone – just because it FELLS like it. Most of the rest of us now KNOW that the root of the “collusion delusion was a HOAX. But the FBI knew that in late summer 2016 – and STILL it opened an investigation of a presidential candidate based on a KNOW HOAX, and continued that for YEARS. That is lawless. When Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller Special Counsel he KNEW or should have KNOW that appoint rested on a HOAX. When Robert Mueller accepted he KNEW or quickly found out that appointment rested on a HOAX.
An yet this continued for YEARS.
The entire democratic party is not criminally culpable in this – but ALOT of people were involved in Government LAWLESSNESS that make watergate look tame.
There is a growing body of evidence of large scale coordinated fraud in the 2020 election.
It is not the DVS scheme that Sydney Powell made the mistake of hitching her wagon too.
Frankly the most troubling part – and the one that requires both investigation which we are not really seen and strong proof, is that the evidence is of a LARGE conspiracy to commit wide spread election fraud of atleast 400K+ votes, and more likely over 1M votes.
That is both the most disturbing aspect and the most incredible one. Large scale frauds are very rare and nearly always detected. A republicans from your state of NC could not get away with Ballot harvesting on the scale of a couple of hundred votes in 2018 – yet there is plenty of evidence of ballot harvesting of up to a million votes in 2020.
Yet none of this has had consequences – and YOU are more concerned about a protest that went badly because the Government violated the constitution.
YOU are more concerned about an event in which two Trump supporters were MURDERED.
The lawlessness of the collusion delusion, the lawlessness of the election itself are the reasons that the claim of large scale orgainised election fraud is actually plausible.
Because we already know we are dealing with people who will act immorally and illegally.
I have found the J6 hearings fascinating – massive claims of illegal conduct – that clearly was legal. I find the constant refrain by the left about “overturning an election” hillarious.
Of course that is what Trump and his supporters sought. Just as Clinton sought much the same thing in very similar ways in 2016 – trying to get electors to change their votes,
I heard lots of SPIN at the hearing. I did not hear any actual crimes.
I heard democrats once again seeking to criminalize disagreeing with them.
I would take Jo Jo ?Johnson as president in a minute over Trump – and that is how I voted, how I made MY CHOICE. I do not expect MY candidate to win an election for decades.
But I DO expect that the elections will be conducted lawfully – and they are NOT.
So am I outraged – absolutely – but not over the inconsequential nonsense you are.
It is July 4th, and the Declaration of independence states
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”
As painted by the left J6 is an excercise of ” Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”
That is a deliberate misrepresenation of J6.
But if government continues to be lawless – we are headed towards a January 6th that WILL be what you fear – and it will be justified.
I would suggest that today – July 4th is a good day to read the declaration of independence.
Including the accusations against King George justifying revolution.
What we have today is different – but it is equally LAWLESS, and tyranical.
So NO I do not consider the approximately 100M people that still support Trump to be part of the “far right”.
Though I wonder about those people that still support Biden.
I wonder about people who are not demanding consequences for the greatest abuse of power we have seen in US history – the collusion delusion.
I wonder about people who want to bury their heads in the sand over a lawless election.
Can we cut the J6 nonsense.
Please read US history – in the 1876 Harris/Tyler election we had nearly exactly what happened in 2020.
We had a close election with significant claims of fraud. We had competing slates of electors,
and we had congress decide not to accept the election but to appoint an election commission, That commission recomended a different outcome than the “certified” result.
All of this is perfectly legal and constitutional.
Trump is either a sore loser or he is justifiably angry by the largest and most organized election fraud in US history. But he is NOT a wannabee dictator – had he been, he would be president now.
You can personally beleive that Trump is the former – rather than the latter should you so choose. But the evidence of lawlessness and Fraud demands a very serious investigation that we have never had. And THAT is the real crime of the 2020 election.
We MUST never have what occured in 2020 happen EVER again.
Even if you personally have your head in the sand and do not beleive there is evidence of widespread fraud – atleast 100M americans DO beleive the election was fraudulent and lawless.
Even if they are wrong – we can not have that again. And the answer is NOT to blame those who belive the election was fraudulent.
The ONLY answer is to conduct elections better – to conduct them such that almost know one will able to beleive there is fraud.
And we are doing the opposite.
You want to blame everything on Trump and hope his is gone.
But like the problems that are the consequence of Biden as president, the problems with the 2020 election are not gone and until we deal with them we will face hem AGAIN in the future.
If after a meaningful investigation of the allegations regarding the 2020 election – not the whitewash the courts did because they were culpable in the lawlessness, it turns out that there was no consequential fraud – then condemn Trump to the dustbin of history as the countries greatest sore loser. But if NOT – we have a massive problem – the presidency of the united states was acheived through massive organized fraud. That is the kind of stuff that causes civil wars.
And you wonder about J6 ?
With respect to your list – is someone on the far right if they beleive ANY of those things ? Or all of them ? Or some number of them ?
“1. A complete national ban on abortion.”
A plurality of americans beleive that.
The catholic church as well as several other religions beleive that.
Probably atleast 100m americans beleive that.
“2. Any drugs used to promote an abortion are illegal.”
That is atleast a smaller group. Though it would include all catholics that adhere to the churches teachings – so are you saying the catholic church is far right ?
I would note it probably does NOT include the KKK or Nazi’s or the Proud Boys.
“3. Traveling to another state for an abortion is illegal.”
There are blue states that made traveling to another state to buy a gun illegal.
In many states it is illegal to travel to another state to buy alcohol.
“4. Same sex marriage illegal.”
Illegal or immoral ? They are different. there are atleast 100M people in the country that think that homosexuality is immoral. There are very few that are looking to make it illegal again.
Though it was for most of world history and still is in most of the world.
“5. Eliminating any protections for LGBTQ population”
Again what does this mean ? First, I am tired of the LGBTQ nonense – if you have to have a label – YOU are the problem. Regardless, everyone in this country is entitled to equal rights.
Equality before the law. But that is IT. Full Stop. No other form of equality is acheivable.
Efforts to do so ultimately end in EVIL. There are no gay rights, or lesbian rights or trans rights. There are just the same rights for all of us.
“6. Closing the border without any attempt to change immigration laws to address 2022+ issues”
I have no idea what this means ?
Laws passed in the 1980’s agreed to by democrats and republicans in return for the amnesty for illegals at the time REQUIRED building a wall at the southern border and only allowing limited legal immigration.
I am open to changing those laws, but until we do we must enforce them.
Trump tried. Biden has openly violated his oath of office – to uphold the laws of the land.
Almost 60% of the country want the laws we currently have enforced – are they “far right” ?
“7. Reducing race relation reforms including the elimination of any historical education of race relations within the country in schools. (NOT CRT, that is not race relations, that is blame)”
Where are you getting this nonsense ? I will agree that anyone who actually beleives as you are claiming here is fringe. But I know of know such person – and I know some very right wing people.
Regardless the fundamentals of education are reading, writing, mathematics, and science.
Not Sex, Not Gender, Not Race. Any school that has failed at the fundamentals should not be wasting time with anything else.
Regardless, I do not know ANYONE that is looking to teach white supremacy.
What is occuring is that a supermajority of people including minorities have noted that all of our schools have major issues and these are getting worse. They are NOT delivering on core educational functions and they are fixated on “identity politics” – aside from the political problems and the fact that identity politics is evil and obviously decisive it is coming at the expense of fundamental education.
We are producing young adults that are suffering from anxiety, depression confused about just about everything, and have no ability to perform fundimental jobs.
If you do not understand the disaster this is causing – you are part of the problem.
I have not met the person that you describe – but even if they exist, they are tiny in number and not the problem.
8. Avoiding “slavery” as Texas has tried to do with is asinine “involuntary relocation” crap
Again where do you get this stuff ?
10 Total elimination of any gun ownership and control laws nationally.
Again where do you get this stuff ? I do not know of anyone who wants all laws regarding guns eliminated. I know many people who want gun RIGHTS recognized nationally.
They want a carry permit in Georgia to allow them to carry in New York – that seems reasonable.
That said – what “gun control laws” is it that you think have actually been beneficial in anyway ?
Lets presume this fictitious person who opposes all gun control laws exists.
Why are they “far right” ?
11. Absolute refusal to compromise on any issues, no matter how that may impact the outcomes desired.
Here you make a point – the right is increasingly uncompromising. Though the cause of that is trivial. The history of compromise with the left is a long history of slowly eroding rights and values. The left compromises only as a tactic to incrementally get what they want. They do not ever compromise as a means to resolve conflict.
The immigration issue is the perfect example – the law has required building a southern border wall since the mid 80’s – where is it ?
The law requires those seeking legal entry to the US to apply at a consulate or at an official border crossing. Anyone crossing elsewhere is required to be deported – regardless of why they are seeking entry. There are a very limited number of ways to qualify for legal immigration from the south – that is our current law. That was a result of myriads of compromises, Today democrats and the left – nearly synonymous just ignore the law.
I would have no problem impeaching Biden purely for failing to enforce our existing immigration law.
It is time to end “prosecutorial discretion” as a means of gutting our laws.
Regardless, you are correct, those on the right are increasingly unwillin to compromise.
Compromise is a value not a principle, and you can not compromise with people you can not trust.
The left and democrats in this country have shown themselves as untrustworthy.
No sane person will compromise with them.
12. Anyone that believes Trump defeat was due to fraud and he is still the true president.
I noted in your immigration point that compromise is not possible without trust.
Trust today is at incredibly low levels. Trust in our institutions has tanked.
The reason for this failure of Trust, is because democrats, the left, any institutions they control have shown themselves to be untrustworthy.
Wise people will not compromise with those they can not trust.
The 2020 elections were conducted lawlessly – this was accomplished by the same democrats and the left that have proven themselves untrustworthy in everything else they have touched. Why should people trust elections that were conducted lawlessly as the result of political machinations by democrats to subvert our election laws and even ignoring the state constitution.
You apparently are unaware of the recently come to light EVIDENCE of massive PAID Ballot Harvesting that has been uncovered by TTV by purchasing trillion of points of cell phone geofencing information from google and apple, and by FOIA requests for security video from unattended ballot drop boxes.
Whether you like it or not there is damning evidence of large scale election fraud now.
Worse still that evidence is of ORGANIZED election fraud. This is not a couple producing fake ballots in their basements.
As I recall you are in NC – you are then likely aware that an NC republican Rep. had his election overturned because of SMALL SCALE ballot harvesting.
Ballot harvesting is illegal in almost all of the country. With the exception of a few states – none of which are relevant to election fraud, Ballots must be delivered by the voter.
Some states make exceptions for immediate family members or election officials.
There has never been any doubt that the 2020 election was lawless.
There is little doubt today that the was large scale fraud.
You are free to beleive that fraud did not alter the outcome.
Others are just as free to beleive it did.
Regardless a plurality – possibly a majority of americans beleive the election turned on fraud.
Are you saying that the majority of americans are “far right” ?
In Jan 2022 more than 40% of americans beleived that Trump won the 2022 election.
Since then the damning TTV election fraud evidence has come out and I believe the number has increased significantly.
I would strongly suggest that you watch “2000 mules”. While it has some problems, it still does a good job of providing most of the evidence now available. It may not convince you, but it certainly will explain to you why so many people have excellent reason to doubt the 2020 election.
What is more important for me is that almost nothing is being done to actually prevent this in the future.
What you think is your strongest issue, is probably your weakest.
I have been fighting for election intergity since the 2000 Bush Gore election.
That election teriffied me. During the entirety of the legal battle I was waiting for claims of election fraud to emerge.
Beleive whatever else you want of the 2000 election it is CERTAIN that there was much more than enough election fraud by both parties in the 2000 election to alter the results.
And I am not talking about orgainized election fraud.
The 2000 election was almost entirely inperson voting. Where fraud is substantially harder.
Yet do you doubt that there were atleast several hundred fraudulent votes for each candidate in 2000 ?
I also realized after 2000 that it was near certain that we were going to have ever more increasingly close elections, and that the quality of our elections, their susceptability to fraud were NOT going to hold up to ever increasing close elections with more and more challenges.
And MORE importantly – not only weren’t our elections secure against fraud. They were OBVIOUSLY insecure – and that meant that when the results were challenged they would not be trusted.
The purportedly bipartisan HAV act if anything made hings WORSE.
I spent almost 2 decades fighting against the electronic voting terminal black boxes.
There can be no black boxes in elections – that undermines trust.
We MUST conduct our elections not only so that they are free of fraud. We must do so such that they are OBVIOUSLY free of fraud.
I do not think that a single election in the US since 2000 or possibly earlier where the winner was less than 1% ahead of the loser should be trusted – no matter who won.
But 2020 was the worst of all – specifically because of the LAWLESSNESS.
Even ignoring TTV’s evidence of widespread fraud, the incredibly low rejection rate for mailin ballots alone is a gigantic red flag.
The typical rejection rate for first time mailin voters – that we have found accross the country is 6% – though in NJ in may 2020 it was 25%. Is this the result of fraud or inability to handle voting by mail ? It does not matter the LAW requires rejecting ballots missing send dates, receive dates, without signatures, or with poor signature matching or other criteria.
These criteria are anti-fraud measures. They are the only way to tell a fraudulent mailin ballot from a legitimate one – and we gutted those in 2020.
That alone makes the election results completely untrustworthy.
You think anyone doubts the 2020 election is “far right”.
I think anyone who does not is a poorly informed moron.
I do not care whether Trump won.
I prayed hard in the weeks leading up to the election that the results would not be close,
because there was absolutely no doubt in my mind that the scale of fraud would dwarf the legitimacy of a close election – regardless of who won.
I am angry at people like you who are sticking your had in the sand – because those preclude our fixing the problem – and that only means things will get worse.
It is my expectation that fraud in 2022 will be much less than 2020. Or more accurately will be somewhat different.
Election fraud is harder and more likely to get caught the larger the scale of the fraud is.
Possibly the biggest weakness in the TTV evidence of ballot harvesting is that it required large numbers of people, across many states – it required organization and coordination that is difficult to hide. It required people at high levels in the DNC to be involved.
Before the Collusion Delusion – I would have found that impossible to beleive.
Yet the Hoax that Durham exposed proved that some of the most prominent democrat lawyers in the US are capable of criminal acts in elections.
And that myriads of people inside and outside of government are capable of blinding themselves to the blatant illegality of what they are doing.
LAWLESSNESS is unbeleivably dangerous.
Self Government is not possible without the rule of law.
I found this on Twitter Today.
These are not my words, and I do not agree with some of them.
But they are a good picture of the Right today.
They also accurately reflect what is wrong with the nonsense hat appears here about the dangerous extremist right.
—————————————————–
You don’t like the decisions yesterday and today?
You’re really not going to like the next part.
I mean, it’s your fault, but you’re not going to like it.
—
See, we were cool with the status quo.
Yeah, we wanted abortion to go back to the states.
Yeah, we wanted gun rights expanded.
Yeah, we wanted our kids safe from LGBTQ indoctrination.
But it wasn’t enough to fight about.
We thought you were like us, that we could argue and make small gains and lose some ground but everything staying fairly level and levelheaded.
But boy, were we wrong.
Because while we were copacetic and just going along to get along, you were pushing.
You pushed abortion. From “legal, safe, and rare in these specific instances”, you pushed now to the point of post birth abortion on demand for any reason.
You pushed gun control. From “background checks and gun free zones” to now “red flag laws” which deny due process.
You pushed “the rights of gay marriage” to now the “right of LGBTQ teachers telling kindergarteners about their sex life.”
And during all of this, you pushed disagreeing politically to calling us Nazis and justifying violence against us, justifying harming our families and our jobs.
So now, we push back.
We pushed back with Trump.
We pushed back with state legislators.
We pushed back with school boards.
And we haven’t even begun to push back, kiddo.
We’re going to push abortion back to the “rare” side in many states.
We may give you a timeframe like 12 to 15 weeks, about what your beloved “other industrialized nations” give.
We may not.
We’re going to push back on gun control.
We’re not going to accept your offer of “you can keep some guns until we decide to get rid of them.”
We’re going to elect legislators to make ownership easier. We’re claiming our rights back.
We’re going to push back on the LGBTQ agenda.
We’re going to make your lives miserable when you try to get our kids to question their gender.
We’re going to remove the power you think you have and put it in the hands of the parents.
You had a chance to call a truce.
You had a chance to be in control and be happy.
You had a chance to just leave us alone.
You didn’t.
You pushed and prodded and provoked.
And you’re threatening to commit violence now?
Good luck with that.
There’s a saying about the danger of making people who want to be left alone get involved.
You’ve made us get involved.
So all of it, from here on out, is squarely on you.
Enjoy the whirlwind you have so deservedly reaped.
another from the same source
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FWOJ8F5WAAACKmL?format=png&name=900×900
I think you’re right about this,Dave. One of the things that has shocked even me, and I’m not easily shocked these days, is the view that this is RBG’s fault, for not stepping down during Obama’s term. I certainly get that her decision ultimately helped the right…but neither she nor anyone else expected Trump to choose her successor. Pretty much everyone assumed it would be Hillary. Had Hillary been able to remake the court into a rubber stamp for any law passed by a Democratic Congress, we wouldn’t be hearing about an “illegitimate court.” I often criticize Republicans, but they would not be talking about court-packing if that had been the case. Unfortunately, the bare-knuckles politics practiced by the Dems over the past 20 years has radicalized many Republicans, particularly Trump supporters, who have been demonized as traitors and terrorists, for having the temerity to disagree with the Democrat agenda. It didn’t have to be like this. But, here we are.
Contra the left the 6-3 Court did not come about through lawlessness.
I suspect RBG would have been a vote to preserve Roe – But RBG is on the record long ago that Roe was bad law and not a solution and just punted the problem down the road.
I have proposed a framework that conforms to the constitution, and should appeal to moderates – because it does not make anyone happy – that seems to be one of Rick’s criteria. And protects ACTUAL fundimental rights which currently have little protection.
But it is unlikely to prevail – because no one listens to libertarians who have ACTUAL rights and logic based solutions to problems. Instead we push competing versions of unconstitutional and poorly constructed nonsense.
I do not have much time for those – here or elsewhere who were ranting about Mandating Vaccines and Masks and forced shutdowns who have suddenly gotten Religion and think that Abortion should be a women’s choice.
If the state is free to poke me with a needle and inject an experimental vaccine against my will, then the state is free to tell women they can not have an abortion.
Neither is true or both is true.
I would also warn that – just as China felt it acceptable to FORCE abortions not so long ago – 330M abortions in China since 1974. All too soon we will see negative population growth – with potentially horrible economic impacts – and it will not be long before first radical regimes like China and ultimately the idiots on the left seek to FORCE women to give birth.
That could possible result in THE LEFT criminalizing homosexuality and trans.
Do not ever presume that an ideology that roots itself in Faux experts and looks at crises as the driver for power will always direct that power in the way you wish.
The same people who were wrong and frequently lying about Covid – and still willing to impose their will by force, will have no trouble flipping on homesexuality, Abortion, …. when “the common good” demands that people reproduce.
We are atleast a decade from that – but there are no principles underlying modern progressivism. It can easily reverse 180 on any issue.
This is one of many reason the left is ALWAYS far less dangerous than the right.
Tnhe right is badly moored to principles – but it is moored. Sometimes the rights values are wrong, but right or wrong they do NOT turn on a dime. The left will eat its own in a second should perceptions reverse – there are no immutable values.
The big deal about anything goes politics as a means to an end is that it only works briefly.
The other side will ALWAYS adapt – either it will adopt the same tactics or it will figure out how to thwart them. This is not a right left thing – though the left is far more likely than the right to jump to the ends justifies the means.
That is both true as a matter of core values and true as a matter o real world facts.
The roll back of the Filibuster was started by the left.
The use of “prosecutorial discretion” to circumvent laws it does not like – started with the left.
The use of the courts as a means to an ends – rather than changing the law or constitution came from the left.
The role of the courts is to decide what is and is not legal, what is and is not constitutional. They are to do so using the text of the law and constitution. It is NOT their role to decide what SHOULD or SHOULD not be legal to constitutional – that falls to the people – usually through their elected representatives. We are free to change the law or constitution – the courts are not.
This is true even when I do not personally like the existing law or constitution.
The Tea Party was a reaction to the lawlessness of Obama.
It was a reaction to the fact that the very republicans that Rick and Ron praise here got ROLLED by Obama – and continue to be rolled today.
The Tea Party sent the GOP a loud message – stand up to the lawlessness of the left or we will primary Republicans and the winner will be democrats
Trump was politically far more brilliant than given credit. I spotted the Tea Party – but he spotted a bigger void and he took advantage of both.
I do not know what Trump actually beleives. I know that he knows how to sell to people a set of political values that appeal to large numbers – whether he beleives them or not.
I also know that as a business person he understands that to keep your clients you MUST actually deliver on your promises.
Trump ideologically went a bit further than the Tea Party – though Trump adopted Tea Party values – he did NOT create them. He actually adopted the TACTICS of the left.
The left including large portions of the democratic party has been treating alinsky’s rules for radicals as the word of god. But Rules for radicals is NOT inherently Conservative or progressive. It is just a set of ends justifies the means tactics that will work regardless of ideology – and Trump is the first republican to adopt the tactics of the left.
That is a major part of the “style” that infuriates Rick and Ron. But they do not notice the same in democrats – the majority of democrats.
All of this ultimate leads to greater and greater division – even if the issues are inconsequential.
But unilateral disarmorment in the face of Mutually assured destruction, does NOT get us anywhere good.
While there has always been conflict between parties – that is inherent in the political system,
The ends justifies the means, win at any cost, rejection of law and morality originated with the left – and the lawlessness remains with the left.
I watch whether it is the J6 hearings or just any democrat talking head – spray Trump, republicans, … with accusations of pretty much anything – and none of those accusations are actual crimes an all of them are normal conduct for democrats.
Hypocracy is the worst sin.
Most politicians are hypocrits – but few rise to the degree of top democrats.
The abuse of power by the FBI should have resulted in mass firings and lots of people going to jail – this was far “worse that watergate”
We have Obama and Biden on J5 2017 directing the FBI investigation of Trump – and investigation that THEY (not the public) all KNEW rested on a Clinton Hoax.
And the left wants to Rant because on J6 2021 Trump sought to CONSTITUTIONALLY, LEGALLY and PUBLICLY “overturn” an election ? Trump had good reason -as we all do today that the election was the result of fraud. Further it was actually lawless.
We have Biden and Obama plotting actual lawlessness, and Trump publicly challenging lawlessness – and people like Ron think Trump and Trump supporters are the problem ?
Contra appearances sometime – I am not a republican, nor a Republican supporter.
But there is no contest where the threat is today, where the lawlessness is today, where anarchy will come from today, where the danger is today.
70+ years ago Republicans were the party of political censorship and dirty tricks.
Today it is democrats and the left. And it is not close.
Mario Savio would be rolling in his grave, the Church commission was supposed to end the FBI targeting people politically.
The left Used to be for free speech – my will USED to leave money to the ACLU and the Southern Poverty law Center – now it is to the groups FIGHTING them.
Up is down, good is evil, and the driving force is the left.
With respect to elections I would refer to “the field of dreams” – “if you build it they will come.”
The easier you make election fraud the more you will get.
If it helps you to beleive that is true of both the right and the left – Ron should be aware of the Ballot Harvesting scheme in NC in 2018 that is miniscule compared to anything anywhere today – that was Republicans. I think it is highly unlikely that republicans engage in fraud on the same scale as democrats – That has more to do with oportunity than anything else.
Election fraud has ALWAYS been most common in City Political machines.
Regardless, I do not care whether the fraud is more common from the left or the right – it can not be allowed.
Technically 2000 mules does NOT prove Trump won the election – but it DOES establish far more than enough evidence to REQUIRE a criminal election fraud investigation.
It is theoretically possible that large scale fraud in Madison, Pheonix, Altanta, Los Vegas, Detroit, was all in favor of Trump – TTV did not actually prove WHO benefited from the fraud.
But they did establish LARGE SCALE – atleast 500K and probably millions paid ballot harvesting – which is illegal even in California.
We MUST fix our elections – or there will be more J6’s and eventually they will actually be with guns.
And they will be JUSTIFIED.
Ron should ponder that – we are not that far from the conditions that led to the american revolution.
In 1775 only about 1/3 of colonists wanted independence, about 1/3 were loyalists, and 1/3 were unsure.
It only took 1/4 of the country to start a revolution – much less than the number of people who beleive Trump won.
I think they are likely right – but it does not matter if they are wrong.
We are obligated to PROVE to them they are wrong – and not by OUR criteria, but to THEIR satisfaction.
If 40% (and it is larger) of the country think the election is fraudulent – that is a major problem even if they are wrong – and it is not THEIR problem – it is OURS if we do not want revolution.
Some stats from Gutmacher (Planned Parenthood) on the percent of abortions for various reasons.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FWI7rElXkAAvUSQ?format=jpg&name=small
Follow your statististics down the road and figure out that we are talking about maybe 3K deaths per year? On the list of killers in the US of A that ranks pretty low on the chain. Perhaps we could worry about the number of women who die giving birth? Oh wait, then we would really need to be Pro-Life and not just Pro-birth….
There are well over 600,000 legal abortions performed yearly in the US. Less than 1,000 women a year die in childbirth ( it’s about 700). So, I’m not quite sure what you’re talking about, Kevin. I’d guess that more women die from botched abortions, than from giving birth.
The president could fix this whole issue with one swipe of the pen. At least until a Republican got control and decided to force his/her beliefs on others and recended the E.O.
There seems to be a number of different drugs taken after intercourse that can be taken up to 120 hours after sex. Some within just hours, one up to 120 hours. They are considered contraception and not abortion because they prevent the egg from ever attaching.
So we just went through a medical environment where the government was making many different decisions based on executive orders. One was for the government to provide every household in the country with a number of covid test kits.
So if Biden wanted to fix this issue right now all he would need to do is give the FDA or CDC the authority to issue any woman of child bearing age the ability to request a morning after drug treatment to keep in their home and this could be repeated each year or after they had to use the first one up to a specific number. The details would be worked out with the women with knowledge of what the needs may be. Funding would have to come from the existing budgets, but what the hell, Trump did it with the wall, so Biden could do it with the pills.
This would address the needs if the condom broke, the woman forgot her birth control, rape, incest and most any other need that now results in an abortion. Only the small percentage of women getting an abortion for any other reason would need to travel to a state where they could get an abortion that may be banned in their state.
He will never do it because it is a wedge issue and drives votes, and lord knows he needs votes this November as well as 2024. Or maybe he need to try, let congress block it and he furthers the divide.
Atleast one Morning After pill is available OTC. No “stroke of the pen” is needed.
It is highly unlikely that states can do anything about Morning After pills – though SOME are abortificants.
Further these are available online, in the US, from Canada, From Europe and From China.
Biden does not have the authority to do as you suggest.
There is a reason there were never universal federal mask or vaccine mandates – Executive orders direct GOVERNMENT – not the country.
Further Executive orders are still limited to the constitutional domain of the executive.
The president can not just issue executive orders willy nilly.
DACA was accomplished Via EO because immigration is the domain of the executive and prosecutorial discretion is Also within the powers of the executive.
Biden can – as Obama did order CBP to not enforce a law (executive discretion),
But he can not make new law – forced vaccination.
However he CAN set requirements for things in the domain of the executive – such as the military, federal workers and air travel.
I would bet money that Biden will not be the democratic candidate in 2024.
I would be surprised if he is still president in 2024.
Even Democrats want him gone, the just do not want Harris and they do not have any credible replacements.
Hence the talk ONCE AGAIN of Hillary or Michelle in 2024.
Most of the polling I am seeing indicates that Abortion is not a factor in 2022 or 2024
except in rare instances.
The vast majority of people who are going to cast their vote on Abortion – were already going to vote Red or Blue.
I am also continuing to predict that the net impact of Dobbs will be miniscule.
It will push the decision to have an abortion earlier in restrictive states, it will increase the use of morning after pills – which whether states attempt to regulate are likely out of their domain, and largely unregulatable anyway.
We will see small changed in WHEN and HOW abortions take place. Those changes are GOOD changes. We will not see a spike in unwanted children or a drop in total abortions.
They will just occur earlier.
So long as this has no major actual impact the political impact will also be small.
Ron P. you give a good argument for the use of the morning after pill as a solution to reducing the number of abortions. As of right now it is not banned since it functions to prevent pregnancy rather than kill the pregnancy. However, about 5% of pregnancies occur when the woman is using an effective birth control method. The 2019 data shows that there were approximately 3.75 million births and about 630,000 abortions that year. Five percent of that total is approximately 219,000. That is a lot of women to shuttle to another state for an abortion. They didn’t use the morning after pill because they thought they were protected. Additionally, during the time it takes to schedule that out-of-state visit and then travel to that state, the fetus is growing and thus making the abortion process that more tragic. You may argue that the woman was not sufficiently vigilant in taking her birth control medication. True, she could have forgotten a day or two. I have medications that I must take on a daily basis. Do I forget a day or two? Hell, yes. Does that make me irresponsible and should be shuttled out of the medical system. Let’s hope not. But there are other reasons why the birth control medications don’t function effectively – Obesity for one. Other medications, e.g. rifampicin, negate the effectiveness of birth control drugs. A mechanic device for birth control can shift, thus reducing its effectiveness. The woman rarely knows that the shift occurred. The point I am trying to emphasize is that the number of women who are not protected from pregnancy by the morning after pill is large and they are not a collection of irresponsible individuals who should be punished for their behavior by forcing them to flee to another state. Again, I stand by my position that abortion in the first trimester should be legal for all situations. After that it should only be allowed when the mother’s life is in danger or for gross fetal deformities.
Savannah, i agree with you on a personal level that abortion should be legal, but I will go slightly further than first trimester. Seems like 20 weeks have worked for most.
But I also one that is dead set against anything directly controlling peoples lives coming out of Washington D.C..I am a strong believer of the 0th and 10th amendments. I believe that most criminal laws should be at the state level. The 9th amendment provides the people with many rights that are not specifically identified in the constitution and when those rights are not listed, it does not mean they do not exist. The people have those rights unless they have provided the states the right to oversee certain activities (10th amendment)
So if you kill someone, it has been provided by the people to the state the method of punishment for that crime. Some states still have capital punishment, some do not. If you get caught with drugs, some states prosecute for certain drugs, others do not. The people elected individuals to their state houses to make laws covering those issues.
I understand your issues with the time period that some women doe not know they might be pregnant. I understand the difficulty that may exist for that individual to get to a clinic and have it aborted.But based on my complete dislike for anything coming out of Washington D.C. and my belief that states have the rights provided to them by their citizens, I would never favor a law from Washington dictating to the states abortion rights.
If the federal government can not control health insurance under ERISA on a national level and dictate what insurance companies can cover, how does abortion exceed that level of control. If the federal government does not license doctors and doctors must obtain a medical license in each state they practice, how does abortion exceed that requirement?
So a solution would be for an amendment specifying health insurance rights and bringing all control of health services and insurance under the federal governments control. License doc’s, providers, insurance companies under one agency and dictate what is provided and what is not. Take it completely out from state control. I would not support that, but that gets the politics out of this 50 years election issue.
Ron, you and I may not agree on the specifics of abortion regulation, but we totally agree that it should be the role of state governments to regulate it.
I believe that the great constitutional struggle right now is over the constitutional rights of states, which are very clearly grounded in the 10th Amendment. There has always been controversy over whether the enumerated powers of the federal Congress are very clearly limited, or whether the “necessary and proper” clause allows the federal government to make laws that are beyond the scope of the enumerated powers.
Many liberals and left leaning moderates believe that states rights should be subordinate to federal power. I am firmly in the opposite camp.
There is not supposed to be significant domain in which states and the federal govenrment have overlapping power.
There is no federal general police power.
That is a BIG deal.
That means vast areas of life are purportedly off limits to the federal government.
We should not have a federal department of education – that is outside he domain of the federal government.
The “guidance” of the Dept Ed has no authority with respect to a state or a school.
But if you do not follow DoE guidance you lose federal education funds.
If the DoE did not exist – as it is not constitutional – there were be no federal power over education.
We have the same thing with HUD and many other cabinet departments.
The FBI is strictly limited to enforcing federal laws, and Federal laws are supposed to be limited to the enumerate powers of the federal govenrment, or to conduct of Federal employees.
DOJ is supposed to be limited to federal laws.
Well stated… it’s astonishing to me how, even in the year 2022, Americans need to be reminded or educated as to the fundamentals of our own government structures, roles and responsibilities. Too many strongly opinionated voices across the country from all political dimensions lack the fundamental understanding of our government… and yet are dissuaded not a whit in vocalizing loud opinions, convinced of the correctness of their views…
The numbers are much smaller.
I forget the statistics, But Gutmacher has the number of abortions because birth control failed – and it is SMALL.
While the majority of states will restrict abortions as a result of Dobbs, Most people and most women having abortions do not live in those states.
Further it is probable that of the states restricting abortion further MOST will just ban it after 8 weeks or 15 weeks or 20 weeks, rather than total ban.
Each of these and other factors are multiplicative – that means the number of women whose birth control failed who did not have the chance to use a morning after pill who get pregnant who live in a state with a total ban and do not live close to a state where abortion is legal will be very small.
I think states trying to regulate FDA approved drugs like the morning after pills will Fail.
I think that states trying to prosecute women for crossing state lines to get an abortion will fail.
I strongly suspect that Dobb;s will make lots of people on the right happy – it will be a major positive for Republicans with their base. I think it will have a smaller but real positive benefit for democrats – again within their base.
I think it will prove an inconvenience for a small number of women accross the country.
I started considering this when TX SB8 passed.
My question to myself being – when if TX passed a draconian and likely at that time unconstitution Abortion law, but that because of the enforcement mechanism the case did not get to the supreme court or any court before the law was in effect long enough to find out it had almost no impact. My thoughts then were that SCOTUS was much more likely to overturn Roe – because people would realize that meant little.
It is not 1972 – there are far more birth control options, birth control is better, there are more early medicine based abortion options such as OTC morning after pills, travel is cheaper and easier. And Gutmacher’s data has consistently shown that women seeking abortions adapt to new laws – they mostly still get abortions, they just do so earlier. Which is good.
It is just not 1972 anymore
Just to be clear Savanah – I am arguing that I do not think the problems you are raising will actually be large.
That is independent of whether abortion should be legal.
I have already argued that Roe is wrong. Casey is Wrong, Dobbs is wrong.
There is no constitutional right to an abortion.
There is a constitutional right to control of your own body.
The result has SIMILAR but not identical outcomes.
That results in a by EFFECT viability standard – but NOT a by Law viability standard.
At this time that is nearly what you seek.
I would separately note that Casey killed the Roe Trimester system – it is NOT coming back.
The Casey standard in place since the 90’s has been viability.
And viability is a moving target.
In 1972 Prior to Roe there were 29 deaths of women from legal abortions and 39 deaths from illegal abortions.
In 1973 the first Roe year there were 74 abortion deaths.
In 2020 the were 2 abortions deaths.
For most of the 21st century the deaths were below 10/year.
CDC has totoal abortions/yr at about 600K, Gutmacher (PP) at about 900K.
Keven,
Please clarify WHAT results in 3K deaths per year ?