Tired, angry, and a bit depressed. Unfortunately, as bad as the Roe v. Wade ruling is, it’s just the beginning. This isn’t going to end, probably for as long as the Supreme Court has its current makeup. They’re coming for other rights. They’re also coming for things like the EPA. Form networks. Organize. Think about who you can and cannot trust, and under what circumstances.
Videos are rolling in of violence against journalists and protestors at abortion protests around the country. I'll try to flag notable ones here. (1/x)
— Tyler Valeska (@tbvaleska) June 25, 2022
M. Currie says
I expect birth control to be next, starting with IUD’s. Of course one can hope that such nonsense does not come about, but hope has not been working very well of late. What I’d like to see if that happens is malicious compliance. If the state essentially takes ownership of a woman’s uterus, or declares what a man may wear on his body during sex, then everyone should bombard state agencies with requests for permission. Demand clarification. Demand it it writing. My doctor is planning to examine my reproductiive system. I need written permission from the state allowing him to enter state property. I plan to have sex tonight. I need explicit permission to wear socks. Is there a state code on what color hat I may wear? Put it in writing. I need a certified state publication declaring what is and is not permissible to wear during sex. I need a certified state publication what explicit requirements the state has for a friendly environment for an embryo that might, at some unspecified time in the future happen to be within my body. I need assurance that I will not be arrested for the natural processes of the body.
In states where travel to obtain an abortion is criminalized, every fertile woman who leaves the state for any reason should call up the police and demand written permission to cross the border on the grounds that without it she would be subject to arbitrary search, seizure, and arrest.
Most conservatives object to “liberal” government because it is seen as burdensome and expensive. Conservative burdens are cheap only because they are not actually applied. If the financial expense of repression reflected the emotional and personal expense, I don’t think it would last. Make them put their money where their mouth is.
Great American Satan says
one of thomas’s legal hitlist was the overturn of sodomy laws. i look forward to heterosexual anal and oral sex becoming illegal again, just for funsies. while we’re making our entire existence a joke.
This is a case in which Beau is incorrect: “they” wrote no such thing; one justice, Thomas, wrote that in a separate opinion. Other justices jave said very plainly that this ruling would apply to nothing other than abortion.
But having said that, I want to say that I have no trust in what those other justices said. These are folks who lied under oath when questioned about Roe, so the best guess is that they’re lying now.
So I agree that it won’t end with abortion, but for a different reason: such a justice’s word is not good.
Abe Drayton says
When it comes to justices saying “you can’t use this for abortion”, Bush v Gore included a “this was a one off” line, and it’s been used LOTS of times.
So no. I don’t think Beau is incorrect. They’ve been ignoring shit like that for decades. And honestly? Longer than that. They’ve been making law based on their whims and biases the whole time. Sometimes that had good results, often it didn’t.
I sense that we’re in violent agreement. 😎
My only point was that it was just one justice, Clarence Thomas, who suggested that those other decisions were up for reconsideration; and some other far right idealogues (two IIRC) wrote that the decision to repeal Roe applied only to Roe.
I totally agree that those promises are probably worth even less than the paper they’re written on.
Abe Drayton says