Supremes set to strike down Roe vs Wade

..you think this is just partisan disinformation jkr? 

..from post #153

quote: 

One of the first major legislative gains of anti-choice advocates following Roe v. Wade was the Hyde Amendment, which passed in 1976 and took effect in 1980. Named after its author, Republican Henry Hyde, the amendment banned the use of federal Medicaid dollars to fund abortions. Hyde specifically tied the amendment to his anti-abortion politics, stating, “I certainly would like to prevent, if I could legally, anybody having an abortion, a rich woman, a middle-class woman, or a poor woman. Unfortunately, the only vehicle available is the HEW Medicaid bill.” This amendment effectively meant that poor women who relied on Medicaid faced an enormous obstacle to obtaining an abortion if they could not readily furnish the hundreds of dollars that were needed to cover the cost of the time-sensitive procedure. It has also been supported by virtually every Democrat who has ever voted on a federal spending bill, and was enthusiastically supported by the first Democratic president after the passage of Roe v. Wade, Jimmy Carter.

..you started the partisan thing with your hillary post. it was posted long after the info about the hyde amendment was posted. like the hyde amendment meant nothing all these years. it's the democrats that weren't helping. 

 ..and you didn't post anything that was helping. with the hillary post you were being a democrat partisan. and then turn around and blame me for doing that. 

epaulo13 wrote:

..you started the partisan thing with your hillary post. it was posted long after the info about the hyde amendment was posted. like the hyde amendment meant nothing all these years. it's the democrats that weren't helping. 

 ..and you didn't post anything that was helping. with the hillary post you were being a democrat partisan. and then turn around and blame me for doing that. 

The simple fact is that Hillary would have appointed Supreme Court justices that support Roe vs Wade.

Ken Burch wrote:

JKR wrote:

If Hillary had chosen Supreme Court judges instead of Trump this atrocity would not have happened.

If she hadn't said the deplorables thing and she HAD campaigned hard in the firewall states, while keeping her Democratic primary position of opposition to the anti-worker Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, Hillary would have been president, had a Democratic congress, and been ABLE to appoint those justices.

Her campaign's staggering incompetence is the reason Trump scraped through in the Electoral College.

I’m pretty sure Hillary didn’t run an incompetent campaign to elect Trump so he could select anti-choice justices that would bring down Roe versus Wade.

JKR wrote:

josh wrote:

If Biden had been the nominee in 2016, if Ginsburg had retired in 2014.  If Kennedy had not retired in 2018.  A lot of ifs.  BTW, Sandra Day O'Connor, who Alito replaced in 2005, is still alive.

Sad.

Also. If the butterfly ballot hadn’t cost Gore the 2000 election.

You mean if the US had a one person one vote system of Presidential elections instead of the rigged electoral college that makes voters in some states more important than other voters

Margaret Kimberley: Democrats Exposed by the End of Roe v Wade (and vid)

https://www.blackagendareport.com/democrats-exposed-end-roe-v-wade

"The full extent of Democratic Party treachery was exposed when the Roe v Wade decison was overturned. Democrat elites don't want what their voters want. So they lie to them over and over again. It has to be pointed out that their voters are a lot more gullible and continue the same actions yet hope for different results.

The Voting Rights Act was eviscerated in 2013 with little response from the democrats and now abortion rights are also for sale by the fake left party. Yet millions of people continue to give democrats their votes in an effort to protect themselves from the more conservative 'white peoples party.'

Democratic voters are clearly more indoctrinated than their republican peers. If there is a silver lining to the Roe debacle, it is that voters are starting to wake up from their delusions..."

JKR wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

JKR wrote:

If Hillary had chosen Supreme Court judges instead of Trump this atrocity would not have happened.

If she hadn't said the deplorables thing and she HAD campaigned hard in the firewall states, while keeping her Democratic primary position of opposition to the anti-worker Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, Hillary would have been president, had a Democratic congress, and been ABLE to appoint those justices.

Her campaign's staggering incompetence is the reason Trump scraped through in the Electoral College.

I’m pretty sure Hillary didn’t run an incompetent campaign to elect Trump so he could select anti-choice justices that would bring down Roe versus Wade.

I didn't say she MEANT to. I'm saying that's what in fact occurred. Her campaign strategists blew that election, lost what should have been an unloseable contest. Yes, she'd have appointed pro-choice justices, but it's her campaign's fault she wasn't able to.

She needs to take responsibility for that.

That's one of the reasons I've been pushing the people who want alternatives to the Democrats to be built to be working on electoral reform measures- which, for some reason, a fair amount of those people treat as unimportant.

..i disagree with this path. not that people should stop fighting for it but that electoral reform has to go through the halls of power. your seeking permission from the very people that are moving toward authoritarian control. power will never accept that. never. not in a million years. you want democracy you create it. direct democracy. participatory democracy from the ground up. 

epaulo13 wrote:

That's one of the reasons I've been pushing the people who want alternatives to the Democrats to be built to be working on electoral reform measures- which, for some reason, a fair amount of those people treat as unimportant.

..i disagree with this path. not that people should stop fighting for it but that electoral reform has to go through the halls of power. your seeking permission from the very people that are moving toward authoritarian control. power will never accept that. never. not in a million years. you want democracy you create it. direct democracy. participatory democracy from the ground up. 

Yes, direct democracy must be created, too- I wasn't saying electoral reform ONLY- but I was talking there about the people who think it's a worthwhile exercise to vote for doomed-to-lose third-party presidential candidates in the U.S., or that destroying the Democratic Party is a radical act in and of itself, even if what that act creates is decades of absolute Trumpist dictatorship with no possibility at all of change- the people who think resistance and resurgence would even be possible in that dystopian scenario.

ken

..voting for the lesser evil is still essential. but it shouldn't be confused with electoral reform. electoral reform is not possible i am saying. you are not saying that. or do i have that wrong? not what other people think but what you think please? 

..in another thread, jkr, you agreed the democrats couldn't be reformed.  

..from aug 2016

Canada: History and strategies in the fight for reproductive justice

When I think of the struggles in Toronto in the 1980s and ’90s for sexual and reproductive justice or liberation (that is, for more than just legal or formal rights), I think of the importance of having AIDS Action Now and the Ontario Coalition for Abortion Clinics (OCAC) as socialist feminist leaders in these respective struggles.

Both struggles were pitted against reactionary forces such as Campaign Life, Operation Rescue, and those led by Rev. Ken Campbell and Cardinal Carter, which one could argue actually helped galvanize and mobilize these movements. And both struggles took up strategies directly aimed at exposing power relations in society and the nature of the state. However, one of the challenges that comes with struggles against the Right is how this allows the state to set itself up as the neutral compromiser between two extreme positions, even at a time when 70-75% of the Canadian public supported the pro-choice position.

I want to talk a bit about the history of the abortion rights movement in Canada and strategies taken to try to influence and mobilize public opinion and not leave any attack unchallenged. The goal of the movement was, yes, to decriminalize and deregulate women’s reproductive and sexual lives, but we also tried to always frame demands for access to services within the context of the state’s unequal treatment and repression of women of colour and indigenous, immigrant, poor and disabled women.

I would like to start with the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision in the US in which abortion rights there were gained as an individual right (to privacy actually), but only if you could pay for it with no obligation for the state to ensure access to services, so not in actuality a ‘right’ for all. As is the case in many countries, the law was positioned as a balance between state protection of opposing rights – women’s rights receiving more protection in the first trimester and the fetus’s rights in the third trimester. Similarly, I think of the regulation around HIV testing and disclosure that were positioned as a balance between the rights of a person with AIDS (PWA) and non-PWAs. In both cases the state reinforces its position as a neutral body seeking a compromise between competing rights. Further, as technologies progressed and conditions of fetus viability changed, the basis for a gestation age law was undermined and in 1989 a US Supreme Court decision allowed states to enact more restrictive state measures.

Meanwhile, in Canada abortions were illegal under all circumstances for about 100 years until 1969, when the law was liberalized (along with the decriminalization of contraceptives and gay sex) by former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau’s “the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation” legislation. But the liberalized abortion legislation detailed the rights, responsibility and authority of the physicians over the procedure, allowing abortions to be performed only in hospitals and only if three physicians, who made up a therapeutic abortion committee or TAC, agreed that continuation of pregnancy would endanger a woman’s life or health. It was silent on the rights of women. Federal reports over the years (the Badgley report in 1977 and Powell report in 1987) documented the inequality of access across the country under this legislation. Fully one half of the women who had abortions in 1987 had to leave their own communities as less than half of all hospitals performed any abortions at all and many did not even have TACs, and women had to contact on average from five to seven medical professionals to even get that far. So there was access for those who had their own gynaecologists, money, ability to travel, and connections. As can be imagined, Canada also had a very high rate of second trimester abortions.

So, women fought back. Shortly after the law was “liberalized”, 500 women formed an abortion caravan in 1970, starting in Vancouver and travelling to Ottawa with coffins and coat hangers. Three dozen women chained themselves to their seats in the House of Parliament as they demanded that the Prime Minister review the abortion law, disrupting parliament and causing it to adjourn.

In 1973, Henry Morgentaler started publicly performing abortions. Over the next 15 years he was charged and acquitted by three different juries, jailed once upon appeal by a judge, and his legal challenge of the law was taken up by the Canadian Association for Repeal of the Abortion Law (CARAL) in 1974. CARAL was formed by Norma Scarborough and others in Toronto, and included my mother in Ottawa, to protest the incarceration of Morgentaler. They viewed the right to safe, legal abortion as a human right and therefore pursued a legal strategy, lobbying the government to obtain such rights (later changing their name to Canadian Abortion Rights Action League once the law was repealed). In my analysis this strategy has the inherent danger of leaving the neutral character of the state and its legal and medical institutions unchallenged, and places reproductive justice in a narrow framework of abortion rights.

OCAC was formed in 1982 by health care workers from the Birth Control & VD Information Center, Immigrant Women’s Health Center, Hassle Free Health Clinic, and other healthcare workers in Toronto who took the position that women’s unequal place in society was enforced by state repression and policing of bodies, especially racialized and disenfranchised bodies. So we needed a strategy that went beyond repealing the law and gaining legal rights, which are only really gained in practice this way by the professional and ruling classes. Three main strategies emerged from such an approach.....

Ken Burch wrote:

JKR wrote:

If Hillary had chosen Supreme Court judges instead of Trump this atrocity would not have happened.

If she hadn't said the deplorables thing and she HAD campaigned hard in the firewall states, while keeping her Democratic primary position of opposition to the anti-worker Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, Hillary would have been president, had a Democratic congress, and been ABLE to appoint those justices.

Her campaign's staggering incompetence is the reason Trump scraped through in the Electoral College.

Very true. Had Biden been the nominee he would have won by more than he did in 2020.

..maybe 15 or 20 years ago that would have been possible ken. but not any more. it's not radical enough. capital has gotten stronger and more powerful.  not to mention that it has been a demand for many years and it is nowhere to be seen. i believe time has run out to be chasing it.

I've spent some time in the U.S. including recently during the last few weeks and being there you realize that most people who want to move toward socialism or social democracy are also supporters of the Democratic Party even if just mild supporters and almost all of them are very opposed to the Republican Party.

..and it's not about destroying the dems. 

It's apparently part of a deal to get more pro-choice judges confirmed in return.  And to bypass the "blue slip" roadblock 

.A blue slip is the name for a piece of paper a home state senator returns to the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee to show his or her approval of a federal judicial nominee. The United States Constitution does not mandate the use of blue slips, but they are considered a senatorial courtesy. Under traditional usage of blue slips, though United States senators have the power to prevent a federal judicial nominee from receiving a hearing and subsequently being confirmed, they are not required to ever state a reason."

 

Biden Reportedly Poised to Nominate Anti-Abortion GOP Lawyer to Federal Bench

President Biden is poised to nominate an anti-abortion Republican lawyer for a lifetime appointment as a federal judge in Kentucky. That’s according to the Louisville Courier-Journal, which reports Biden’s planned nomination of Chad Meredith is strongly opposed by Democratic Congressmember John Yarmuth of Kentucky. Yarmuth told the newspaper, “It’s clear that this is part of some larger deal on judicial nominations between the president and Mitch McConnell. I strongly oppose this deal and Meredith being nominated for the position. The last thing we need is another extremist on the bench.”

Chad Meredith is a member of the far-right Federalist Society who served as legal counsel to former Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin. In 2018, he argued on behalf of Kentucky before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, defending the anti-choice law H.B. 2, known as the Ultrasound Informed Consent Act. The legislation required physicians to carry out an ultrasound on patients about to receive an abortion; to explain the ultrasound imagery to the patient; and to play live audio of any fetal cardiac muscle contractions detectable by the ultrasound.

Chad Meredith: “Not every patient fully understands the nature and consequences of the abortion procedure. Not every patient understands the development of the fetus and the stage at which the fetus is and the extent to which it is developed.”

..ep.10 of the breach show.

The fight for abortion access

This week, on the heels of the repeal of Roe v Wade in the U.S., we interview reproductive justice activist Darrah Teitel about abortion access in Canada. The Trudeau Liberals' policy record, it turns out, isn't as good as their photo-ops in front of abortion clinics.

Sens. Manchin, Sinema Reject Biden’s Plea for Filibuster “Carve-Out” on Abortion

On Thursday, President Biden called on Senate Democrats to agree to a “carve-out” filibuster exception in order to pass new reproductive rights legislation.

President Joe Biden: “I believe we have to codify Roe v. Wade in the law, and the way to do that is to make sure the Congress votes to do that. And if the filibuster gets in the way, it’s like voting rights: It should be we provide an exception for this, requiring an exception to the filibuster for this action.”

Biden was speaking from the NATO summit in Madrid. In response, the offices of Democratic Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona said they would not agree to a carve-out to the filibuster to codify abortion rights.

..sigh