Just a quick note to anyone proposing some sort of compromise position on abortion because it polls well: Don't bother. National polls don't matter. The only thing that matters is how well your compromise fares in each state. If it's really popular in, say, Indiana, then maybe there's a chance of getting the Indiana legislature to pass an abortion bill that's more moderate than an outright ban. If it's not, then they won't.
By my rough count, there are maybe a dozen states where there's a chance of passing some kind of compromise. But keep in mind that this includes purplish states where the bad guys might persuade the legislature to make abortion regulations a little tighter. We're not the only ones pushing for whatever we can get, after all.
Anyway, that's it. For the time being, national polls and national support for various abortion proposals don't matter. That's a long-term PR job that neither side has been very good at.¹ Right now, all the fights are at the state level.
¹National attitudes on abortion have been famously stable for the past 50 years. Neither side has made much progress, although there are a few polls that show a bit of pro-choice movement over the past five years.
Sounds like how slavery was handled in the 1800s: on a state by state basis. And we all saw how that eventually turned out.
Well, there are many people - some where l'm living now - who don't really believe that "the War Between the States" is settled law, so to speak.
And despite its name, the Federalist Society jurists are working toward states' rights, undermining the federal government, which is bad for many policies.
Federalism is about states having some powers that the national government does not have, so the Federalist Society's support for states' rights is not contrary to its name. They might say that a national government that can overrule any state law is not a "federal" government at all.
I'm sure the Federalist Society will have an excellent explanation when a nation-wide ban on abortion is proposed by Republicans in the House or Senate.
Like that means anything. Your point makes little sense.
Your rants really mean only bigotry & insults, so begone.
It's a state issue, except anti-abortion states will pass laws to try to prevent people from traveling across state lines to get one. It's not just going to drift away as some states allow it and some don't. This will remain an ongoing national conflict.
Bingo. Congress may even pass acts that behave like the fugitive slave laws, i.e. if someone goes to a state that allows abortions, then those providers could be punished if the person seeking the abortion is from a state that bars it.
That's not going to fly. What's next, telling me I can't drive to the next county to get booze?
Aside from the larger issue of whether women have control over their own bodies (isn’t that pretty close to the definition of slavery?), there is the more down-to-earth (that is, pocketbook) issue that those states that are about to “ban” abortion are, for the most part, already miserable states that are about to see possibly substantial increases in poverty and misery (which they are certainly willing to tolerate if that poverty and misery helps keep certain populations in their proper place).
….. So, guess who will be on the hook to help ease that increased poverty and misery? A little bit those states’ residents. But mostly, the feds, meaning those states that have chosen to exit the 18th century. Again. As has been the case on so many other issues over the decades. Same as it ever waaaaaaaaaassss.
Your very first question is the right one.
As for abortion not having been specified as a right in the Constitution, where were any rights of native peoples, enslaved ones, or women enumerated? I consider this to be an issue of the gender- & ethnicity-free rights of security in our homes & persons - our liberty.
And women such as Schaffley & now Barrett - affluent & influential or powerful - don't seem to believe that other women should have any such control over their lives.
As for specificity, does the 2A say anything about ammunition? Can we let the gun nuts keep their guns and ban ammunition?
Or is the right to own ammunition an implied right?
And importantly, when will any gun nut acknowledge the fact that the discussion about the 2A prior to its inclusion concerned not individual gun owners declaring themselves to be a militia (presumably "well organized") but the fact that the original colonies turned states needed state militias to protect their boundaries, for which there wasn't certain agreement. It's my understanding that surveying wasn't complete - despite any contributions made by our first president!
Scalia was just plain dishonest in his reasoning & DC in particular is the worse for it.
... but the fact that the original (Southern) colonies turned (Southern) states needed state militias (for slave patrols) to
protect their boundariesquell slave revolts, for which there wasn't certain agreement.FIFY
Undoubtedly a factor! And yet you might think that a federal force cooperating to return anyone fortunate enough to escape slavery to the state of origin would have been appreciated by the enslaves. And I had forgotten that the "Founding Fathers" were opposed to a standing army, so state militias were preferred. That might also have been due to issues of command & control due to the regional differences.
Scared of super soldiers as well.Slavery was a dead issue going forward and they knew it. By 1820 all the then still living founders really knew it. The fact the slave trade began contracting(years before imploding in the 1840's) in that decade was a further tell. States Rights means much different things now.
The slave trade was not imploding. In 1810 there were about 1 million slaves in the US. And despite the ban on importation of slaves into the US, in 1860 there were 4 million slaves.
Where do you thing they came from?
Please don't feed the racist, anti-semitic semi-literate troll. It only leaves its droppings to get attention.
Every time I read "don't feed the racist troll", I want to puke.
Yes, he is racist. So's about 40% of the country. Making believe he's not there is just closing your eyes to reality.
Yankee-Pennamite wars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennamite%E2%80%93Yankee_War
What about the vast, vast majority of gun owners who are not "gun nuts"? Are they allowed to have ammunition?
Sort of a misframing of the issue
It’s the difference between “why don’t southerners think slaves have a right to their own bodies?” vs “why don’t northerners think slave owners have a right to own property?”
Is a slave/fetus a person or not? Cause if they’re not, you can do whatever you want to them. If they are, then it’s wholly evil to own/kill them. I think Louis CK (yeah the jacking off guy) had a whole bit on this
Also the idea that abortion will reduce the amount of poverty (poor people) and so that’s a good thing makes me a little uncomfortable. Just to put my cards on the table
“ It’s the difference between “why don’t southerners think slaves have a right to their own bodies?” vs “why don’t northerners think slave owners have a right to own property?””””
The issue there is: are humans property? Of course slavers could/can own property. Humans ain’t property. That’s not negotiable. That’s not debatable.
“ Is a slave/fetus a person or not? ”
That’s actually not the point in the so-called “abortion fight” cause nobody is “pro abortion”. Nobody thinks having an abortion is a wonderful thing to do. The evil Planned Parenthood prevents more abortions than any other institution.
*Whatever* you think a fetus is, (and if you think it’s a person, you should be down at the local fertility clinic screaming about all the humans they throw in the trash), the best way by far to prevent abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies with birth control. If the allegedly “anti-abortion” people really were anti-abortion, they would be huge huge fans of birth control. As I’m sure you’ve heard, they are not. Even if the cons never ban birth control, as mr. Drum predicts, they will oppose efforts to make it more accessible to prevent pregnancies/abortions. Because preventing abortions is not their main goal. It’s a front.
I didn’t ask the slave question because I was trying to smear you, it was just an analogy. I’d have tried to pick a less vitriolic comparison but I thought it fit
I’m against abortion, and I’m for birth control. Most reasonable people (in fact most people, 90ish percent according to Kev earlier today) support birth control, and abortion is near 50-50 depending how you ask the question. It just doesn’t make sense to try to say opponents of abortion all don’t like birth control. The numbers don’t work
Ask people why they want abortion restricted and they won’t say they want to control a woman’s body, they’ll say it’s because they think it’s murder, because they think a fetus is a person. Doesn’t have to be a 1 week old single cell thing, some people just want it more tightly restricted after some period of time (like me). The question isn’t just whether a woman has a right to their body, it’s also what rights a future person may or may not have. You may say it is only about a woman’s body, but that relies on you not thinking/not caring that a fetus is a person. That’s a point of debate
If you say a fetus has no say in the matter, and it’s not a person, then fine, you can argue that. If someone else says full rights for feti, and it’s a person after x number of months, then also fine. But framing the debate in deliberate ignorance of opposing views is sort of a MAGAish tactic. It’s also not going to do very well in making inroads towards a compromise (which is the only happy ending)
I respect you and your opinion and your right to have an opinion, it’s just better to engage in debate earnestly
So here's a thought experiment for you.
Suppose you shared an extremely rare blood type with only one other person on Earth, and that person suddenly needed blood or they would die. Should it be legal to force you to give it to them? Or perhaps even one of your non-vital organs, putting you at some degree of risk? Because if you didn't some would certainly argue that you were murdering that person.
"Because if you didn't some would certainly argue that you were murdering that person."
People make false arguments all the time.
If I did something to someone to cause them to have my random unique blood type (to extend your analogy, even though it stops making sense) then I feel it would be murderous and morally wrong to watch them die. More importantly, if I only had to do it for a limited period of time (9 months let’s say) then can send them on their way, it’s even more wrong
To ask a counter question: if I live in the middle of nowhere with my severely disabled child, am I murdering them if I let them starve to death? I simply chose not to help them live. Dependency and helplessness does not give a blank check to kill someone in my opinion
The question wasn't how you feel about it morally, it was should someone who doesn't feel that it's morally wrong be forced to? Especially if the procedure would put their own health at risk (which pregnancy does).
Anyway, your counter question involves an actual dependent child (which someone CHOSE to bring into the world), not a "potential not yet life", which obviously changes the moral calculus.
One thing many pro-choice people find irritating about these maximalist life arguments is that it's generally easy to find many cases where you guys don't care much about living humans at all. I imagine you don't consider it murder when a person dies because they didn't have health insurance in a wealthy society?
Right. I suppose our core disagreement is that I think a woman bears responsibility for a fetus and that it isn’t her own body. I would consider it very similar to the disabled child question. They are similar degrees of helpless and non-self sufficient, so letting them die is akin to killing then. I don’t see the significance of coming out of the womb as granting personhood, since if dependency on the mother is the key question then it’s identical to the disabled child case
I understand your frustration with the life argument. In fact the health insurance issue im in agreement with you. But it feels like a cop out to dodge the merits of the debate by pointing to unsavory people in the crowd of someone you disagree with. We could both do that all day no doubt. I don’t like MAGA crazies at all, and I’m not religious whatsoever, but the abortion issue I’ve thought a lot about and this is a deeply held belief
Once we develop 100% effective and accessible birth control I think a future society will see abortion as evil and barbaric. Not trying to call myself a visionary I just see it as pretty wrong for my own reasons
The Christofascists aren't going to stop at abortion.
The Republican Taliban won’t stop until democracy is replaced with theocracy.
Is that like mostlymimeographicmedia?
Human rights of ANY kind are not a state issue.
No patchwork nation in which girls, women, POC, & LGBTQ individuals live under different laws is either acceptable or viable.
Maybe the affluent illiberal states can now subsidize the poorer ones; why should the states that they castigate send funding for any of their state budgets?
I mean you could describe any government action by how it pertains to human rights. What are my rights against having my property taxed? What are my rights against having property seized by eminent domain? What are my rights to do whatever I want on my own property? What are my rights to own weapons?
I wouldn’t mind having a weaker federal government, I think a centralized government system has serious downsides. Moreover, it’s not clear how the federal government protects minorities any better than states. Given the choice between less than half of states relatively free or all states authoritarian on federal authority, I would choose the former
At least you can mostly settle debates at state levels and not federally ping pong between extremes in a tightly nationally divided country (as we are somewhat likely to do on abortion). Just remember, promising to nominate conservative judges to knock down Roe got Trump in office. It’s a really toxic issue and I want it settled ASAP
Property is purely a construct of society. A woman exists irrespective of society. Can you spot the difference?
You want it settled ASAP - that's all you care about? This is a nation, not a loose confederation of states, & enduring bodily autonomy to persons in one state & not another would likely be unacceptable if you were a woman. It is outrageous overreach for this to be "granted" or withheld by anyone comparing taxation to denying women control over her own body
Yeah I do want it settled fast. I could easily frame the issue around fetal rights as well, but if that’s the definition we went with federally you’d probably change your mind and rather have the blue states go off their own way. If your political philosophy relies on it being “your guys” running the show, then it’s not a very good philosophy
Such disregard for the merits of our constitution sort of ignores why we’ve made it this long. Centralized systems are brittle. And for an issue like this, it seems a reasonable compromise that if you want an abortion you just go to California and co. What’s the issue with that?
Perhaps we should ditch the Bill of Rights and decentralize the whole "rights" thing? Or are the ones that actually affect you sacrosanct?
Libertarians are exhausting.
"What’s the issue with that?"
What if you don't have the resources to travel to California?
Sheesh. Could you at least finish high school before posting here?
"...would likely be unacceptable if you were a woman."
Just think of how unacceptable it is to the babies.
What babies? Where talking about abortion here, not babies. A zygote, an embryo and a fetus are not babies.
How unacceptable will it be if babies are born to families who don't want them, and/or are unable to financially support them?
Now that kind of unacceptable I can understand. How do we even know that an an embryonic clump of cells is conscious? And "unacceptable"? Give me a break.
Let me try to revise my earlier comment to better address mr. Drum’s point.
.,.. Residents in the hardline “anti abortion “ states might be more open to some types of compromise if the supporters of women could make clear to them how much it would cost them to be hardline on abortion. I have found that with some of these people,”human life” is not quite so precious when there’s a bill attached to the little bundle of joy’s blankie.
Is air pollution, water pollution, sex trafficking a state by state issue?
If abortion is left to the states, some radicals will try to exert extra territoriality on other states.
It can be, it can not be at the same time. Power in the federal system is who and can wield it. In 2008 nobody cared about abortion. Because capitalism was dying. It's a first world elitist issue with both sides being elitist snobs. But when those capital markets go down again..........
In 2008, nobody cared about abortion because the Supreme Court was not in the hands of zealots.
Elitist? No I am not part of the financially elite. They are the ones manipulating the zealots so that this financial elite can ride to political power. And if they can, well, they will likely produce a capital market crash sooner rather than later. Sounds to me that you would like that.
Until a GQP Congressional majority approves a national abortion ban signed into law by Pres. Cotton.
No damn way that creepy, Norman Bates-looking putz wins a GOP primary let alone a national election.
Red State politicians hate women .
Blue state politicians hate unborn babies.
If they're not born, they're not babies. Zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not babies. Calling them "babies" is just Christianist sharia propaganda.
A fetus is an unborn baby.
No, a fetus is a fetus, not a baby. Calling them "babies" is just Christianist sharia propaganda.
I said its an unborn baby, not a baby.
Red state politicians hate born babies. Once they leave the womb, not their problem. Or yours, Mr. Red State.
I'm against arson. But I don't feel an obligation to paint everyone's houses.
I looked up Pew's 2020 survey and several light red states have moved closer to being light blue in just six years since 2014, the map that Kevin used. 56% of Floridians now think abortion should be legal which is obviously a key state since if abortion remains legal the distance pregnant persons would have to travel for an abortion in the deep South would be significantly shortened.
Trends show it is very likely that abortion will be legal in all but a few states clustered in the South by 2030.
It kinda depends on how quickly millenials and younger voters actually displace Boomers as ACTUAL practicing voters. They vote much more consistently Democratic thank previous young generations, but getting them to vote is so difficult that activists popped the champagne when it reached 50% participation under 30 yo. They also tend to vote far less in the states that are currently rolling back abortion than in swingy pro-abortion states, possibly because the GOP has a lock on the state governments in those places. The prospect that this demographic change will push out the GOP Boomers is the lone thing keeping me sane. It all comes down to if there will be anything left by the time the younger folks take control.
Yes, as I have said before the important thing is the states, specifically swing states. I think personally that abortion is something that should be decided nationally, like many other things such as gun control. But you can't pass a national law unless you have the electoral votes and Senators, and this boils down to those few states which are not completely polarized. You can say that the current system is a bad one and should be changed, but that won't happen until Democrats get the votes under that system.
Pollsters and the media do a bad job of finding out how thing stand on a state by state basis. A national poll with a thousand respondents is standard but that may say very little about how things are in the critical states which actually decide matters nationally.