Is everyone just stunned that we’ve stepped back 50 years in time?

[Anonymous]

Mitch McConnell stole the supreme Court Justice seed and is to blame for all of this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mitch McConnell stole the supreme Court Justice seed and is to blame for all of this

He is pure evil

[Anonymous]

Stunned? No. Backlash against freedoms and opportunities has been building ever since those freedoms were supposedly “won”.
Only complacent people who thought that the proverbial “leopard” would never eat THEIR own faces are likely to be stunned by any of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stunned? No. Backlash against freedoms and opportunities has been building ever since those freedoms were supposedly “won”.
Only complacent people who thought that the proverbial “leopard” would never eat THEIR own faces are likely to be stunned by any of this.

I don’t think this is a leopard thing so much as it’s people who just didn’t understand that rights could be eroded.

Of course people had been trying to tell them and some of them did vote for their rights to be eroded, but lots of people just didn’t grasp how regressive Republicans are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously everyone is not stunned.

But I'm stunned that some liberals are still shocked that the majority doesn't always agree with everything they stand for. I'm shocked that some liberals think religious people shouldn't vote in accordance with their own values but liberals should be free to vote in accordance with theirs. I'm shocked that whenever a political party doesn't get it's way there's talk of receding and revolution. I'm shocked that so many people fall for Russian propoganda designed to separate us so we will more easily fall. But mostly I'm shocked at how so many people live in their own political bubble that they fool themselves into thinking "everyone" thinks the same as they do when in reality it's just the 10-20 people they hang around.

I’m not shocked at all. But it’s fundamentally anti American to believe that you should impose Christianity on us. It’s literally Amendment numero uno.

DP. Who is “imposing Christianity” on you? All the SC did was place the issue of abortion with the states to decide. Vote accordingly. No one is forcing anything on you, but everyone is certainly entitled to vote on the issue. It should never have been legislated by the SC in the first place, which is the whole point. And I’m pro-choice.

np So you are cool with women not being allowed to travel to get an abortion? Or order the abortion pill? Doesn't that scare you at all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Or is there just apathy? I cant tell.

Between abortion and the three recent Supreme Court cases siding with organized religion, it seems like we are just heading back to a time of superstition.

I mean really what the fk just happened? What is this?

I am stunned that people don’t remember that both Obama and Biden promised to codify right to abortion in federal law.

Executive branch and legislative branch and still wouldn’t do it.

Oh well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stunned? No. Backlash against freedoms and opportunities has been building ever since those freedoms were supposedly “won”.
Only complacent people who thought that the proverbial “leopard” would never eat THEIR own faces are likely to be stunned by any of this.

I don’t think this is a leopard thing so much as it’s people who just didn’t understand that rights could be eroded.

Of course people had been trying to tell them and some of them did vote for their rights to be eroded, but lots of people just didn’t grasp how regressive Republicans are.

I just think a lot of people don’t think through the actual details of how such laws will be implemented.

“Oh, it says there’s an exception for life of the mother!” And that’s the extent of their thought process. Not…and how is that decided? Who decides? How long does it take? What is the process? It’s like they honestly think a woman can say “It’s to save my life!”and there will be no questions asked. People are awful, really awful at critical thinking.

[Anonymous]

This fight needs to be fought all over again by us and our sons and daughters. Teach them how to fight back.

[Anonymous]

What about killing in self-defense? Can women get around the law by arguing self-defense of their own bodies?.

Facebook has a meme going around that says your body. Your choice is like saying my house my rooms. I still can't kill a baby inside it. But my rebuttal is if someone was in your house actively trying to kill you. You sure it's all could.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or is there just apathy? I cant tell.

Between abortion and the three recent Supreme Court cases siding with organized religion, it seems like we are just heading back to a time of superstition.

I mean really what the fk just happened? What is this?

No not stunned. These are the correct decisions and should never have been made in the first place. Congress should have addresed abortion. They are the failure here. It was never a Consitutional protection. The religion stuff is right. Read the 1st amendment. Courts went sideways on this long ago.

Exactly. This is a job for Congress and the democratic process - good for the justices for recognizing this. They’re not there to legislate.

+1

Except that Roe has been the case law for 50 years, impacts millions of women, was supposedly settled. obviously, to a fascist, sending it to congress is a “good” idea, in the sense that anyone who understands legislation knows that it has no chance at becoming law. Also, this case opens up the door to end gay marriage and gay sex and all that other icky stuff Jesus doesn’t like apparently.

Actually, I'm one of the above posters and I would very much like to see abortion rights codified in law. But it most definitely was NOT "supposedly settled" - it's had dozens of challenges over the years. It's not the Supreme Court's place to legislate. This should have been a states' issue long ago. And it has nothing to do with gay marriage.

It was precedent that had been affirmed about two dozen times.

But not with these new anti choice zealots on the court. Women need to get some representation for their basic rights back on the court. Switch out these old men with some people with respect for women and change it back to a court that will stand up for us

We are screwed because we have to wait for several of the rwnj justices to die

Well, Thomas is 80 so at least there’s that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or is there just apathy? I cant tell.

Between abortion and the three recent Supreme Court cases siding with organized religion, it seems like we are just heading back to a time of superstition.

I mean really what the fk just happened? What is this?

No not stunned. These are the correct decisions and should never have been made in the first place. Congress should have addresed abortion. They are the failure here. It was never a Consitutional protection. The religion stuff is right. Read the 1st amendment. Courts went sideways on this long ago.

Exactly. This is a job for Congress and the democratic process - good for the justices for recognizing this. They’re not there to legislate.

+1

Except that Roe has been the case law for 50 years, impacts millions of women, was supposedly settled. obviously, to a fascist, sending it to congress is a “good” idea, in the sense that anyone who understands legislation knows that it has no chance at becoming law. Also, this case opens up the door to end gay marriage and gay sex and all that other icky stuff Jesus doesn’t like apparently.

Actually, I'm one of the above posters and I would very much like to see abortion rights codified in law. But it most definitely was NOT "supposedly settled" - it's had dozens of challenges over the years. It's not the Supreme Court's place to legislate. This should have been a states' issue long ago. And it has nothing to do with gay marriage.

It was precedent that had been affirmed about two dozen times.

But not with these new anti choice zealots on the court. Women need to get some representation for their basic rights back on the court. Switch out these old men with some people with respect for women and change it back to a court that will stand up for us

We are screwed because we have to wait for several of the rwnj justices to die

Well, Thomas is 80 so at least there’s that.

He will be replaced of course at some point. What is the plan to make sure his replacement has intention to safeguard women's reproductive rights in ALL states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or is there just apathy? I cant tell.

Between abortion and the three recent Supreme Court cases siding with organized religion, it seems like we are just heading back to a time of superstition.

I mean really what the fk just happened? What is this?

No not stunned. These are the correct decisions and should never have been made in the first place. Congress should have addresed abortion. They are the failure here. It was never a Consitutional protection. The religion stuff is right. Read the 1st amendment. Courts went sideways on this long ago.

Exactly. This is a job for Congress and the democratic process - good for the justices for recognizing this. They’re not there to legislate.

+1

Except that Roe has been the case law for 50 years, impacts millions of women, was supposedly settled. obviously, to a fascist, sending it to congress is a “good” idea, in the sense that anyone who understands legislation knows that it has no chance at becoming law. Also, this case opens up the door to end gay marriage and gay sex and all that other icky stuff Jesus doesn’t like apparently.

Actually, I'm one of the above posters and I would very much like to see abortion rights codified in law. But it most definitely was NOT "supposedly settled" - it's had dozens of challenges over the years. It's not the Supreme Court's place to legislate. This should have been a states' issue long ago. And it has nothing to do with gay marriage.

It was precedent that had been affirmed about two dozen times.

But not with these new anti choice zealots on the court. Women need to get some representation for their basic rights back on the court. Switch out these old men with some people with respect for women and change it back to a court that will stand up for us

We are screwed because we have to wait for several of the rwnj justices to die

Well, Thomas is 80 so at least there’s that.

He will be replaced of course at some point. What is the plan to make sure his replacement has intention to safeguard women's reproductive rights in ALL states.

It would probably go a long way if Democrats didn’t vote and then scatter, confused about what they supported mere weeks before. I guess that’s probably driven in online spaces by right wingers pretending to be Democrats as we’ve seen on here so many times (“I’m a Democrat, I voted for Clinton twice, then W twice, then Obama twice so you know my bonafides but I think that this bill just goes too far in respecting women. I just can’t co sign it for the following right wing reasons…”)

Support the more progressive candidate. Stop backing off when we have a majority. Stop getting all faux moderate and pretending like AOC is advocating for hanging the VP for disagreeing with her. Stop pretending like progressives have some whacky off the wall goals. Some are, some aren’t, but our Overton window is currently in the entry way to the house of fascism. Maybe 40 years of right wing dominance is long enough and maybe we shouldn’t privatize everything and maybe corporations shouldn’t have the same rights as people and maybe we should get money out of politics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stunned? No. Backlash against freedoms and opportunities has been building ever since those freedoms were supposedly “won”.
Only complacent people who thought that the proverbial “leopard” would never eat THEIR own faces are likely to be stunned by any of this.

I don’t think this is a leopard thing so much as it’s people who just didn’t understand that rights could be eroded.

Of course people had been trying to tell them and some of them did vote for their rights to be eroded, but lots of people just didn’t grasp how regressive Republicans are.

I just think a lot of people don’t think through the actual details of how such laws will be implemented.

“Oh, it says there’s an exception for life of the mother!” And that’s the extent of their thought process. Not…and how is that decided? Who decides? How long does it take? What is the process? It’s like they honestly think a woman can say “It’s to save my life!”and there will be no questions asked. People are awful, really awful at critical thinking.

To be fair, if you've never been pregnant or are not a medical professional, you have no idea how these things will go down.

[Anonymous]

Stunned? No. This is exactly what the GOP has been promising since about 2010.

Angry? Absolutely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stunned? No. Backlash against freedoms and opportunities has been building ever since those freedoms were supposedly “won”.
Only complacent people who thought that the proverbial “leopard” would never eat THEIR own faces are likely to be stunned by any of this.

I don’t think this is a leopard thing so much as it’s people who just didn’t understand that rights could be eroded.

Of course people had been trying to tell them and some of them did vote for their rights to be eroded, but lots of people just didn’t grasp how regressive Republicans are.

I just think a lot of people don’t think through the actual details of how such laws will be implemented.

“Oh, it says there’s an exception for life of the mother!” And that’s the extent of their thought process. Not…and how is that decided? Who decides? How long does it take? What is the process? It’s like they honestly think a woman can say “It’s to save my life!”and there will be no questions asked. People are awful, really awful at critical thinking.

To be fair, if you've never been pregnant or are not a medical professional, you have no idea how these things will go down.

But at least have the self-awareness to say, “I don’t know how these things go down. Others do and can probably make a more informed decision than me.” But they don’t.