“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to know what sort of surveillance and control will be implemented for this to happen

If ever there were two men who looked like they only wanted the babies to live long enough so they could eat them.

“If Roe is overturned, there’s already a criminal ban, there’s already an aiding and abetting ban, there’s already a ban on mailing medication abortion,” Sepper said. “In terms of law’s ability to change behavior, they’ve almost filled all the gaps — with the exception of criminalizing the pregnant person involved in an abortion.”

Folks, this will not get any better until the mainstream media starts asking Republicans, repeatedly, if *a woman who gets an abortion* should be charged with murder. The fact they consistently let Republicans slide on this crucial point is completely mystifying to me. When Republicans have to repeatedly go on record saying they are comfortable with the death penalty for women who get abortions—including rape victims—then and only then will things change.

I know there are journalists in the forum. Why do you continue to carry water for GOP? Do your frigging job!

Because they’re stupid, bad at their jobs and enjoy power. That’s literally the only conclusion. The “mainstream” media has gotten dumber and more right wing, like there’s some sort of brain disease spreading amongst them that makes them incredibly lazy and unwilling to crawl up a rapepublican’s butt - but more than willing to talk about absolute nonsense for weeks if it’s bad for Democrats.

This will send us back to the 1800s. I don’t understand why more people aren’t alarmed.

This. We’ve been talking about this for days and still basic errors and lack of understanding regarding the significance of the potential holding in the major papers. And they’re obsessing over the protests (which I don’t support) instead of the fear that women are feeling.

Correct for my tone here because I’m terrible at conveying messages in the right tone and I do not mean this to be hostile in the least, but look at your bolded sentence and tell me that the finger wagging patriarchy doesn’t still live a little inside your head (as it does in almost everyone’s to some degree). These “justices” - and they’re not that anymore, are they? They’re Talibangelicals on a Christianist Sharia tribunal - are literally about to make women slaves. They have affirmed the right to harass women at clinics, they have affirmed the right for forced birthers to harass clinic employees at their homes and they know full well how much violence forced birthers have commit.

The people (women) bringing the noise to these wastrels’ homes are fighting the good fight and I applaud them.

Sorry, I don’t support picketing federal judges homes. Demonstrate somewhere else. This is how civil societies die. And it’s a distraction from the story.

Our civil society is already dead. It was dying but Trump was the kill shot.

Some of us are trying to save it. Again you are the problem—this stupid debate is a distraction from the real and urgent fear that women are feeling.

It’s not a debate. It’s free speech. The Supreme Court has said it’s acceptable for others, and what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. And I was trying to be polite in pointing the fact that you are in some ways beholden to patriarchal ideas about appropriate behavior - they’re not being loud, annoying, harassing their children, trespassing, threatening violence, the neighbors welcome it - and you’re calling me “the problem.”

“The problem” is that the patriarchy is so deep in peoples’ bones and so unexamined that men and women vote for the complete decimation of women’s rights without a second thought to what it actually means. They literally spare no thoughts about liberty for women.

For the PP who is against the protests - remind me why it's ok to protest outside of abortion clinics, but not justices' houses? I'm having a hard time seeing how they support the one but not the other. Lordy it had better not be some argument rooted in privacy.

Well for one? It’s illegal. Secondly it’s about preventing judges from being killed in their homes because they make unpopular decisions. It happens unfortunately too often. I think protesting outside of healthcare clinics is disgusting and should be illegal too… it interferes with people’s ability to get healthcare.

And these justices made that legal... why do they have the right to peace and the women who walk into a building which may have a abortion clinic do not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to know what sort of surveillance and control will be implemented for this to happen

If ever there were two men who looked like they only wanted the babies to live long enough so they could eat them.

“If Roe is overturned, there’s already a criminal ban, there’s already an aiding and abetting ban, there’s already a ban on mailing medication abortion,” Sepper said. “In terms of law’s ability to change behavior, they’ve almost filled all the gaps — with the exception of criminalizing the pregnant person involved in an abortion.”

Folks, this will not get any better until the mainstream media starts asking Republicans, repeatedly, if *a woman who gets an abortion* should be charged with murder. The fact they consistently let Republicans slide on this crucial point is completely mystifying to me. When Republicans have to repeatedly go on record saying they are comfortable with the death penalty for women who get abortions—including rape victims—then and only then will things change.

I know there are journalists in the forum. Why do you continue to carry water for GOP? Do your frigging job!

Because they’re stupid, bad at their jobs and enjoy power. That’s literally the only conclusion. The “mainstream” media has gotten dumber and more right wing, like there’s some sort of brain disease spreading amongst them that makes them incredibly lazy and unwilling to crawl up a rapepublican’s butt - but more than willing to talk about absolute nonsense for weeks if it’s bad for Democrats.

This will send us back to the 1800s. I don’t understand why more people aren’t alarmed.

This. We’ve been talking about this for days and still basic errors and lack of understanding regarding the significance of the potential holding in the major papers. And they’re obsessing over the protests (which I don’t support) instead of the fear that women are feeling.

Correct for my tone here because I’m terrible at conveying messages in the right tone and I do not mean this to be hostile in the least, but look at your bolded sentence and tell me that the finger wagging patriarchy doesn’t still live a little inside your head (as it does in almost everyone’s to some degree). These “justices” - and they’re not that anymore, are they? They’re Talibangelicals on a Christianist Sharia tribunal - are literally about to make women slaves. They have affirmed the right to harass women at clinics, they have affirmed the right for forced birthers to harass clinic employees at their homes and they know full well how much violence forced birthers have commit.

The people (women) bringing the noise to these wastrels’ homes are fighting the good fight and I applaud them.

Sorry, I don’t support picketing federal judges homes. Demonstrate somewhere else. This is how civil societies die. And it’s a distraction from the story.

Our civil society is already dead. It was dying but Trump was the kill shot.

Some of us are trying to save it. Again you are the problem—this stupid debate is a distraction from the real and urgent fear that women are feeling.

It’s not a debate. It’s free speech. The Supreme Court has said it’s acceptable for others, and what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. And I was trying to be polite in pointing the fact that you are in some ways beholden to patriarchal ideas about appropriate behavior - they’re not being loud, annoying, harassing their children, trespassing, threatening violence, the neighbors welcome it - and you’re calling me “the problem.”

“The problem” is that the patriarchy is so deep in peoples’ bones and so unexamined that men and women vote for the complete decimation of women’s rights without a second thought to what it actually means. They literally spare no thoughts about liberty for women.

For the PP who is against the protests - remind me why it's ok to protest outside of abortion clinics, but not justices' houses? I'm having a hard time seeing how they support the one but not the other. Lordy it had better not be some argument rooted in privacy.

Not PP. But in functioning democracies governed by the rule of law, it's common to provide special protection to judges and law enforcement officers so that they can interpret and enforce the law fairly and without fear of reprisal. It's a pretty important cornerstone of democracy. It's also why it's important to pay judges and law enforcement well, so they aren't subject to bribes.

It's difficult however, to know what to think in the US. SCOTUS's behavior over the past couple of years with the shadow docket etc has indicated that they've given up all pretense of being a legitimate, non-partisan body. Same with Gorsuch accepting a nomination for a seat that was held open in violation of longstanding norms, Kavanaugh's behavior during his hearing, and Barrett accepting a confirmation process that was explicitly political. All three of these people had some agency in deciding to go along with over-partisan politics in getting confirmed to SCOTUS. They've willingly participated in activities that de-legitimize SCOTUS. So they are complicit in the de-legitimizing of SCOTUS's authority and decision-making.

Is your family getting paid by a forced birther lobbying organization while you rule for forced birthers bribe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to know what sort of surveillance and control will be implemented for this to happen

If ever there were two men who looked like they only wanted the babies to live long enough so they could eat them.

“If Roe is overturned, there’s already a criminal ban, there’s already an aiding and abetting ban, there’s already a ban on mailing medication abortion,” Sepper said. “In terms of law’s ability to change behavior, they’ve almost filled all the gaps — with the exception of criminalizing the pregnant person involved in an abortion.”

Folks, this will not get any better until the mainstream media starts asking Republicans, repeatedly, if *a woman who gets an abortion* should be charged with murder. The fact they consistently let Republicans slide on this crucial point is completely mystifying to me. When Republicans have to repeatedly go on record saying they are comfortable with the death penalty for women who get abortions—including rape victims—then and only then will things change.

I know there are journalists in the forum. Why do you continue to carry water for GOP? Do your frigging job!

Because they’re stupid, bad at their jobs and enjoy power. That’s literally the only conclusion. The “mainstream” media has gotten dumber and more right wing, like there’s some sort of brain disease spreading amongst them that makes them incredibly lazy and unwilling to crawl up a rapepublican’s butt - but more than willing to talk about absolute nonsense for weeks if it’s bad for Democrats.

This will send us back to the 1800s. I don’t understand why more people aren’t alarmed.

This. We’ve been talking about this for days and still basic errors and lack of understanding regarding the significance of the potential holding in the major papers. And they’re obsessing over the protests (which I don’t support) instead of the fear that women are feeling.

Correct for my tone here because I’m terrible at conveying messages in the right tone and I do not mean this to be hostile in the least, but look at your bolded sentence and tell me that the finger wagging patriarchy doesn’t still live a little inside your head (as it does in almost everyone’s to some degree). These “justices” - and they’re not that anymore, are they? They’re Talibangelicals on a Christianist Sharia tribunal - are literally about to make women slaves. They have affirmed the right to harass women at clinics, they have affirmed the right for forced birthers to harass clinic employees at their homes and they know full well how much violence forced birthers have commit.

The people (women) bringing the noise to these wastrels’ homes are fighting the good fight and I applaud them.

Sorry, I don’t support picketing federal judges homes. Demonstrate somewhere else. This is how civil societies die. And it’s a distraction from the story.

Our civil society is already dead. It was dying but Trump was the kill shot.

Some of us are trying to save it. Again you are the problem—this stupid debate is a distraction from the real and urgent fear that women are feeling.

It’s not a debate. It’s free speech. The Supreme Court has said it’s acceptable for others, and what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. And I was trying to be polite in pointing the fact that you are in some ways beholden to patriarchal ideas about appropriate behavior - they’re not being loud, annoying, harassing their children, trespassing, threatening violence, the neighbors welcome it - and you’re calling me “the problem.”

“The problem” is that the patriarchy is so deep in peoples’ bones and so unexamined that men and women vote for the complete decimation of women’s rights without a second thought to what it actually means. They literally spare no thoughts about liberty for women.

For the PP who is against the protests - remind me why it's ok to protest outside of abortion clinics, but not justices' houses? I'm having a hard time seeing how they support the one but not the other. Lordy it had better not be some argument rooted in privacy.

Well for one? It’s illegal. Secondly it’s about preventing judges from being killed in their homes because they make unpopular decisions. It happens unfortunately too often. I think protesting outside of healthcare clinics is disgusting and should be illegal too… it interferes with people’s ability to get healthcare.

And these justices made that legal... why do they have the right to peace and the women who walk into a building which may have a abortion clinic do not?

Yes well if I based my own moral calculus on the rulings of the fascist five I’d be a hypocrite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to know what sort of surveillance and control will be implemented for this to happen

If ever there were two men who looked like they only wanted the babies to live long enough so they could eat them.

“If Roe is overturned, there’s already a criminal ban, there’s already an aiding and abetting ban, there’s already a ban on mailing medication abortion,” Sepper said. “In terms of law’s ability to change behavior, they’ve almost filled all the gaps — with the exception of criminalizing the pregnant person involved in an abortion.”

Folks, this will not get any better until the mainstream media starts asking Republicans, repeatedly, if *a woman who gets an abortion* should be charged with murder. The fact they consistently let Republicans slide on this crucial point is completely mystifying to me. When Republicans have to repeatedly go on record saying they are comfortable with the death penalty for women who get abortions—including rape victims—then and only then will things change.

I know there are journalists in the forum. Why do you continue to carry water for GOP? Do your frigging job!

Because they’re stupid, bad at their jobs and enjoy power. That’s literally the only conclusion. The “mainstream” media has gotten dumber and more right wing, like there’s some sort of brain disease spreading amongst them that makes them incredibly lazy and unwilling to crawl up a rapepublican’s butt - but more than willing to talk about absolute nonsense for weeks if it’s bad for Democrats.

This will send us back to the 1800s. I don’t understand why more people aren’t alarmed.

This. We’ve been talking about this for days and still basic errors and lack of understanding regarding the significance of the potential holding in the major papers. And they’re obsessing over the protests (which I don’t support) instead of the fear that women are feeling.

Correct for my tone here because I’m terrible at conveying messages in the right tone and I do not mean this to be hostile in the least, but look at your bolded sentence and tell me that the finger wagging patriarchy doesn’t still live a little inside your head (as it does in almost everyone’s to some degree). These “justices” - and they’re not that anymore, are they? They’re Talibangelicals on a Christianist Sharia tribunal - are literally about to make women slaves. They have affirmed the right to harass women at clinics, they have affirmed the right for forced birthers to harass clinic employees at their homes and they know full well how much violence forced birthers have commit.

The people (women) bringing the noise to these wastrels’ homes are fighting the good fight and I applaud them.

Sorry, I don’t support picketing federal judges homes. Demonstrate somewhere else. This is how civil societies die. And it’s a distraction from the story.

Our civil society is already dead. It was dying but Trump was the kill shot.

Some of us are trying to save it. Again you are the problem—this stupid debate is a distraction from the real and urgent fear that women are feeling.

It’s not a debate. It’s free speech. The Supreme Court has said it’s acceptable for others, and what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. And I was trying to be polite in pointing the fact that you are in some ways beholden to patriarchal ideas about appropriate behavior - they’re not being loud, annoying, harassing their children, trespassing, threatening violence, the neighbors welcome it - and you’re calling me “the problem.”

“The problem” is that the patriarchy is so deep in peoples’ bones and so unexamined that men and women vote for the complete decimation of women’s rights without a second thought to what it actually means. They literally spare no thoughts about liberty for women.

For the PP who is against the protests - remind me why it's ok to protest outside of abortion clinics, but not justices' houses? I'm having a hard time seeing how they support the one but not the other. Lordy it had better not be some argument rooted in privacy.

Well for one? It’s illegal. Secondly it’s about preventing judges from being killed in their homes because they make unpopular decisions. It happens unfortunately too often. I think protesting outside of healthcare clinics is disgusting and should be illegal too… it interferes with people’s ability to get healthcare.

And these justices made that legal... why do they have the right to peace and the women who walk into a building which may have a abortion clinic do not?

Yes well if I based my own moral calculus on the rulings of the fascist five I’d be a hypocrite.

This reminds me of a saying "good girls go to heaven... bad girls can anywhere!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to win the slogan war:

Women's Lives Matter
Mothers' Freedom to Live
Born an Orphan

Republicans are so much better at winning the sound-byte war and turning votes because they focus on the extreme cases that make a law while ignoring the run of the mill.

Democrats won the messaging war in Florida labeling the parental bill the "Don't Say Gay" bill. They need to focus on the visceral message to label this action. It has to have a grain of truth, it doesn't have to be completely accurate.

Flip the script - “Abortion Saves Lives”

The problem with messaging is using terms that turn people off. The word abortion is so loaded from propaganda from both sides that many people, including a large amount of people who don't pay attention to the media and news sources, immediately have ideas in their mind that may or may not be part of the discussion.

To be effective messaging, you want to use terms that will give people a visceral positive message or a message that they automatically want to support. And that means not including the politically loaded word "abortion"

Ah, the classic “both sides” argument in which one side wants to take away healthcare from women and has bombed, murdered, firebombed, harassed, stalked and assaulted the people who provide said healthcare. Then there are those other people who provide healthcare when women need it. Yeah. Both sides.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to know what sort of surveillance and control will be implemented for this to happen

If ever there were two men who looked like they only wanted the babies to live long enough so they could eat them.

“If Roe is overturned, there’s already a criminal ban, there’s already an aiding and abetting ban, there’s already a ban on mailing medication abortion,” Sepper said. “In terms of law’s ability to change behavior, they’ve almost filled all the gaps — with the exception of criminalizing the pregnant person involved in an abortion.”

Folks, this will not get any better until the mainstream media starts asking Republicans, repeatedly, if *a woman who gets an abortion* should be charged with murder. The fact they consistently let Republicans slide on this crucial point is completely mystifying to me. When Republicans have to repeatedly go on record saying they are comfortable with the death penalty for women who get abortions—including rape victims—then and only then will things change.

I know there are journalists in the forum. Why do you continue to carry water for GOP? Do your frigging job!

Because they’re stupid, bad at their jobs and enjoy power. That’s literally the only conclusion. The “mainstream” media has gotten dumber and more right wing, like there’s some sort of brain disease spreading amongst them that makes them incredibly lazy and unwilling to crawl up a rapepublican’s butt - but more than willing to talk about absolute nonsense for weeks if it’s bad for Democrats.

This will send us back to the 1800s. I don’t understand why more people aren’t alarmed.

This. We’ve been talking about this for days and still basic errors and lack of understanding regarding the significance of the potential holding in the major papers. And they’re obsessing over the protests (which I don’t support) instead of the fear that women are feeling.

Correct for my tone here because I’m terrible at conveying messages in the right tone and I do not mean this to be hostile in the least, but look at your bolded sentence and tell me that the finger wagging patriarchy doesn’t still live a little inside your head (as it does in almost everyone’s to some degree). These “justices” - and they’re not that anymore, are they? They’re Talibangelicals on a Christianist Sharia tribunal - are literally about to make women slaves. They have affirmed the right to harass women at clinics, they have affirmed the right for forced birthers to harass clinic employees at their homes and they know full well how much violence forced birthers have commit.

The people (women) bringing the noise to these wastrels’ homes are fighting the good fight and I applaud them.

Sorry, I don’t support picketing federal judges homes. Demonstrate somewhere else. This is how civil societies die. And it’s a distraction from the story.

Peaceful demonstrations?

If they are going to dive into the world of politics, they get demonstrations. They should have stuck to law.

It’s still illegal. There is still rule of law. One terrible opinion doesn’t change that. I’m not big on behavior that puts federal judges homes at risk.

I’m ok with peaceful demonstrations for political activists pushing their extremists religious views on the entire country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to win the slogan war:

Women's Lives Matter
Mothers' Freedom to Live
Born an Orphan

Republicans are so much better at winning the sound-byte war and turning votes because they focus on the extreme cases that make a law while ignoring the run of the mill.

Democrats won the messaging war in Florida labeling the parental bill the "Don't Say Gay" bill. They need to focus on the visceral message to label this action. It has to have a grain of truth, it doesn't have to be completely accurate.

Flip the script - “Abortion Saves Lives”

The problem with messaging is using terms that turn people off. The word abortion is so loaded from propaganda from both sides that many people, including a large amount of people who don't pay attention to the media and news sources, immediately have ideas in their mind that may or may not be part of the discussion.

To be effective messaging, you want to use terms that will give people a visceral positive message or a message that they automatically want to support. And that means not including the politically loaded word "abortion"

How is a medical procedure “loaded”? The point of saying Abortion and talking about abortion de stigmatizes it. But I want to make a slaughter change: Abortion care saves lives.

[Anonymous]

Ugh! A slight change!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to win the slogan war:

Women's Lives Matter
Mothers' Freedom to Live
Born an Orphan

Republicans are so much better at winning the sound-byte war and turning votes because they focus on the extreme cases that make a law while ignoring the run of the mill.

Democrats won the messaging war in Florida labeling the parental bill the "Don't Say Gay" bill. They need to focus on the visceral message to label this action. It has to have a grain of truth, it doesn't have to be completely accurate.

Flip the script - “Abortion Saves Lives”

The problem with messaging is using terms that turn people off. The word abortion is so loaded from propaganda from both sides that many people, including a large amount of people who don't pay attention to the media and news sources, immediately have ideas in their mind that may or may not be part of the discussion.

To be effective messaging, you want to use terms that will give people a visceral positive message or a message that they automatically want to support. And that means not including the politically loaded word "abortion"

How is a medical procedure “loaded”? The point of saying Abortion and talking about abortion de stigmatizes it. But I want to make a slaughter change: Abortion care saves lives.

DP: It shouldn't be but it is. That's the unfortunate reality

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to win the slogan war:

Women's Lives Matter
Mothers' Freedom to Live
Born an Orphan

Republicans are so much better at winning the sound-byte war and turning votes because they focus on the extreme cases that make a law while ignoring the run of the mill.

Democrats won the messaging war in Florida labeling the parental bill the "Don't Say Gay" bill. They need to focus on the visceral message to label this action. It has to have a grain of truth, it doesn't have to be completely accurate.

Flip the script - “Abortion Saves Lives”

The problem with messaging is using terms that turn people off. The word abortion is so loaded from propaganda from both sides that many people, including a large amount of people who don't pay attention to the media and news sources, immediately have ideas in their mind that may or may not be part of the discussion.

To be effective messaging, you want to use terms that will give people a visceral positive message or a message that they automatically want to support. And that means not including the politically loaded word "abortion"

How is a medical procedure “loaded”? The point of saying Abortion and talking about abortion de stigmatizes it. But I want to make a slaughter change: Abortion care saves lives.

DP: It shouldn't be but it is. That's the unfortunate reality

And THAT is why we need to be talking about it. Tell our stories, how someone you love will need/has had an abortion. NOT talking about something Does. Not. Make. It. Less. Controversial.
Abortion care is healthcare, abortion saves lives, abortion allows women the freedom to decide when and how to have a family. Abortion is common. Access to abortion impacts our economic lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to win the slogan war:

Women's Lives Matter
Mothers' Freedom to Live
Born an Orphan

Republicans are so much better at winning the sound-byte war and turning votes because they focus on the extreme cases that make a law while ignoring the run of the mill.

Democrats won the messaging war in Florida labeling the parental bill the "Don't Say Gay" bill. They need to focus on the visceral message to label this action. It has to have a grain of truth, it doesn't have to be completely accurate.

Flip the script - “Abortion Saves Lives”

The problem with messaging is using terms that turn people off. The word abortion is so loaded from propaganda from both sides that many people, including a large amount of people who don't pay attention to the media and news sources, immediately have ideas in their mind that may or may not be part of the discussion.

To be effective messaging, you want to use terms that will give people a visceral positive message or a message that they automatically want to support. And that means not including the politically loaded word "abortion"

How is a medical procedure “loaded”? The point of saying Abortion and talking about abortion de stigmatizes it. But I want to make a slaughter change: Abortion care saves lives.

DP: It shouldn't be but it is. That's the unfortunate reality

And THAT is why we need to be talking about it. Tell our stories, how someone you love will need/has had an abortion. NOT talking about something Does. Not. Make. It. Less. Controversial.
Abortion care is healthcare, abortion saves lives, abortion allows women the freedom to decide when and how to have a family. Abortion is common. Access to abortion impacts our economic lives.

This.

Abortion is healthcare
Abortion bans kill women

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to know what sort of surveillance and control will be implemented for this to happen

If ever there were two men who looked like they only wanted the babies to live long enough so they could eat them.

“If Roe is overturned, there’s already a criminal ban, there’s already an aiding and abetting ban, there’s already a ban on mailing medication abortion,” Sepper said. “In terms of law’s ability to change behavior, they’ve almost filled all the gaps — with the exception of criminalizing the pregnant person involved in an abortion.”

Folks, this will not get any better until the mainstream media starts asking Republicans, repeatedly, if *a woman who gets an abortion* should be charged with murder. The fact they consistently let Republicans slide on this crucial point is completely mystifying to me. When Republicans have to repeatedly go on record saying they are comfortable with the death penalty for women who get abortions—including rape victims—then and only then will things change.

I know there are journalists in the forum. Why do you continue to carry water for GOP? Do your frigging job!

Because they’re stupid, bad at their jobs and enjoy power. That’s literally the only conclusion. The “mainstream” media has gotten dumber and more right wing, like there’s some sort of brain disease spreading amongst them that makes them incredibly lazy and unwilling to crawl up a rapepublican’s butt - but more than willing to talk about absolute nonsense for weeks if it’s bad for Democrats.

This will send us back to the 1800s. I don’t understand why more people aren’t alarmed.

This. We’ve been talking about this for days and still basic errors and lack of understanding regarding the significance of the potential holding in the major papers. And they’re obsessing over the protests (which I don’t support) instead of the fear that women are feeling.

Correct for my tone here because I’m terrible at conveying messages in the right tone and I do not mean this to be hostile in the least, but look at your bolded sentence and tell me that the finger wagging patriarchy doesn’t still live a little inside your head (as it does in almost everyone’s to some degree). These “justices” - and they’re not that anymore, are they? They’re Talibangelicals on a Christianist Sharia tribunal - are literally about to make women slaves. They have affirmed the right to harass women at clinics, they have affirmed the right for forced birthers to harass clinic employees at their homes and they know full well how much violence forced birthers have commit.

The people (women) bringing the noise to these wastrels’ homes are fighting the good fight and I applaud them.

Sorry, I don’t support picketing federal judges homes. Demonstrate somewhere else. This is how civil societies die. And it’s a distraction from the story.

Our civil society is already dead. It was dying but Trump was the kill shot.

Some of us are trying to save it. Again you are the problem—this stupid debate is a distraction from the real and urgent fear that women are feeling.

It’s not a debate. It’s free speech. The Supreme Court has said it’s acceptable for others, and what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. And I was trying to be polite in pointing the fact that you are in some ways beholden to patriarchal ideas about appropriate behavior - they’re not being loud, annoying, harassing their children, trespassing, threatening violence, the neighbors welcome it - and you’re calling me “the problem.”

“The problem” is that the patriarchy is so deep in peoples’ bones and so unexamined that men and women vote for the complete decimation of women’s rights without a second thought to what it actually means. They literally spare no thoughts about liberty for women.

For the PP who is against the protests - remind me why it's ok to protest outside of abortion clinics, but not justices' houses? I'm having a hard time seeing how they support the one but not the other. Lordy it had better not be some argument rooted in privacy.

Not PP. But in functioning democracies governed by the rule of law, it's common to provide special protection to judges and law enforcement officers so that they can interpret and enforce the law fairly and without fear of reprisal. It's a pretty important cornerstone of democracy. It's also why it's important to pay judges and law enforcement well, so they aren't subject to bribes.

It's difficult however, to know what to think in the US. SCOTUS's behavior over the past couple of years with the shadow docket etc has indicated that they've given up all pretense of being a legitimate, non-partisan body. Same with Gorsuch accepting a nomination for a seat that was held open in violation of longstanding norms, Kavanaugh's behavior during his hearing, and Barrett accepting a confirmation process that was explicitly political. All three of these people had some agency in deciding to go along with over-partisan politics in getting confirmed to SCOTUS. They've willingly participated in activities that de-legitimize SCOTUS. So they are complicit in the de-legitimizing of SCOTUS's authority and decision-making.

Is your family getting paid by a forced birther lobbying organization while you rule for forced birthers a bribe?

Assuming you meant to have the "a" I added, then I think it's somewhat close to one...though legally probably wouldn't be considered one. That's why I think it's harder to know how to think about this question in the US. The current SCOTUS's actions, including what all of the Trump-appointed justices accepted/did during their confirmation processes, doesn't suggest they actually care about appearing to be legitimate and independent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to win the slogan war:

Women's Lives Matter
Mothers' Freedom to Live
Born an Orphan

Republicans are so much better at winning the sound-byte war and turning votes because they focus on the extreme cases that make a law while ignoring the run of the mill.

Democrats won the messaging war in Florida labeling the parental bill the "Don't Say Gay" bill. They need to focus on the visceral message to label this action. It has to have a grain of truth, it doesn't have to be completely accurate.

Flip the script - “Abortion Saves Lives”

The problem with messaging is using terms that turn people off. The word abortion is so loaded from propaganda from both sides that many people, including a large amount of people who don't pay attention to the media and news sources, immediately have ideas in their mind that may or may not be part of the discussion.

To be effective messaging, you want to use terms that will give people a visceral positive message or a message that they automatically want to support. And that means not including the politically loaded word "abortion"

How is a medical procedure “loaded”? The point of saying Abortion and talking about abortion de stigmatizes it. But I want to make a slaughter change: Abortion care saves lives.

DP: It shouldn't be but it is. That's the unfortunate reality

And THAT is why we need to be talking about it. Tell our stories, how someone you love will need/has had an abortion. NOT talking about something Does. Not. Make. It. Less. Controversial.
Abortion care is healthcare, abortion saves lives, abortion allows women the freedom to decide when and how to have a family. Abortion is common. Access to abortion impacts our economic lives.

You can't decide when and how to have a family without being able to have an abortion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to win the slogan war:

Women's Lives Matter
Mothers' Freedom to Live
Born an Orphan

Republicans are so much better at winning the sound-byte war and turning votes because they focus on the extreme cases that make a law while ignoring the run of the mill.

Democrats won the messaging war in Florida labeling the parental bill the "Don't Say Gay" bill. They need to focus on the visceral message to label this action. It has to have a grain of truth, it doesn't have to be completely accurate.

Flip the script - “Abortion Saves Lives”

The problem with messaging is using terms that turn people off. The word abortion is so loaded from propaganda from both sides that many people, including a large amount of people who don't pay attention to the media and news sources, immediately have ideas in their mind that may or may not be part of the discussion.

To be effective messaging, you want to use terms that will give people a visceral positive message or a message that they automatically want to support. And that means not including the politically loaded word "abortion"

How is a medical procedure “loaded”? The point of saying Abortion and talking about abortion de stigmatizes it. But I want to make a slaughter change: Abortion care saves lives.

DP: It shouldn't be but it is. That's the unfortunate reality

And THAT is why we need to be talking about it. Tell our stories, how someone you love will need/has had an abortion. NOT talking about something Does. Not. Make. It. Less. Controversial.
Abortion care is healthcare, abortion saves lives, abortion allows women the freedom to decide when and how to have a family. Abortion is common. Access to abortion impacts our economic lives.

You can't decide when and how to have a family without being able to have an abortion?

No one has ever told you their personal stories and based on your tone, probably for good reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to win the slogan war:

Women's Lives Matter
Mothers' Freedom to Live
Born an Orphan

Republicans are so much better at winning the sound-byte war and turning votes because they focus on the extreme cases that make a law while ignoring the run of the mill.

Democrats won the messaging war in Florida labeling the parental bill the "Don't Say Gay" bill. They need to focus on the visceral message to label this action. It has to have a grain of truth, it doesn't have to be completely accurate.

Flip the script - “Abortion Saves Lives”

The problem with messaging is using terms that turn people off. The word abortion is so loaded from propaganda from both sides that many people, including a large amount of people who don't pay attention to the media and news sources, immediately have ideas in their mind that may or may not be part of the discussion.

To be effective messaging, you want to use terms that will give people a visceral positive message or a message that they automatically want to support. And that means not including the politically loaded word "abortion"

How is a medical procedure “loaded”? The point of saying Abortion and talking about abortion de stigmatizes it. But I want to make a slaughter change: Abortion care saves lives.

DP: It shouldn't be but it is. That's the unfortunate reality

And THAT is why we need to be talking about it. Tell our stories, how someone you love will need/has had an abortion. NOT talking about something Does. Not. Make. It. Less. Controversial.
Abortion care is healthcare, abortion saves lives, abortion allows women the freedom to decide when and how to have a family. Abortion is common. Access to abortion impacts our economic lives.

You can't decide when and how to have a family without being able to have an abortion?

No one has ever told you their personal stories and based on your tone, probably for good reason.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I've counseled many teens and women. I didn't say I'm opposed to abortions. I don't think they should be viewed as a family planning tool.