What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[OttoVonBismarck]

Which again, no one has said contraception will be banned. If you want to talk about something no one is arguing, you are free to do so--but you're talking to yourself.

The rest of your posts are just you repeating "laws restricting birth control will be unpopular." Okay, well we already have laws that are opposed by upwards of 80% of the population. Unpopularity has nothing to do with what will be a law.

[alfred russel]

3. The idea that just because something affects a lot of people and will be really unpopular means that thing cannot happen is...willfully ignorant of reality. A law that says abortion is illegal with no exceptions for anything short of the woman's "imminent death" poll at something like 20% support. That means 80% of people oppose it. Upwards of 25% of all women have an abortion, and a large chunk of women and families go through pregnancy. The idea that such a law doesn't affect a lot of people is silly, and the idea it can't be possible because it is unpopular is also silly.

For many years people who were "unconcerned" with abortion rights said that if you have health problems and need an abortion, it won't be a problem even after Roe is overturned. That's ended up not being true. The health exceptions in many States have been worded so they are incredibly vague, and the legislature puts all the risk of action on the physician, so the physician (not a lawyer) has to interpret a vaguely worded statute and then risk criminal prosecution and loss of his/her medical license. Some States you have a GOP that has literally let laws go into effect saying the only exception is if the woman's life is in imminent danger, which means even routine matters like ectopic pregnancies can't be handled proactively and have to wait until they become a crisis.

All of this polls as being deeply, deeply unpopular, and we were told none of it would happen because it'd be crazy. It did happen, and it is crazy. Appeals to "it won't be popular" don't matter when the people making decisions aren't subject to popular approval for their actions, it's as simple as that.

I think it's incredibly likely if Griswold is overturned, some crazy/stupid laws either enter effect, or you run into weird situations that fuck people's lives up. I think as we're seeing with the current state of abortion law, many States will resist fixing it.

I 100% agree with you that banning abortion is extremely unpopular, is going to be reality in some places, and is going to be an albatross around the neck of the republican party for years to come. 20% support when concentrated in one party that has maybe 33% of the population, votes on its candidates in a primary, and gets a majority: such 20% positions can become law. This is especially true when there are massive financial and institutional backers of the 20% position. Anyone not seeing how this works is a moron.

Contraceptive bans are entirely different because they don't have majority support in either party, in any location other than possibly Utah. In the states most susceptible to do really dumb cultural war stuff, they don't have any institutional support either--again excluding Utah.

[alfred russel]

Which again, no one has said contraception will be banned.

It is exactly what you are arguing. If the USSC rules in certain ways, there will be places in the US where people are unable to legally buy contraceptives. They will be banned, if not through new legislation then through previously passed laws retaking effect.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Which again, no one has said contraception will be banned.

It is exactly what you are arguing. If the USSC rules in certain ways, there will be places in the US where people are unable to legally buy contraceptives. They will be banned, if not through new legislation then through previously passed laws retaking effect.

No, I have said (factually) pre-Griswold laws would go into effect. I don't believe any State had a blanket ban on contraception pre-Griswold. Condoms were generally not restricted at all, which is a form of contraception. The contraceptive pill for women was heavily restricted in some States, but I don't know that any had a true blanket ban.

Edit: Connecticut (the subject of Griswold) and Massachusetts had 19th century laws that actually banned any "contraceptive device", they were the only 2 States in the country with such laws in the 1960s. Additionally in CT/MA those laws had largely fallen into selective disuse, Griswold was a bit of a deliberate test case to produce a judicial result.

However, most of the country had religious morality based restrictions on the pill.

[Berkut]

No, the argument is that if Griswold is tossed out, the protection for access to contraceptives will be tossed out with it.

That means we will see existing efforts to restrict access (or ban it) come back into effect, and we will see more efforts to restrict its access to vulnerable groups who some minority of people think should not have access to contraception.

Unwed women, women without children, the poor, etc., etc.

There are plenty of people in the radical religious world who think that sex should happen only between married people, and therefore there is nothing wrong with restricting access to contraception outside those bounds is a good thing. No whore pills for the sluts! Abstinence is the best form of contraception!

[OttoVonBismarck]

No, the argument is that if Griswold is tossed out, the protection for access to contraceptives will be tossed out with it.

That means we will see existing efforts to restrict access (or ban it) come back into effect, and we will see more efforts to restrict its access to vulnerable groups who some minority of people think should not have access to contraception.

Unwed women, women without children, the poor, etc., etc.

There are plenty of people in the radical religious world who think that sex should happen only between married people, and therefore there is nothing wrong with restricting access to contraception outside those bounds is a good thing. No whore pills for the sluts! Abstinence is the best form of contraception!

Right, and AR's gaslighting notwithstanding, the people he imagines will be "up in arms" about contraception restrictions are the type of people most contraceptive restrictions never applied to in the first place--married conservative white people.

[alfred russel]

Right, and AR's gaslighting notwithstanding, the people he imagines will be "up in arms" about contraception restrictions are the type of people most contraceptive restrictions never applied to in the first place--married conservative white people.

In the magical world we ban contraceptive access for groups of people, I certainly don't think that the people who would be most up in arms are "married conservative white people"...i'm also not sure why you are bringing race into this.

[alfred russel]

It is worth keeping in mind how secular the world is. Even in our aspiring theocratic states such as Alabama, less than half are in church any given sunday.

https://yellowhammernews.com/study-shows-alabamians-attend-church-almost-americans/

[crazy canuck]

Which again, no one has said contraception will be banned.

It is exactly what you are arguing. If the USSC rules in certain ways, there will be places in the US where people are unable to legally buy contraceptives. They will be banned, if not through new legislation then through previously passed laws retaking effect.

I now understand why you ignored the fact that the website you posted talks about contraception for families. Your post also explains why you fail to understand that contraception restrictions for the unwed is a real issue. You simply fail to understand what everybody else is arguing.

[Berkut]

Right, and AR's gaslighting notwithstanding, the people he imagines will be "up in arms" about contraception restrictions are the type of people most contraceptive restrictions never applied to in the first place--married conservative white people.

In the magical world we ban contraceptive access for groups of people, I certainly don't think that the people who would be most up in arms are "married conservative white people"...i'm also not sure why you are bringing race into this.

Hey, how about we pass a law making access to condoms for minors illegal without parental consent.

And birth control pills should only be available after proving you've consulted with your pastor about their use. Unless you are married of course.

Sex education? Abstinence only, of course.

This is not about "bans" and would not be presented as a ban. It would be presented as responsible restrictions on curbing immoral behavior.

[alfred russel]

Which again, no one has said contraception will be banned.

It is exactly what you are arguing. If the USSC rules in certain ways, there will be places in the US where people are unable to legally buy contraceptives. They will be banned, if not through new legislation then through previously passed laws retaking effect.

I now understand why you ignored the fact that the website you posted talks about contraception for families. Your post also explains why you fail to understand that contraception restrictions for the unwed is a real issue. You simply fail to understand what everybody else is arguing.

Wait, you think that the contraception services discussed on the alabama department's website are only for married people?

[OttoVonBismarck]

AR is just pure gaslighting. There is not even the veneer he is trying to discuss something honestly.

[alfred russel]

Article talking about how the Democratic efforts to campaign against Republican abandonment of democracy seem to fall short. My personal belief is this is because the Democrats are still arguing policy and facts, they need to make emotion-laden appeals that get people angry. You cannot compete with emotional rhetoric with policy statements.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/23/democratic-attacks-gop-missing-mark/

Opinion  Are Democratic attacks on the GOP over democracy missing their mark?
By Greg Sargent and Paul Waldman

May 23, 2022 at 6:18 p.m. EDT

Another set of GOP primaries takes place Tuesday, most notably in Georgia, where incumbent Gov. Brian Kemp will likely hold off a challenge from former senator David Perdue, whose campaign is largely based on the idea that Kemp failed to help President Donald Trump steal the 2020 election.

But in the race for secretary of state, Trump-backed Rep. Jody Hice could win, and could end up overseeing the 2024 election in this vital swing state. And in other secretary of state primaries Tuesday, such as in Arkansas and Alabama, Republicans might nominate Trump loyalists who pose a genuine threat to our ability to conduct fair elections and have our votes counted.

Yet Democrats have yet to convince the public to take the threat seriously enough.

A new set of focus groups run by Democratic pollster David Binder from May 10 to May 12 illustrates the point. The research raises a question: Are Democrats getting their criticism of the GOP abandonment of democracy right?

Binder conducted four focus groups in Georgia and two in Michigan, mostly with suburban voters, independents and moderates who have voted for candidates in both parties. The groups were commissioned by the Democratic-aligned voting rights organization IVote to determine what voters want to hear from Democratic candidates for secretary of state.

The results are worrying when it comes to democracy — but also suggest a way forward for Democrats.

For instance, according to a summary of the results of all six focus groups provided to us, they found that most of the voters surveyed appear conflicted about rhetoric that calls out Trump's "big lie" about 2020 and frames all discussion of it around his efforts to overturn his loss.

On the one hand, most of these voters agree with the substance of those claims. On the other, most of them tend to interpret it as partisan rhetoric.

The focus groups do find that voters understand the need for a secretary of state to talk about 2020. But the research concludes that voters want to hear an emphasis on nonpartisan procedural improvements, and that, above all, they want to hear discussion of "proactive measures" a secretary of state will take to "ensure transparency and fairness in future elections."

"When we talk about the 'big lie' and Trump, it looks to them like you're looking backwards and getting partisan," Binder told us. "They want a secretary of state to say, 'I am going to make sure that everyone has the right to vote in a nonpartisan way.' "

Importantly, the focus groups show strong voter support for removing measures that make it harder to vote. Yet, at the same time, they show that these swing voters don't tend to see voter suppression as an effort to "subvert democracy."

All of which suggests several possibilities.

One of them is galling: Republicans have largely treated congressional efforts to probe Trump's effort to destroy our political order as an illegitimate partisan exercise. This may be successfully recasting the dispute over what to do about it as a conventional partisan one.

The second possibility might be that if Democratic candidates for secretary of state want to warn about the threat posed by would-be election saboteurs, they need to make this case in a more urgent fashion.

Talk about the "big lie" sounds backward looking, smacking of an effort to relitigate a past outcome. By contrast, highlighting the specific ways Republicans are gearing up to steal the next election might sound more relevant.

"We cannot be quiet in the face of Republicans saying they're going to change rules in a way that will sabotage future elections," Binder told us. "Do it in a way that looks forward."

In truth, the backward-looking and forward-looking arguments are two sides of the same coin: When a GOP candidate announces his conviction that Trump won in 2020, that's strong evidence that they will try to steal the 2024 election for him (or another GOP loser). But it can be hard to prove this, because the rhetoric of even the most deranged election saboteurs is clothed in high-minded claims about "transparency" and "integrity."

Nevertheless, if voters are more interested in the future than the past, then they are focusing in the right direction. Many Trump loyalists seeking positions of control over election positions — especially governor and secretary of state — accept the presumption that only Republican victories are legitimate, and if voters decide to elect Democrats then they must simply be overruled.

Which is something all voters should be worried about. And if they aren't, Democrats have a duty to make sure they understand the true stakes we face. In future elections.

I'm not gaslighting, I'm pointing out the circle jerk of doom is stupid. Contraceptives won't get banned. No one will ever admit they are wrong on this because everything is predicated on the USSC overturning its previous decisions, which on this topic are highly unlikely to happen either.

But go back to the article above. Look at the doom article you posted. It was introduced with total bullshit: the article says "incumbent Gov. Brian Kemp will likely hold off a challenge from former senator David Perdue"...that is one way of putting it...he won by 52%.

It said, "But in the race for secretary of state, Trump-backed Rep. Jody Hice could win, and could end up overseeing the 2024 election in this vital swing state." Bullshit--he lost by 19%.

You posted this the day the election was held. It was written the day before. Do you revisit what you posted when it is confronted with reality? Nope, you just move on to the next thing.

[OttoVonBismarck]

You seem to be jumping all over the place and just gaslighting to endlessly defend Republican misbehavior by calling it  all "not a big deal." It's a predictable, tired, overused schtick. And this is too small a forum for you to hide behind any sort of anonymity, we know who and what you are and exactly what you're trying to do.

Your analysis of that article is just another example of gaslighting. The problems that article was pointing out had little to do with whether Brian Kemp won or not, or by which margin. You and Alex Jones have a tremendous amount in common in that when challenged you like to "flood the zone with shit", enough spurious, gaslighting arguments and becomes tedious or impossible to respond and you can go away feeling like you've....done something, I don't know.

I don't actually think you have any real political principals, just a desire to fight over nonsense.

[Jacob]

No, the argument is that if Griswold is tossed out, the protection for access to contraceptives will be tossed out with it.

That means we will see existing efforts to restrict access (or ban it) come back into effect, and we will see more efforts to restrict its access to vulnerable groups who some minority of people think should not have access to contraception.

Unwed women, women without children, the poor, etc., etc.

There are plenty of people in the radical religious world who think that sex should happen only between married people, and therefore there is nothing wrong with restricting access to contraception outside those bounds is a good thing. No whore pills for the sluts! Abstinence is the best form of contraception!

Seems to me that the driving force of right wing morality legislation is really harsh restrictions and "live with the consequences, even if they're bad" (but with exceptions and work arounds for "the right kind" of people).