What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[Jacob]

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

I don't know. That seems unfair to Dorsey. Over the year I think he's demonstrated a very consistent moral and political philosophy:

"Whatever is inconvenient for Dorsey is a political travesty and completely illogical; whatever only affects others is not a big deal"

[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!

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).

Well, the right kind of people are the "True Americans" after all. Of course the restrictions should not apply to THEM!

[Jacob]

Well, the right kind of people are the "True Americans" after all. Of course the restrictions should not apply to THEM!

It's a common feature of authoritarians "laws should bind others, but protect me."

[alfred russel]

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

I don't think there is much point to a discussion forum that is centered around politics when all the proponents of team red have either been chased off or deterred into silence. Endless posts around how awful team red are without a counterpoint is boring and a bit cringe. So yeah I much prefer to point out where team blue goes too far and have a discussion around that.

-Is Trump a phony and scam artist?
-Was Jan. 6 impeachable?
-Is the abortion ruling and the coming abortion restrictions disastrous and a huge step back?
-Is the republican party a hollow shell of a party without an agenda other than culture war nonsense?

I say "yes" to all of those things but since everyone else is what is the point of droning on about it other than to register my perspective? That isn't contributing to a discussion, it is participating in a circle jerk.

-Are we going to see contraception bans if the court overturns constitutional protections?

That is a point where someone might actually have a different position than me, so that is worth discussing.

[alfred russel]

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

I don't know. That seems unfair to Dorsey. Over the year I think he's demonstrated a very consistent moral and political philosophy:

"Whatever is inconvenient for Dorsey is a political travesty and completely illogical; whatever only affects others is not a big deal"

Then you should probably take seriously my perspective on contraception, because a ban on contraception would certainly be inconvenient for me.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I'd suggest sterilization, we don't need you reproducing.

[Berkut]

It weird that there have been at least 3 or 4 posts stating that isn't about a ban on contraception, and yet, you still insist that is what you are arguing against.

[alfred russel]

It weird that there have been at least 3 or 4 posts stating that isn't about a ban on contraception, and yet, you still insist that is what you are arguing against.

Because it is. This was OvB's post before I entered this topic (bold is mine):

There are definitely some Republicans who want to prohibit contraception, I'm not sure many States are religious enough to see it pass a State legislature. My assumption (not backed by research) is that Griswold struck down a number of State laws, and many States--particularly in the South, probably just left it there. I have doubts that in the interim, States like Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama etc (aka your hellhole states) have passed laws repealing prior contraception bans from pre-Griswold. When the current Guardian Council we have for a Supreme Court overturns Griswold in the next 2-4 years those old contraception bans would resume the force of law. While it may be the case that even Louisiana and Alabama wouldn't pass a new contraception ban in the 2020s, I'm not actually sure they could or would pass a repeal of an old ban were it to resume effect post-Griswold being overturned.

I strongly disagree with this: I think Mississippi and Alabama would immediately overturn a ban that resumed the force of law. It is also clear from this post that we are talking about bans, as my first post on this topic also made clear. (parenthetically, I think it is nuts too use the word "may" regarding that they may not pass a new contraception ban in the 2020s--of course they would not)

Now if you talking about stuff other than conception bans, then okay but it isn't my topic of discussion.

[Berkut]

OK, you keep talking about bans then. Have fun with that.

[Jacob]

Then you should probably take seriously my perspective on contraception, because a ban on contraception would certainly be inconvenient for me.

... not if it only applies to teenagers and poor people. As long as well connected white people in cities can get contraception, you're fine.

[alfred russel]

Then you should probably take seriously my perspective on contraception, because a ban on contraception would certainly be inconvenient for me.

... not if it only applies to teenagers and poor people. As long as well connected white people in cities can get contraception, you're fine.

You are the second person to bring up race...why is that relevant? I may not be as well educated regarding old school racial thinking, but was it generally the practice to make contraceptives available to whites and forbidden among african american citizens?

[OttoVonBismarck]

It was generally the practice that black and poor people had reduced access to all medical care, yes.

You may want to spend time reading a history book if you're so bored the only thing you can find to entertain yourself is making up arguments to attack.

[Berkut]

Then you should probably take seriously my perspective on contraception, because a ban on contraception would certainly be inconvenient for me.

... not if it only applies to teenagers and poor people. As long as well connected white people in cities can get contraception, you're fine.

You are the second person to bring up race...why is that relevant? I may not be as well educated regarding old school racial thinking, but was it generally the practice to make contraceptives available to whites and forbidden among african american citizens?

Maybe later we can talk about poll taxes. I am sure those are fine as well, since they apply to everyone.

[alfred russel]

It was generally the practice that black and poor people had reduced access to all medical care, yes.

You may want to spend time reading a history book if you're so bored the only thing you can find to entertain yourself is making up arguments to attack.

I'm at least glad to hear that eugenics related thoughts never met with action back in the day.

[Jacob]

You are the second person to bring up race...why is that relevant? I may not be as well educated regarding old school racial thinking, but was it generally the practice to make contraceptives available to whites and forbidden among african american citizens?

My expectation is this:

GOP in-groups will not find themselves particularly inconvenienced by old or new anti-contraception legislation and administration.

GOP out-groups will find themselves subject to restrictions - whether imposed directly through legislation aimed at them, or indirectly through legislation or administration that makes access significantly harder in practice.

While it's a broad generalization so exceptions exist, it appears to me that the GOP in-group is primarily white, and that most non-white folks are in the GOP out-group.

As such my expectation is that you personally will not be affected by any of this to any great extent, nor will people demographically similar to you. However, it is my expecatation that people different from you - less wealthy, younger, less white, less able to pass for a likely GOP voter when convenient - are going to be impacted.