Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

[Berkut]

In theory, you could be against Roe v Wade, and in favor of easy access to abortion.

You could just think it ought to be left up to the states, and the states ought to make it easily accessible.

[Berkut]

BB is only using a classic right tactic of keeping the insane position right and a sensible yet discriminatory position center all in an effort to keep the Overton window in the right. Its a downright Putinesque strategy.

Fuck off.

You literally said that the Democratic Party platform was access to abortion up until the moment of birth.

If that isn't characterizing the position unfairly, what was it?

The current "law of the land" is that you cannot ban abortion before viability of the fetus, which is around 21 weeks. Which I am pretty sure you knew.

I think the characterization of your argument is pretty accurate - if it is wrong, it is a failure of how you framed your position rather then how others saw it as being framed.

IMO, of course.

[crazy canuck]

And of course there are religious conservatives who strongly believe there should be no pre-marital sex - which fits in nicely with the mantra that abortions should be rare.  In that world view abortions would essentially become unnecessary.

But I am not sure Raz was not being serious.

I think those are different entirely.

To make it really clear the examples of Catholic Ireland and Poland did/do not think abortion should be rare - it should be prohibited. They also thought no pre-marital sex and no contraception and, in the case of Ireland, built coercive mechanisms to enforce that. But they were not triangulating their position as Bill Clinton did with "safe, legal and rare" - and I don't think opponents of abortion now are triangulating either.

I'd be astonished if any opponent of Roe right now was saying it should be rare as opposed to it was wrongly decided/bad law (which is the more triangulate-y cover) or just morally wrong. I think you're misplacing where the energy and radicalism is on this issue: "safe, rare and legal" is not the thin end of the wedge for banning abortion, but for legalising it.

There a lot of conservatives in North America who share the view that there should be no abortions and who will and do readily interpret rare in exactly the way I have suggested.

[Jacob]

"Safe legal and rare" is a way for middle range politicians to triangulate anti-abortion voters and pro-choice voters at the same time.

"Safe legal and rare" is ALSO a way for anti-abortion activists to justify any and all obstacles and roll-backs to abortion access where they don't have the clout to outlaw it.

It goes both ways.

[grumbler]

"Safe legal and rare" is a way for middle range politicians to triangulate anti-abortion voters and pro-choice voters at the same time.

"Safe legal and rare" is ALSO a way for anti-abortion activists to justify any and all obstacles and roll-backs to abortion access where they don't have the clout to outlaw it.

It goes both ways.

I don't know of any anti-abortion activists who accept, let alone promote, the "safe, legal, and rare" formula.  Canada may be different.

[Jacob]

I don't know of any anti-abortion activists who accept, let alone promote, the "safe, legal, and rare" formula.  Canada may be different.

It is. Here anti-abortion activism is typically focused on making "rare" = "practically unobtainable in a number of jurisdictions" while making sure "crisis pregnancy counselling" to encourage foregoing abortion is widely available.

There are still some hardliners who look wistfully to the US on this, but they are politically marginal at the moment (but still operating and present).

[Admiral Yi]

Odd that anti-abortion activists in Canada want to keep it safe and legal.  Maybe they should call themselves something other than anti-abortion activists.

[Jacob]

Odd that anti-abortion activists in Canada want to keep it safe and legal.  Maybe they should call themselves something other than anti-abortion activists.

They focus on the "rare" part.

[Admiral Yi]

By focus do you mean they never mention the other two?

[Razgovory]

Well, I learned something out of this.  Pro-life Canadians and pro-choice Americans use the same slogan.

[garbon]

In theory, you could be against Roe v Wade, and in favor of easy access to abortion.

You could just think it ought to be left up to the states, and the states ought to make it easily accessible.

Are there any causes where an average person (so not a politician or lobbyist or corporate interest) would support states rights for an issue? Feels like often just a way to say we want a defense to hold onto something outmoded in our state.

[Zanza]

Recent progress in civil liberties, be it same-sex marriage or marijuana liberalization also came first on state level as it was not possible to enact it on federal level (yet). So states having the right to deviate from the federal policy seems to go both ways.

[garbon]

Recent progress in civil liberties, be it same-sex marriage or marijuana liberalization also came first on state level as it was not possible to enact it on federal level (yet). So states having the right to deviate from the federal policy seems to go both ways.

California was a state that had gay marriage and then voted against it ahead of national legalization.

I believe marijuana is a grey area as the federal government has the law on its side and could crack down on it if the feds so desired.

[Berkut]

In theory, you could be against Roe v Wade, and in favor of easy access to abortion.

You could just think it ought to be left up to the states, and the states ought to make it easily accessible.

Are there any causes where an average person (so not a politician or lobbyist or corporate interest) would support states rights for an issue? Feels like often just a way to say we want a defense to hold onto something outmoded in our state.

Yes, in a practical sense around these kinds of things, I think that is mostly correct.

I think the fundy minority, due to structural issues, has a lot more power to impose their minority views on the state level.

[crazy canuck]

"Safe legal and rare" is a way for middle range politicians to triangulate anti-abortion voters and pro-choice voters at the same time.

"Safe legal and rare" is ALSO a way for anti-abortion activists to justify any and all obstacles and roll-backs to abortion access where they don't have the clout to outlaw it.

It goes both ways.

I don't know of any anti-abortion activists who accept, let alone promote, the "safe, legal, and rare" formula.  Canada may be different.

"Safe legal and rare" is a way for middle range politicians to triangulate anti-abortion voters and pro-choice voters at the same time.

"Safe legal and rare" is ALSO a way for anti-abortion activists to justify any and all obstacles and roll-backs to abortion access where they don't have the clout to outlaw it.

It goes both ways.

I don't know of any anti-abortion activists who accept, let alone promote, the "safe, legal, and rare" formula.  Canada may be different.

You need look no further than BB to know it is different here.  It is the mantra of the right wing in Canada, and it is code for reducing access.