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

[Zoupa]

The privilege of not having a vagina I guess.

[viper37]

Let's focus on the important stuff, like Trans ppl in sports or interns at lefty organizations.

Yes, absolutely.  The Democrats should make their priority.

[Admiral Yi]

The privilege of not having a vagina I guess.

Does it not bother you that this makes no sense?

[Zoupa]

The privilege of not having a vagina I guess.

Does it not bother you that this makes no sense?

My point: we can talk about sports, the economy, trans sports or interns in lefty orgs. We can safely ignore that if we're raped tomorrow, we won't be going to jail if we try to abort, you know, with us not having a uterus and all that.

Hence male privilege, reinforced in 2022 in the greatest country EVAH.

[Zoupa]

To be clear, I don't have a magic solution or anything. Just feel like venting and commenting on how depressing this development is.

[Tamas]

Let's focus on the important stuff, like Trans ppl in sports or interns at lefty organizations.

Yes, absolutely.  The Democrats should make their priority.

I guess if Sheilbh can blame Brexit on Remainers, you can blame this Supreme Court decision on Democrats.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

I remember reading somewhere (don't know where and it was a long time ago) that if the abortion issue had never been decided by the courts but via the regular democratic process it would have been far less contentuous but far more available accross the US than it is now (or will be soon).

Any thoughts on wether this might have been true?
And given the current circumstances, might still become true in time? Or is this a thing, together with a seemingly rising number of things, that will be decided by the courts?  Government by appointed judges rather than by elected representatives. (and to be fair: we're seeing a rise of this in Europe too).

[Josquius]

I remember reading somewhere (don't know where and it was a long time ago) that if the abortion issue had never been decided by the courts but via the regular democratic process it would have been far less contentuous but far more available accross the US than it is now (or will be soon).

Any thoughts on wether this might have been true?
And given the current circumstances, might still become true in time? Or is this a thing, together with a seemingly rising number of things, that will be decided by the courts?  Government by appointed judges rather than by elected representatives. (and to be fair: we're seeing a rise of this in Europe too).

What would the total body count have amounted to in the meantime?
How would this compare to the amount of suffering set to unfold
 until this is over turned?

It sounds like wishful thinking to me I must say. The sort of thing conservatives say to try and paint moderates as evil authoritarians.

[Sheilbh]

I guess if Sheilbh can blame Brexit on Remainers, you can blame this Supreme Court decision on Democrats.

No. But the draft leaked at the start of May. They've had two months to prepare what their response is.

From what I saw yesterday the response was for House Democrats to go to the steps of the Capitol and sing "God bless America", Nancy Pelosi to read a poem (the same poem she read after January 6) and the White House did a statement but then called a lid at 1.30 (ignoring the Congressman who posted pictures of himself doing yoga after the judgment).

Looking at that I don't know what message they were trying to send or to who - I'd add the poem is incredibly passive for a political leader to be quoting ('"I shall not give up on her. I shall remind her, and sing into her ears, until she opens her eyes." Clearly, we hope that the Supreme Court would open its eyes.'). I find it pretty disheartening that that's the best they can come up with, with two months to prepare a response.

The Democrats - or at least the current leadership - seem singularly unfit for this moment or for responding to crises.

[garbon]

I guess if Sheilbh can blame Brexit on Remainers, you can blame this Supreme Court decision on Democrats.

No. But the draft leaked at the start of May. They've had two months to prepare what their response is.

From what I saw yesterday the response was for House Democrats to go to the steps of the Capitol and sing "God bless America", Nancy Pelosi to read a poem (the same poem she read after January 6) and the White House did a statement but then called a lid at 1.30 (ignoring the Congressman who posted pictures of himself doing yoga after the judgment).

Looking at that I don't know what message they were trying to send or to who - I'd add the poem is incredibly passive for a political leader to be quoting ('"I shall not give up on her. I shall remind her, and sing into her ears, until she opens her eyes." Clearly, we hope that the Supreme Court would open its eyes.'). I find it pretty disheartening that that's the best they can come up with, with two months to prepare a response.

The Democrats - or at least the current leadership - seem singularly unfit for this moment or for responding to crises.

What would be the right response?

[Solmyr]

So which side of the US civil war will the NATO 5th article apply to?

[Sheilbh]

What would be the right response?

I don't know - but they're professional politicians who've had two months to prepare.

Some ideas would have been to join the demonstration, rather than stand on the steps where you can hear the demonstration while you sing "God bless America"; use your statements to call for people to join local campaigns or organisations making sure women all over the country can still have access to abortion - maybe do it state by state from people across the party (governors, reps, senators, legislators etc).

For the White House I would have cleared the schedule and have something planned so Biden gives his statement and then you have statements from women across the country who've needed an abortion for various reasons. Again I'd look at if there's any way you can do a call to action - not to fundraising - but some form of national clearing house for people who are outraged and want to help where you can direct them to local campaigns in their area to build up grassroots support.

I'm sure there are better ideas out there (and that's ignoring my immediate instinct which is to ask people to get on the streets until it's fixed ), but I feel like those are better and more active than what we saw - especially after two months of planning and strategising what to do.

[garbon]

So not much that would have really made a difference right now.

[garbon]

I worry that such narratives only encourage further factional infighting and apathy

[Sheilbh]

So not much that would have really made a difference right now.

No I don't think there is anything that can make a difference right now - although I hope the White House explored executive orders (and I'd fully use orders that you know this court will strike down).

But I think a large part of the response to this court, which is only getting started, and what the GOP is doing is mass mobilisation. It is calling on people to get involved in politics. This is an issue (as are contraception, gay marriage etc) where there is majority support, so try to mobilise the majority. Don't just fundraise off them (not least because people might reasonably ask if donating to Democrats is the best use of money) or take a really passive position of waiting until the Supreme Court opens its eyes - the Supreme Court is not going to save these rights and is unlikely to change for the next twenty years given the ages.