Support NeoGAF

[benjipwns]

The 1970s.... hmm what happened just before that.....oh right:

The Dems were chickenshit no doubt but it wasn't because they were less Pro-Choice than the GOP.

All this is moot, Abortion was only available without restrictions in 4 states pre-Roe v Wade, that ruling flipped the script entirely, and women are better off for it. It put abortion rights activists in a much better spot, and you frankly have not shown anything that hints that abortion wouldn't be a hot button topic today if only it had been more "democratic". If anything without Roe v Wade, women would still be fighting for the right period in a ton of states, rather than fighting to protect it,

There is no public backlash trend here to Roe v Wade, the absolutely ban brigade (which was winning pre-roe v wade) is at around the same level now that it was then. There's absolutely nothing to backup the claim that Roe v Wade sparked any sort of huge revolt that wouldn't have been sparked by gradual legislation, or at least not enough to justify oppressing women in the meantime

In your arguing against an unstated argument, you've actually backed up my position and the argument East Lake was making that I hopped on.

Despite little change in polling on the issue (74% wanted abortion restrictions in 1975, 69% want them in 2015), its political salience has skyrocketed and fundamentally created an endless debate reliant on electoral victories.

 

[excelsiorlef]

In your arguing against an unstated argument, you've actually backed up my position and the argument East Lake was making that I hopped on.

Despite little change in polling on the issue (74% wanted abortion restrictions in 1975, 69% want them in 2015), its political salience has skyrocketed and fundamentally created an endless debate reliant on electoral victories.

If anything it backs up my contention that hearts and minds isn't the goal, Roe v Wade freed women from the tyranny of the majority. BTW these laws are far more about elimination, not restriction, that's the key number there. You say 69% support restrictions, I say only 19% support a ban (which is the fundamental goal of these laws). I also say I don't give two shits because abortion shouldn't be up to the tyranny of the majority anyway.

Once again, the reality is anti-abortion via law has only ramped up in the past 5 years. If there was no Roe v Wade, these people might have come out far earlier on a State by State level to try and stop women from winning access. You have yet to prove in any shape or form that Row v Wade is the reason for abortion being a hot bed issue. I can just as easily say that without it many women would be fighting just for the right to have one under any circumstance period right now rather than fighting to protect a right they already have in many states, and that the numbers back that up.

Do you think it's a coincidence that these two graphs lineup similarly ? Vis a Vis the states with total bans and now states with bullshit waiting times?

That people haven;t grown full on rah rah no restrictions on abortion, has nothing to do with Roe v Wade and everything to do with the unique nature of abortion. It's much easier to vilify than even same-sex marriage in the current day because you get buzzwords like murder and children involved.

 

[benjipwns]

You say 69% support restrictions, I say only 19% support a ban (which is the fundamental goal of these laws). I also say I don't give two shits because abortion shouldn't be up to the tyranny of the majority anyway.

Once again, the reality is anti-abortion via law has only ramped up in the past 5 years.

Webster was in 1989. After 8 years of GOP Supreme Court appointments.

Casey was in 1992. After 11 years of GOP Supreme Court appointments.

Casey in particular is the basis for the current wave of health and safety regulations on abortion.

You have yet to prove in any shape or form that Row v Wade is the reason for abortion being a hot bed issue.

Perhaps not, but you offered evidence to support the case that its decision making process played a role in its political salience.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Webster was in 1989. After 8 years of GOP Supreme Court appointments.

Casey was in 1992. After 11 years of GOP Supreme Court appointments.

Casey in particular is the basis for the current wave of health and safety regulations on abortion.


Perhaps not, but you offered evidence to support the case that its decision making process played a role in its political salience.

Because it is a political issue.

Like I said without Roe v Wade we'd still have women fighting and dying for the right to even have an abortion in some states, right here right now 43 years later in 2016, or worse without precedent one of those GOP conservative SCs could have just banned it ouright after someone challenged a State's decision to ban or unban abortion. That's also in play without Roe v Wade. Maybe without Roe v Wade Kennedy doesn't swing to the left on abortion issues (which is what saved Casey from being a disaster for abortion rights)

30 states banned it out right prior to Roe v Wade, some of those states have chilled on anti-abortion rhetoric, many of the hotbed GOP states have not.


Roe v Wade is the perfect argument that solid law and legislation and SC rulings and not hearts and minds is how minorities and women truly get protected.

 

[benjipwns]

many of the hotbed GOP states have not.


Roe v Wade is the perfect argument that solid law and legislation and not hearts and minds is how minorities and women truly get protected.

And these GOP-run states are going to roll back the regulations? Five GOP Supreme Court Justices will like they did in Roe?

Do you think it's a coincidence that these two graphs lineup similarly ? Vis a Vis the states with total bans and now states with bullshit waiting times?

The East looks the opposite to me, with northern states (especially New England) having it illegal and now fewer wait times. And southern states (especially the Confederacy) having it legal and now wait times.

 

[excelsiorlef]

And these GOP-run states are going to roll back the regulations? Five GOP Supreme Court Justices will like they did in Roe?


The East looks the opposite to me, with northern states (especially New England) having it illegal and now fewer wait times. And southern states (especially the Confederacy) having it legal and now wait times.

And the GOP of even early Nixon is nothing like the GOP today, and no that's not because of Roe v Wade, that's just a symptom. A Trump supreme court yes could absolutely dismantle Roe v Wade. That's why this election is so important. That Roe v Wade could be in jeopardy though doesn't mean it isn't the thing that has protected women for 43 years now, I mean technically Obergfell could be overturned by a Trump filled court, I mean this court already gutted part of the VRA, anything can happen, it's the catch 22 of my argument I admit. However, it is still historically how rights are better won. Courts.


Even better, that means more liberal States have grown to accept abortion whilst the states that are heavily conservative are still fighting tooth and nail.

This shows the issue isn't with abortion but conservative states.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...harts-how-roe-v-wade-changed-abortion-rights/

There was no immediate outrage to Roe v Wade. But there was also no sustained shift towards legalization either pre Roe v Wade.

Again what the numbers show is that more or less give or take some spikes here and there, the for and against don't shift very much. What has shifted in the past 5 years is the actions of those against.

So I repeat again show me proof that Roe v Wade was bad for abortion rights in the US, show me proof that without it women would be farther ahead.

Because right now what the numbers show me is that Roe v Wade didn't really change shit except give women a right to abortion.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

I FOUND OUT WHERE MELKR'S AVATAR COMES FROM

https://youtu.be/cU8HrO7XuiE

Thanks OT

 

[benjipwns]

So I repeat again show me proof that Roe v Wade was bad for abortion rights in the US, show me proof that without it women would be farther ahead.

Why would I want to try and prove an argument I haven't ever made or consider accurate?

 

[Pixieking]

Politico piece on the Delegate push against Trump

They’re leaderless, cash-poor and facing an impossibly tight deadline. But Republican activists clamoring to block Donald Trump from the GOP nomination say they’re suddenly in the midst of a Dump-Trump bump.

It really doesn't sound like they are in a position to stop him.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Why would I want to try and prove an argument I haven't ever made or consider accurate?

Then what were you arguing here?:

Though actually you're right, you don't seem to be arguing it would be better for women. My apologies, though this maybe sort makes your argument even less savory to me, if I can get a handle on what your actual argument is.

I'm one of those who disagrees with Roe v. Wade's actual ruling, not its "effective ruling" and I'm also one of those who agrees with Scalia on it. Abortion became a serious political issue decades later because it wasn't decided as democratically as it could have been.

Witnessing the tide shift in the same-sex marriage debate was much more satisfactory to me than many others. It was step-by-step, state-by-state. Look at where the rear guard is fighting on...RELIGIOUS PROTECTIONS VIA THE COURTS! It's a non-starter argument that's easy as fuck to bypass in a holding pattern until popular opinion writ large catches up.

You connected Roe v Wade directly with the current abortion fights as if to say they wouldn't exist or be as prominent without Roe v Wade.

You seem to argue that a more democratic approach (which was not anywhere near happening at the time), which is essentially a tyranny of the majority argument, would have been preferable for someone (you? The US people, who?). Am I wrong? A more democratic approach would see many states even today banning abortion. Is that a good thing because at least it's democratic?

So am I wrong in thinking you believe a no Roe v Wade world would be better for democracy but not women? Can I ask do you also agree with Scalia that abortion should be left to the states to decide?

I'm seriously trying to understand your argument. Because you have no numbers to support your contention that it was Roe v Wade specifically that caused the eventual uptick, decades later, and not just abortion as an issue itself... So I'm confused at what you are arguing frankly.

 

[CCS]

Damn, The Onion are on point at the moment:

47 Weak-Willed Senators Bend To Interests Of Powerful American People

Tearful Gun Manufacturers Thankful They All Made It Out Of Massacre Safely

Frustrated Nation Out Of Ideas To Solve Gun Violence Problem Except For All The Obvious Ones

 

[benjipwns]

contention that it was Roe v Wade specifically that caused the eventual uptick, decades later,

I actually contended that the effect was immediate. And It was by the late 1980s that it ossified into partisan positions.

You seem to argue that a more democratic approach (which was not anywhere near happening at the time) and is essentially a tyranny of the majority argument would have been preferable for someone (you? The US people, who?). Am I wrong? A more democratic approach would see many states even today banning abortion. Is that a good thing because at least it's democratic?

So am I wrong in thinking you believe a no Roe v Wade world would be better for democracy but not women? Can I ask do you also agree with Scalia that abortion should be left to the states to decide?

All I am stating is the should be uncontroversial opinion that issues solved through the standard "democratic" political process are considered more legitimate than those not.

The courts are not considered part of this political process by the public writ large. Thus the notion that gay marriage can be "imposed" by the courts. Especially if the voters have already voted against it.

Roe, because it's about abortion, an already morally charged question, is one of the best examples of such a case.

Scalia wasn't the only one who thinks that Roe precluded the issue being damped via the political process which increased opposition:

by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish

Justice Ginsburg, of all people, agrees with him:

The political process was moving in the early 1970s, not swiftly enough for advocates of quick, complete change, but majoritarian institutions were listening and acting. Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.

Still:

Forty years after the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade case legalized abortion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the case is not her "ideal picture" for resolving the controversial issue of abortion.

Instead, the landmark decision gave abortion-rights opponents a rallying point that is still used today, Ginsburg — the second female justice ever appointed to the court — told a packed crowd Saturday at the University of Chicago Law School auditorium.

"The court had given the opponents a target to aim at relentlessly," she said.

...

Ginsburg, 80, said another case, Struck v. Secretary of Defense, would have been her choice as the first reproductive freedom case heard by the nation's high court.

"The idea was: 'Government, stay out of this,' " Ginsburg said. "I wish that would have been the first case. The court would have better understood this is a question of a woman's choice."

In Roe v. Wade, the court should have steered away from a sweeping legalization of abortion, Ginsburg argued. Instead, a ruling should have taken the narrower approach of deeming unconstitutional the Texas law that spawned the case, which only allowed abortions deemed life saving for a woman, she said.

Doing so, Ginsburg said, would have spurred a gradual, state-by-state loosening of abortion restrictions and contributed to the democratic process.

Instead, the court "covered the waterfront" with a decision that — by including the need to consult with a physician — is not really about a woman's right to choose, Ginsburg argued.

"It's about a doctor's freedom to practice his profession as he thinks best," Ginsburg said. "It wasn't woman-centered. It was physician-centered."

Roe v. Wade "seemed to stop momentum on the side of change," Ginsburg told the crowd, saying that abortion-related cases now focus on "restrictions to access, not expanding the rights of women."

It's not about right or wrong, it's about legitimacy. The public by and large do not consider the courts to be legitimate when it rules against them. (Such as forcing the government to hold trials rather than simply convict guilty criminals.)

Actions through the legislature or by referenda are considered more democratic and thus more legitimate than lifetime court appointees "imposing" their own views on the country and forcing Wal-Mart to say "happy holidays" or outlawing patriotism.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

EDIT: wtf? Wrong thread.

 

[nature boy]

YouGov poll:

 

[benjipwns]

Gay Black Dude TEARS Into Democrats, Hillary, Gun Grabbers

“I just wanted to let you guys know why I am a conservative gay male, and support Donald Trump” Gabriel Reagan, of Eugene, OR, says at the beginning of a video recently posted to his facebook page.

“Number one, he’s a hustler and a baller, and I admire that. He’s a good businessman” he says of Trump. “But more importantly, I’m kind of disgusted, not kind of, *very* disgusted and extremely disappointed in the way my fellow black folk have chosen over the past 60 years to really allow themselves to be enslaved to the democratic party, the slave master party.”

...

“To the homosexual community, my fellow gay folk. WAKE UP! Hillary Clinton does not love you, taking all this money from all these countries that slaughter gays every day. They just trying to work your vote, baby!” he proclaims. “They do not care about you one bit. This is not about gun control, this is about terrorism.” He soon says “Stop trying to make yourselves out to be some kind of special victim. It’s not a hate crime, I know you guys wish it was a white, straight, Christian male so it would fit your narrative, but your narrative’s been shattered.”

 

[royalan]

Gay Black Dude TEARS Into Democrats, Hillary, Gun Grabbers

Who is this supposed to be?

 

[Paskil]

Who is this supposed to be?

The gay black person that every conservative can link to to back up their position. Probably also the gay and/or black person they know.

 

[benjipwns]

Who is this supposed to be?

Gabriel REAGAN

 

[User 463088]

YouGov poll:

Do they run it among LV as well or only RV? I can't remember.

 

[thebloo]

Who is this supposed to be?

A guy who likes hustlers.

 

[nature boy]

Do they run it among LV as well or only RV? I can't remember.

From the detailed pdf, only registered voters.

 

[User 463088]

From the detailed pdf, only registered voters.

Cool. I couldn't remember.

It's socially acceptable to drink at 9am if I mix orange juice in it, right?

 

[Slayven]

Gay Black Dude TEARS Into Democrats, Hillary, Gun Grabbers

I’m kind of disgusted, not kind of, *very* disgusted and extremely disappointed in the way my fellow black folk have chosen over the past 60 years to really allow themselves to be enslaved to the democratic party, the slave master party.”

You can set your watch to this bullshit.

 

[Iolo]

All you guys Diablosing about Trump being denied the nomination are going to be Diablosing even harder when #brexit tanks the world financial system and leads to Trump.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

All you guys Diablosing about Trump being denied the nomination are going to be Diablosing even harder when #brexit tanks the world financial system and leads to Trump.

Doesn't it look like Brexit isn't going to pass?

 

[NeoXChaos]

Washington PostVerified account
‏@washingtonpost
Breaking: Marco Rubio will seek Senate re-election, reversing pledge not to run

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ection-reversing-pledge-not-to-run/?tid=sm_tw

 

[Rebel Leader]

Little marco is running for re-election on senate seat.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Today will be a good day to see how Clinton's rapid response squares up against Trump's lies.

 

[Slayven]

They not going to snatch it from Trump. And throw Paul Ryan and all those other GOPers under the bus after theu endorsed Trump?

 

[Rebel Leader]

OH MY

The gop finally showing their repal Obamacare plan

and I hate it

 

[maabus1999]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ection-reversing-pledge-not-to-run/?tid=sm_tw

If he doesn't win, his career is over. And with the weight of saying he doesn't like being a Senator...

Tough hill for him to climb. Must have a lot of pressure..

 

[Iolo]

People are discussing superdelegates at work. It basically sounds like Facebook. I am resisting jumping in.

 

[User 463088]

He's going to ride the Orlando shooting so hard, saying that it compelled him to jump into the race, etc.

Gross.

 

[Farmboy]

He's going to ride the Orlando shooting so hard, saying that it compelled him to jump into the race, etc.

Gross.

Hope Dems follow through and make him a priority target. Would make election night so much sweeter if Rubio goes down with Trump.

 

[Teggy]

OH MY

The gop finally showing their repal Obamacare plan

and I hate it

Funny given this just came out today:

Health Care Costs Grow Dramatically Slower Than Expected After Obamacare

 

[Teggy]

He's going to ride the Orlando shooting so hard, saying that it compelled him to jump into the race, etc.

Gross.

Saw some polls this morning - he beats both Dem candidates by 6-7 points while all other R candidates lose. :/

 

[Slayven]

He's going to ride the Orlando shooting so hard, saying that it compelled him to jump into the race, etc.

Gross.

Didn't he have some shit comments about LGBT during the debates?

 

[Valhelm]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ection-reversing-pledge-not-to-run/?tid=sm_tw

What a duplicitous little shit. As a Floridian, this really bothers me.

 

[Pixieking]

So does that take Rubio out of the running for the Stop Trump contingent? Like, they can't push Rubio as alternative to Trump now?

 

[Rebel Leader]

Trump is a minute late. Would you want a man in charge when every minute counts?

#sad #Mess

 

[User 463088]

Didn't he have some shit comments about LGBT during the debates?

He's a Republican, so probably. I was shit faced for most of them, tbh.

 

[B-Dubs]

He's a Republican, so probably. I was shit faced for most of them, tbh.

Who wasn't?

 

[Spoiled Milk]

If Trump’s the nominee, and if he does unload on Hillary Clinton, as he’s promising to do, let me just tell you something, you do not know how many gazillion Americans are going to be delirious and orgasmic with delight.

.

 

[Measley]

Gay Black Dude TEARS Into Democrats, Hillary, Gun Grabbers

LoL! He should ask for an invitation to the GOP convention. I'm sure they'll just love him down there.

 

[Cesare Borgia]

Democrats have a good chance to end Rubio's career for good. It's going to be very interesting to see what Bush donors do (surely some will support him right), and what Bush supporters leak to the press.

 

[Rebel Leader]

Who wasn't?

me, i don't drink

 

[Paskil]

It's my birthday, PoliGAF. I hope Bernie drops out as a present to me.

 

[Rebel Leader]

It's my birthday, PoliGAF. I hope Bernie drops out as a present to me.

 

[Plumbob]

Trump is a minute late. Would you want a man in charge when every minute counts?

#sad #Mess

Obama is late to press things sometimes

 

[dramatis]

It's my birthday, PoliGAF. I hope Bernie drops out as a present to me.

Happy birthday.