LogFAQs > #964953610

The_Viscount posted...

Again, the states most likely to ban abortion now are the same states that've been pushing restrictive abortion measures. If they couldn't get turnout over that, why would they get it over this?

Because there's been a sort of tacit assumption that, whatever measures states try to push, Roe v. Wade will block them from getting too bad. That assumption isn't necessarily accurate even without the precedent being overturned, and is instead more based on blind faith that the world won't actually be as terrible as it could hypothetically be, but regardless of its accuracy in a more general sense, Roe v. Wade actually being overturned shatters it completely and lays bare just how high the stakes are. That will get people voting.

The_Viscount posted...

While the blue states -- where it was never a concern -- might see a bump as a token gesture, it's not like it affects anything. The blue states will stay blue either way. Hell, CT's Republicans already conceded the gubernatorial election by running the same blockhead who lost in 2018 (and was literally the only guy who could lose to Lamont back then).

Like pretty much any contentious election issue, it's a given that swing states are going to be most affected by this. The states that were already guaranteed to go blue will stay blue and the states that were already guaranteed to go red will stay red, but there are absolutely states where the outcome is much less certain, which can be affected by issues like this.

The_Viscount posted...

ITP: "Judges shouldn't be allowed to discuss court matters in private."

When you're dealing with legal precedent that will have an immediate effect on the rights of millions of citizens? Damn straight. Nothing about this needs to be secretive, so nothing about it should be secretive. Secrecy in government matters should be justified as case-by-case exceptions, not treated as the default with transparency being exceptional. And before you break out some flimsy piece of whataboutism to try and prove that I'm hypocritical in saying that, I feel the same way about all government matters, so I'll probably agree that whatever examples you come up with should also be handled more transparently unless I can come up with some justification to except them.

JixHedgehog posted...

Wouldnt be that big of a deal if the Libs weren't tanking in every other issue,

It's a very big deal regardless of what else is going on.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

All that will happen is states will pass their own laws allowing it or banning it.

And states passing their own laws is literally a matter of life and death, with even further consequences for health, financial stability, and psychological well-being, as well as broader questions of gender equality, personal liberty, and public health. If you don't think it's a serious issue, it's because you haven't considered the issue beyond its immediate effect on you, and that's generally not a very sensible way to approach social issues.

Beyond that, as much as the anti-abortion crowd tries to frame it as a state's rights issue to gain sympathy points in lieu of defending the position itself (note the historical parallels to the Confederates and slavery), there's really no reason to expect them to stop there. This is a group that objects to abortion at a fundamental moral level. They don't want it to ever happen, and the only way they can think of to achieve that goal is to make it illegal everywhere. Heck, a great many of them want to include a ban on "abortive contraceptives," which is an extremely vague term that can easily be taken as far as "every sperm is sacred" to ban even condoms (given that many of these people basically want non-procreative sex to be illegal, that would be considered a reasonably proxy for actually doing that). Overturning Roe v. Wade opens the door to pushes for federal laws against abortion, contraception, and anything else deemed "immoral" by this crowd because it makes it clear that legal precedent protecting those rights can be discarded freely.

This government will not seize the opening created by Roe v. Wade's revocation to create sweeping anti-abortion laws. We can be reasonably certain of that. The next Republican one, however, might, if that's seen as a popular enough opinion to be a core campaign issue. Trump ran and won on a promise to overturn Roe v. Wade. This will only be the beginning unless decisive laws are put in place to nip it in the bud.