This link totally disputes what I was saying about RU-486 being less deadly in this context, describing the state of abortion-related deaths in the Phillippines.
Before moving on to the horror of the situation, let me first compliment you on the titling.
I have run out of things to say about politics that feel as if they have any point. Other than, you know, everyone should vote and probably also burn shit down.
I think Roe v Wade will be struck down, and we'll go back to a patchwork of states situation.
I expect continuous and very strong efforts to enact a federal ban. Which, if the filibuster is eliminated, would be absolutely doable with the executive/legislative alignments of 2017-2019, or 2003-2007. Sure, I'm hoping we never see Republican control of all the branches, but there's no reason at all to say it can't happen ever, even in the fairly near term. IMO, any pro-lifer who speaks favorably about returning the issue to the states is engaging in straight up deception.
I haven't been following how the M4A folks are dealing with the Hyde Amendment issue, but this is where the battle gets fought.
I've noted elsewhere that I think the political play here requires that the Alabama statute be widely publicized. Assuming that the district court strikes it down and the 11th Circuit affirms -- how can they not -- either the SC grants cert (summer 2020?) to overturn Roe, or doesn't grant cert (the likelier option) which shows why Trump has to be re-elected so he can be the one to replace RBG. The point isn't to get more voters in Alabama for Trump -- although running up the score there isn't bad -- but to have an argument to make in Wisconsin and Michigan, where there a significant pockets of pro-life voters that may not be completely happy about Trump's failure to accomplish his economic goals.
5: Wouldn't that work better if there was a less strict law? At least in Pennsylvania, I think it's too draconian to keep the suburban white women they need to win.
I think the outrage is building, rather than Alabama causing a different reaction than Georgia. There just wasn't much time between Georgia and Alabama, so it's all the same reaction taking time to peak.
The Missouri Senate just got in the game.
Wasn't the Alabama law particularly egregious (I mean they all are) with no exceptions and also harsh penalties for women who traveled out of state to get an abortion (or traveled out of state and had a miscarriage).
I have run out of things to say about politics that feel as if they have any point. Other than, you know, everyone should vote and probably also burn shit down.
Me too, LB.
I couldn't actually bring myself to read Underground Airline, that book that hypothesized present-day America, but without the Civil War and with current-day American-style slavery in the "Hard Four" southern states. But I can now imagine that such a thing could be.
I am just baffled. Why would any woman from out of state ever go to college there?
11: I thought the Georgia bill was equally so.
Why would any woman from out of state ever go to college there?
I mean, of all the women who need abortions, this group is the most mobile and able to get out of state. Seniors in college aren't mostly planning their potential abortions very concretely.
Crimson Tide is a damn near perfect movie. I don't think I'm getting the right reference.
11 is conflating bad aspects of the Alabama law with bad aspects of the Georgia law (which strengthens my argument from 8). Alabama: total ban except for life of mother and fatal fetal anomaly, no rape/incest exception, only punishes doctors. Georgia: abortion still allowed in the first two weeks after a missed period, has a rape/incest exception, punishes women as well as doctors, criminalizes traveling to get an abortion.
The Ohio law might win for pure wackiness, with the requirement that women with ectopic pregnancies undergo an imaginary, impossible medical procedure.
Georgia: abortion still allowed in the first two weeks after a missed period,
I'm preaching to the choir here, but of course that's not a real distinction -- abortion in that two-week period is generally impractical.
16: The University of Alabama is the only college football team to use a menstruation reference for a mascot.
@19 and I assume women will be prosecuted in both States after having miscarriages.
18: That provision wasn't part of the "Heartbeat Bill" that has already become law. It's part of another bill whose primary purpose is to outlaw any private insurance covering abortions. It hasn't been voted on yet. My guess is that the bill will pass, but the part about ectopic pregnancies will be removed.
Women getting abortions specifically can't be prosecuted under Alabama law, only abortion providers.
22: It will go down the tubes, part of the way at least.
I agree with 8. I was hearing a lot of calls for film companies to stop production in Georgia. And then, while that was in the zeitgeist, Alabama said "hold my beer."
I agree that "complete ban" versus "six weeks" is a distinction without a difference, but the optics might be different for enough people. Also, the penalty in Alabama is particularly draconian: 99 years! Worse than what a rapist who necessitates an abortion would get.
I suppose it's good that at least one of these awful bills/laws is in a non-Southern state, so that we don't have tsk-tsking Northerners.
Also the heartbeat bills are extremely poorly written, so until there's actual litigation around them it's possible they don't actually ban abortion until several weeks later (leaving a majority of abortions legal). Of course that depends on some brave doctors being willing to test that out, which there probably won't be many of given the level of punishment. (This makes me wonder if we'll see a "compromise" where Roberts overturns Roe but also gets rid of the heartbeat bills as too vague.)
21: but, by and large, 0% of them will be white Republican-leaning women.
Has anyone yet gone around asking twentysomething men on the street in AL and GA what they think of this?
And following up on 7: they're trying to limit abortion in Pennsylvania, but they know that these anti-Roe measures won't work here so they're trying to be more subtle. The state house just passed a bill on mostly-but-not-entirely party lines to ban abortion if there's been a diagnosis of Down Syndrome. It's a good choice for a wedge strategy--there are many Catholic Democrats here, and I understand some disability rights activists are of two minds on this particular issue. Fortunately, there's no Republican trifecta so it won't make it past the governor. The Republicans do not have enough seats to overrule his veto.
trifecta
OT: So the states are the laboratories of democracy. Laboratories of policy, okay. What about laboratories of constitutions? Does any state substantially differ from the federal model?
And yes, I fucking know Nebraska is unicameral. Does it make a difference?
A few here and there at the margins. Nebraska has a unicameral legislature. But I think for the most part they tend to be pretty similar these days.
C'mon, give me a chance before you pwn me.
17 It's been such a tidal storm of shit that it's hard to keep up.
29: Many states have constitutions putting guardrails between the legislature and tax increases (CA's Prop 13 was the first; many followed). That makes a big difference.
In other words, in my experience it's not so much the formal structure of the legislature/executive, which is, yes, pretty normative in mimicking federal structure, but the power allotted to that part of government and the extent to which referendum-based government can or can't interfere.
5 years ago, I would have said hollowing out Roe v. Wade was a lot more likely than outright overturning it. Still legal in theory, but limited to women in the first trimester at full-fledged hospitals that aren't getting any federal dollars at all and only if the women are paying out of pocket. (Obviously both are bad, but hollowed out abortion rights seem less likely to result in particularly nightmarish scenarios like jail time for abortion, and to be selfish about it hollowing abortion rights out is less bad for the UMC people in blue states that make up my family social circle.) Republicans don't care about ideological consistency, outright repeal would alienate "centrists" more and mobilize the liberals better, and it's easier to run on promising to repeal Roe than on whatever the next right-wing nut cause is.
Now, I'm not so sure. The lunatics are running the asylum, it's not clear how much it matters if liberals are mobilized, and it's now depressingly easy to imagine what might be the rallying cry for the next generation of nuts.
Dahlia Lithwick is feeling the sads for John Roberts.
Saiselgy has a brilliant suggestion for the new Supreme Court Justice.
A good way for Kavanaugh to own the libs would be to re-affirm Roe & Casey, strike down all these new laws, and force feminists to hail his wisdom & sound judgment.
He could make total fools of us!
29: There's a fair amount of structural variation, but mostly in the executive rather than the legislative branch. Lots of states have multiple independently elected state-level cabinet officials (attorney general, land commissioner, secretary of state, comptroller, etc.), whereas others have systems more like the federal one where most or all of these are appointed by the governor. Similarly for judges. There's also lots of variation in the size of the legislature and how many people each district includes, though they all now have to be at least roughly equal in population due to some US Supreme Court rulings a while back.
41. re-affirm Roe & Casey
Roe v Wade, Doe v Bolton, Planned Parenthood v Casey are the three big rulings, right? Roe divided restrictions by trimesters. PP v Casey, at least according to Wikipedia, is the one that says the state can regulate abortions from the point of "viability." There's a lot of confusion about what viability means, and it ties into the "heartbeat" provision in some of these new laws. I guess whether we want states "regulating" abortions depends a lot on which state we are talking about. MA, for example, officially repealed the old "abortion is illegal" law that was still on the books but overshadowed by Roe v Wade et al.
If Kavanaugh and friends wanted to be sneaky, they could overturn Doe v Bolton, which is where the psychological health of the pregnant woman came into play and greatly widened the grounds for getting a legal abortion. Few people remember Doe, but it was important.
Griswold too. They're coming for birth control too (abortifacients as they like to call hormones or IUDs. Maybe condoms will still be acceptable in New Gilead.)
Though idly wondering what would happen if/when a bunch of women who miscarry at work bring legal action against their employers.
Abstinence and situational homosexuality are the only safe options before marriage.
Delaware also recently repealed its anti-abortion law.
35: "mimicking Federal structures" Ha. Massachusetts has the oldest written Constitution in the world. The Federal structures mimic ours. Thank you very much.
To slightly underline teo's point, state senates have to be based on population, a real departure from our federal senate. (And our 1889 one-cow one-vote constitution.)
Here, and in a number of states, we elect our judiciary, including the supreme court. We have four elected "tier B" seats -- AG, Secretary of State, State Auditor, Supt Public Instruction -- but the rest of the cabinet is appointed and confirmed.
So, did folks see our governor on Maddow last night? He's in Iowa today, collecting endorsements. (The AG, who is currently the longest serving state AG in the country.)
girl x was thinking of emory, but maybe not so much.
50. Some were like the US House, some were based on geography (like the US Senate) or other considerations. The SC ruled in Reynolds v Sims (1964) that state legislatures had to be apportioned based on population, and state senates that weren't had to change. Another issue was that even the House-style districts weren't always apportioned equally. There were "rotten boroughs," etc.
What I find most interesting about this is that the only objective difference between our (MA) senate and house is the size of the districts: there are fewer senators than representatives. However, our house is much more conservative than our senate. I wonder if this is just us?
53: I don't know why that is, but I just need to vent. I really can't stand DeLillo. Sal di Masi was a crook but a better legislator. What's DeLillo's priority? Gambling. Gah.
Also, why did De Lillo oppose a ban on using cell phones while driving?
53 Yeah, that's one of the reasons we had a constitutional convention in 1972. Our senate is half the size of our house, and each senate district is made up of two house districts. I think that's pretty ordinary. The Maryland house is weirder, with some multimember districts, and some single member subdistricts. I'm sure that there's all sorts of behind the scenes wrangling that takes place over whether or not to create particular subdistricts.
We have rabid Republicans in each house, especially in the leadership. They ended up on the losing end of some bills this time, as in the recent past, because just enough of the non-rabid ones could be persuaded to vote with the minority on a few things. To the exasperated denunciation of their colleagues.
53.last: Probably varies state by state. Our Senate and House, which vary by district sizes and length of term, are within 1% of having the same ratio of Republicans to house size.
Just thinking about party distribution, and not the degree of conservatism of individual members: My impression of your commonwealth is that the distribution of Republicans and Democrats throughout your state is somewhat unusual. Your Congressional delegation is usually entirely Democratic, but a third of voters are Republican. However, that doesn't appear to reflect gerrymandering; Republicans are just spread out very evenly. But demographic variation does exist--there must be particularly conservative suburbs, etc.--so presumably as district sizes get smaller it's easier to see that variation and you end up with more Republicans.
Does any state not run on FPTP?
OT.
Scholars rarely consider the admission to statehood of Alaska and Hawaii as victories for civil rights and racial inclusion, but they should, because for the first time in U.S. history whiteness did not define eligibility for statehood.Sorta.
60: Maine, sorta. They just switched over to ranked-choice (specifically instant runoff), and I think it actually had an effect on one of their Congressional seats; I can't tell to what degree it has mattered in state elections. I've seen some sources saying it only applies to "federal and primary" elections, which is weird.
60 None that I know of. Don't you have to give parties some kind of constitutional standing to do something else? I think the only reference to a party in our constitution is the prohibition on supreme court justices holding an office in one.
61 Does the next sentence explain New Mexico? Or Oklahoma? Is it because they came in before 1924?
64: No! Enlighten me. Were the Natives in question allowed to vote at the time?
60: California has top-two nonpartisan primaries for all statewide offices, members of Congress, and state legislators. It has its disadvantages, but it's not FPTP.
top-two nonpartisan primaries
Please explain. (It's already the weekend here, I can't educate myself.)
There's an election for the primary with all candidates from both parties running. The top two, regardless of party, are in the general election.
NMM to Grumpy Cat.
I can't believe she was only 7 years old. Seems like I've known her face all my life.
How is 68 a orimary? awhy not just have a straight two round election?
70: Because we call elections where people of the same party running against each other primaries. Primaries are American, two-round elections are weird foreign things.
66: California has top-two nonpartisan primaries for all statewide offices, members of Congress, and state legislators.
Louisiana has been doing that since 1975, but I guess it's not an innovation until California does it.
Nebraska has been doing that kind of primary for the unicameral since the unicameral started.
Like, there are 50 fucking states. You could blow most of them up and no-one would notice. Why not try everything. Elective monarchy. Anarcho-syndicalism. Election by lot. Jury-duty tribunes of the people. Multi-member constituencies. Go nuts.
It's all we can do to stop some of them from trying slavery again.
Slavery isn't a constitution, it's just a statute.
That should probably Opinionated John C. Calhoun or someone.
74: You're misunderstanding everything. The people within the state decide on the system. They would notice if the state they live in blows up.
The coastal elite don't get to play games with the lives of the people in the Heartland.
74: You're misunderstanding everything. The U.S. and every single one of the states is committed to a single form of government - plutocracy.
South Dakota is inhabited entirely by dead presidents. They'd be cool. Except in summer, when they're hot.
79: Like Florence and Rome weren't?
81: I didn't claim that we invented it.
I know like a dozen people in South Dakota who have never been president.
Well you can't rule them out till they're dead, right?
Were the Natives in question allowed to vote at the time?
Native Americans were granted US citizenship in 1924. Oklahoma and New Mexico became states in 1907 and 1912, respectively.
And I'm dubious about every part of the quote in 61, especially the first. Anyone who knows even a small amount of Alaska political history should know that one of the big challenges to the statehood movement in the 1950s was that the territory's politics were dominated by liberal Democrats who could be expected to support civil rights legislation at the national level, which indeed they did once statehood eventually came, so Alaska statehood was vigorously opposed by Republicans and conservative Democrats in Congress. Surely some "scholars" have considered Alaska statehood, at least, a victory for civil rights in this sense. (My understanding was that the breakthrough compromise was to admit Hawaii at the same time since its politics were dominated by the conservative Republicans who owned the plantations, but I recently read a history of Hawaii that claimed that its political shift to the left actually started in the early 1950s, so I'm now not sure about what actually happened.)
It all started with an undersea volcano.
55. The ban* passed the House the other day, so maybe it'll actually become law. Kind of moot because no one in MA pays any attention to traffic laws. FWIW, the ban kept failing in the House because minorities said (and DeLeo repeated) that it would promote racially biased traffic stops. The law as passed has all sorts of provisions for tracking traffic stops and breaking them down by race, etc. (Probably some "jobs for the boys" in that.)
* The ban they passed is pretty strict, too. If you have a hands free phone you can talk to it, or you can press one button (to start your GPS, maybe?).
The PA law is pretty lax. Legally, you can play Pokemon Go if stopped, even at a red light.
Warren's comprehensive plan: preempt all state restrictions on abortion provision and access; not only repeal Hyde Amendment but include abortion as a mandatory benefit in all health insurance public and private.
I am trying to keep a wise and considered distance from the Democratic primaries. Why lose my heart when there is so long to go, and really, a lot of good candidates, many of whom I can support? But Warren, man. How can I keep from falling from her when I love everything she proposes?
I would expect a Republican governor to veto the bill in 88, but maybe not. And even better if the jobs for the boys involve statistics.
Also, NMM to Herman Wouk.
90: I am increasingly impressed with Warren. I don't think I even have a close second-choice.
90/93: She really is wonderful.
(I'm worried about her campaign machinery. Why is her website store such garbage? Why doesn't she have lawn signs, and bumper magnets, and laptop vinyls? Her people need to go to Kamala's website and copy everything they see.)
What's a laptop vinyl? Like, a sticker for the top of your laptop?
95. Yes. She has stickers, but who wants to put a sticker on their car or laptop, especially this early in the season? We need a lower-commitment means of showing our support, like vinyls and magnets that can be easily peeled off when Biden wins the primary.
96: Seriously. No. I'll cry if he wins. And then vote for him, of course. Not a huge fan of Kamala's but she would be better.
My now-vintage "We're all vice-presidents in the Joe Biden fan club" T-shirt is staying stashed until 2021 or so.
Also, NMM to Herman Wouk.
oh man. The first time I heard of him was when CharleyCarp said Wouk had been a classmate of my grandfather, pre-secret identity. We wrote him in 2016 asking if he had any memories of my grandfather, and Wouk wrote back a really kind letter saying no, he didn't.
That's really nice. Of course, he probably should have had Robert Mitchum read the letter.
I'm now thinking the DNA interlude was good because it was our bout of preparatory disappointment in Warren. No matter how much amazing policy and communication she does, we will never be at risk of thinking she can do no wrong.
Yeah, its also helpful to know what the "but her emails" is going to be so far in advance.
101: Indeed. There are some areas she's not as well versed in, and when she wades into them her rhetoric just sounds off. That recent ecological/military tweet was weird. A small percentage of what she says, but a reminder that if she goes far enough there will come a time when she will disappoint.
criminalizes traveling to get an abortion
I don't understand how this could possibly be legal. A "crime" can only be punished in the jurisdiction in which it happens, right?
who wants to put a sticker on their car or laptop, especially this early in the season? We need a lower-commitment means of showing our support
Y'all are wusses. My Warren bumper sticker is on and will stay on no matter who wins the primary. (I'll probably add a Bernie one. If I felt really good about any of the other candidates, I'd put theirs on, too.)
I've been thinking I want to get this Impeach sticker but I guess its only 3 inchs wide.
Oh god, in addition to a bunch of merch with "Persist" on it there's a pint glass with "Persist Responsibly".
(I forgot she was the subject of the original "Nevertheless, she persisted" from McConnell.)
There is a perfect sticker for Elizabeth Warren on the Wonkette Bazaar which I would happily pay the asking price of $2.50 for. But they then want $14.00 or so to ship it to England. If anyone in the US is coming to England, I will cheerfully pay in beer or otherwise the cost of a couple of those stickers smuggled in past the fascist customs.
There is a perfect sticker for Elizabeth Warren on the Wonkette Bazaar which I would happily pay the asking price of $2.50 for. But they then want $14.00 or so to ship it to England. If anyone in the US is coming to England, I will cheerfully pay in beer or otherwise the cost of a couple of those stickers smuggled in past the fascist customs.
OK, two stickers.
(Seriously, I do not understand why no US company ever puts anything in the post. The fondness for expensive courier services is weird. All the dodgy Chinese sites I use for fly tackle these days ship as cheaply and inconspicuously as possible)
(I forgot she was the subject of the original "Nevertheless, she persisted" from McConnell.)
At one point last year I had some time to kill up in Austin, and I dipped in a Goodwill, and there was an entire "Nevertheless, she persisted" t-shirt section, which cracked me up as the zenith of Austin-meets-capitalism-meets-short-lived-fads.
By the Goodwills of Austin, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Warren.
107: I really really wish people would stop thinking that it's ok to write R backwards to make something look Russian. It's lazy and illiterate.
104: "I don't understand how this could possibly be legal. A "crime" can only be punished in the jurisdiction in which it happens, right?"
And the crime is the travelling with intent, not the abortion. The law can definitely criminalise intentionally travelling outside a certain area; think about bail conditions, for example.
She's from Lincoln, so probably doesn't get out much.
112: I'll see that wish and raise you every fucking umlaut in an otherwise English word.
If the UK is getting stickers, the US should get something in return. Allow me to suggest packets of brown sauce.
112: American resentment of Russian election meddling caused Toys R Us to go bankrupt.
I really really wish people would stop thinking that it's ok to write R backwards to make something look Russian. It's lazy and illiterate.
я think?
Oops, that was me, catching up on old threads, making jokes far past their time.
My marginally on topic comment is that I would seriously look at working for the Warren campaign, if I had any understanding of how to get jobs working on campaigns.
94 & 96: I've noticed this too and very much agree. Only one choice of bumper sticker?
Also, I've noticed that if I type "Eli" into Google, the first autocomplete result is Elizabeth Holmes, second is Elizabeth Olsen (who the hell is that?), and the _third_ result is Elizabeth Warren. This worries me.
"Kam" gets Kamala Harris as the first.
And 120 is brilliant!
Google autocomplete is not universal - it uses, among other things, geographical location and platform type to guess. I'm in London and "Eli" autocompletes as "Elizabeth Line" - the new line on the London Underground.
Thanks, Ajay. I wondered about that but was too lazy to check.